I have just read Cecil’s comments on it. I cannot imagine how horrible it would be.
“While we see FGM as a horror, basic and intrinsic within the oppression of women, many women from the cultures who practice it see ‘the right to sexual fulfillment’ as a side issue compared to gaining rights that we in the West take for granted.”
Would the same view be expressed for a more clearly* deadly anti-female cultural practice like suttee?**
*As someone already pointed out, female genital mutilation IS a basic health/life issue, and not just a sexual one, because the “operation” is often performed in highly unsanitary conditions.
**Is Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary online http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary kidding when they unqualifiedly define suttee as voluntary?!? If they were afraid of offending religious or cultural sensibilities, they should have been SILENT on whether or not it was voluntary, and not stated baldly to every schoolkid looking for a definition that it was ipso facto voluntary.
We don’t have any grounds to complain in the U.S. as long as we are still circumcising most of our male infants. YES, I know male circumcision is nowhere near as damaging as most forms of FGM, but it is still mutilation of non-consenting humans for no valid medical reason, it does reduce sexual pleasure, and people in other countries still look down on us for doing it.
I don’t even think that is REMOTELY comparable!
John Bredin - I agree that FGM is a basic life/health issue, was talking about how it is SEEN from within the culture - which affects how you go about stopping the practice. Women who have had it done to them feel a great deal of shame, are not open to talking about it - not all cultures have caught up with our willingness to talk about the vagina.
As for suttee, AFAIK it’s done by women who have been brainwashed into thinking that it’s what a Good Wife does, under pressure from relatives who don’t feel like supporting another mouth to feed, or women who fear widow-hood in a society where everyone is defined by marriage. Widowhood in India ain’t no picnic, combine that with a religion that believes in reincarnation and suttee (while still AWFUL and WRONG) makes a tiny bit more sense. But again, keep in mind the strong belief in reincarnation - death is not necessarily seen as a bad or final thing. I’m not trying to justify the practice, again, just trying to point out the things in the culture that would make it very hard for someone like Stoid or me or you to go in and “put a stop to it.”
There was a famous case where a very young widow (aged 21 or so, IIRC) burned herself, described in May You Be the Mother of A Hundred Sons in great detail. Pilgrims flocked to the village where she lived, she was proclaimed as a saint. Questions still exist about whether she went to the pyre willingly or if she was pushed by her in-laws.
Suttee is officially against the law in India, and I believe the practice is fairly uncommon.
Ms. has an insightful story about FGM in the Unised States: http://www.msmagazine.com/oct00/makingthecut.html
FGM is also illegal in most of the countries where it occurs. Enforcement is very difficult, though. You have the same problem as Prohibition had in the U.S.–if a lot of people think it’s OK, then huge underground networks develop–plus there isn’t even an object involved, like alcohol, that has trackable manufacture and trade. You’re talking about something that happens to someone’s private parts in the privacy of her home, among folks who rarely if ever go to the doctor.
It’s something that has to change culturally, as others have said. But take heart. China stamped out foot-binding, so you never know what can happen.
Why not? I didn’t say it was completely analagous, but it is definitely in the same ballpark - unnecessary cosmetic surgery that reduces sexual pleasure performed on infants - except FGM is usually done when the child is older.
Yes, I know that the male equivelant of clitoridectomy would be removal of the penis, but clitoridectomy is NOT done in all the cultures we are talking about, that is the most radical form of female circumcision. There are lesser versions. You could say some kinds are acceptable while some are not, but why not simplify things and say that ALL genital mutilation is wrong?
Male circumcision may be in the same type of ballpark as clitoridectomy, but it ain’t in the same league.
And FWIW, the incidence of infant male circumcision in the U.S. has been on the decline for some time now.
Well said! Unfortunately, FGM has become something that fundies cling to in order to feel religious in defiance of a secular state. Another much less incendiary example of this is the veil*. There are some excellent studies out about the resurgence of the veil (the higab**, not the full-on chador***) among women in Muslim countries AND among Muslim women in foreign countries (France, Germany, the U.S.). In Egypt, women who are working outside the home (therefore going against the tradition of the last 200 years or so) are starting to wear the veil more as a statement. One of my ESL students wore the veil in defiance of her husband - she’d promised her mother she wouldn’t give up her old ways among the heathen of the godless U.S. There have been lots of cases in France of schoolgirls being told to remove their veils, being sent home, etc., because the knee-jerk reaction is to see it as oppressive and not as a valid religious statement.
Side story: A good friend of mine, Somali refugee (who most likely has undergone FGM), also wears the veil because of a promise to her mother. We were walking to get lunch one day and I asked her about it - “Doesn’t it make you feel unfree?” and she pointed at my Washington, D.C. business attire- heels, pantyhose, uncomfortable gray suit- and said “Why do you think that you are more free than me wearing that?” Good point. 
*veil - Women covering themselves fully is seen to be a requirement of Islam, but it’s not. The original Koran verse that discusses this refers to covering arms & shoulders, because in Mohammed’s day women used to walk around topless.
**higab - loose clothing that covers everything but hands, feet, and face plus a head scarf.
***chador - the black cloth that you see in places like Iran & Saudi Arabia that covers EVERYTHING.
Bomb those countries? Would that be OK? So would that give the right to other countries to come and bomb the US if the find something they consider inhuman (say abortion or the death penalty or Hillary Clinton)??
