Study: Genital Cutting Raises by 50% LIkelihood Mothers, Newborns Will Die

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: Genital Cutting Raises by 50% Likelihood Mothers or Their Newborns Will Die, Study Finds
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: June 2, 2006

The first large medical study of female genital cutting has found that the procedure has deadly consequences when the women give birth, raising by more than 50 percent the likelihood that the woman or her baby will die.

Rates of serious medical