In Egypt not too long ago this issue was being discussed. Some wanted to make it illegal for doctors to do it but the other side used this argument: Even if you outlaw it, women are going to do it anyway, which would lead to deaths by infections. It is better that it remain legal for doctors to do it.
Isn’t that the exact same argument used for abortion here? Since it is going to happen anyway, we might as well keep it legal so it can be done with sanitary measures.
magdalene wrote:
Well, yeah – how’d you like having your school order you to remove your bra because it was seen as “oppressive”?
Stoidela, and anyone else who says that FGM and honor killing is wrong no matter the culture.
Would you feel the same if a Hindu said it was wrong to kill or mistreat cows? Why or why not? If not, on what basis is it acceptable to do to one, but not the other? Naturally, if your a vegetarian, the argumument does not apply.
Just curious.
You cannot compare FGM to male circumcision. It is the equivialnat of having the entire glans/end of your penis cut off, without anethesia, or sterile insrtumenst, and the sutures being thorns.
Don’t give us this “multi-culturalism” aguement, that what is “right” depends on the culture. Yes, to a point, and that point ends when we are talking about “crimes against humanity”, which FGM is often considered, along with Genocide, slavery, piracy, etc. No amount of multi- culturalism makes those things right. Eating or not eating cows does not kill & torture humans, so you can do, or not do that all you want, and go under MC.
I’m with Daniel on this one.
I think we could equate circumcision with FGM if FGM was mostly done in a medical facility, under sterile conditions, with anesthesia, or if circumcision wasn’t.
I think the, um, procedure he so graphically described is more in line with clitoridectomy than with the less radical forms of FGM, though.
Ouch.
DITWD: No amount of multi- culturalism makes those things right.
Who here is saying these things are right? All the things objected to in the OP—FGM, “honor” killings, bride murder in India—are illegal in most if not all of the places where they are practiced. It makes about as much sense to suggest bombing the countries where they’re practiced off the face of the earth as it would for someone to bomb us because they don’t like our drug-related gang murders.
So the only practical question is, “How do we help these societies eliminate these practices?” And as posters like magdalene and domina point out, you’re not likely to influence people who do these things by publicly screaming at them—as a Westerner with little or no knowledge of their culture, moreover—how disgusted you are with the way they treat their daughters/wives/sisters. The only thing that really seems to have a permanent effect is when women gain more economic power and thus more social autonomy, with a raised standard of living and a lowered birthrate. If you really want to help improve the treatment of women and girls, how about writing to your representative to support Third World debt relief, for starters?
Umm, Kimstu, how does “3rd world debt relief”, (unless done under the stringent & watchfull eye of the World bank) help the women, or even the citizens of those countries? Do you really think any extra money will be spent to help THEM out? Silly person. It will just buy more Jet fighters, more guns, more "presidential palaces’, more secret police, etc. Thats what the original loan was spent on, in the 1st place (most of the time), and that is what any future loans will be spent on. Now, if one of those countries dimantled their useless military, fired all the "presidents’ nephews, and stopped said pres from spending all the $ on himself, well, that’s different. Debt relief could actually DO something, then, besides raise OUR taxes & interest rates.
Next, did i suggest any ‘bombings’? No. All we should do is let our displeasure be known, and help out a few who can get out. If the government seems to actually support, even tacitly, these practices, the we could lean on them economically. But military intervention? No one has suggest that, or “bombing”- I don’t know where you got that from.
Agi makes a good point. I once dated a lady who actually had “female circumcision”, where, in sterile circumstances, a small nick was cut into her prepuce. Absolutely no sexual problems resulted, I can assure you all. This is why we differentiate “FGM” from “female circumcision”. Was is nessesary? No, but it was not harmful, either.
DITWD: how does “3rd world debt relief”, (unless done under the stringent & watchfull eye of the World bank) help the women, or even the citizens of those countries?
Because it is done under the watchful eye of the World Bank (and the IMF, too), for whom countries have to draw up detailed plans explaining how they will use the money saved on debt servicing. See a report from the Guardian on the subject.
*But military intervention? No one has suggest that, or “bombing”- I don’t know where you got that from. *
Er, from the OP, and I quote: “Please. Just bomb these fucking countries off the face of the earth and be done with it. They don’t deserve to continue. But try to get the women out first.”
You really thought he was serious? I sure didn’t. Hey stoid, did you really mean actual bombs, or was that just exageration to make a stronger point?
It is not remotely comparable.
Let’s see:
1: It is not cosmetic surgery. Well I guess circumcision didn’t start out as that either- beyond the symbolic aspect it was to avoid infection. However clitorectomy is never done for cosmetic purposes. Reduction of sexual pleasure is not a side effect, it’s the stated purpose. Slightly different.
2:As has been pointed out, reduction of sexual pleasure, while terrible (particularly considering it is intended to deny the validity of female sexual pleasure) is not the primary reason it is protested. Infection, pain and death are.
3:Where did you get the idea that clitorectomy is the most radical form of female circumcison? From what I’ve heard it’s the least. The most is infibulation. Where the clitoris and parts of the labia are cut out and the remaining labia is sown together, with a hole left for urine and menses. It would be torn open on her wedding night.
4:and yes, the most mild form of female circumcision would be the same as cutting off the head of your penis.
There’s a lot you can say against circumcision. But this is not the same thing.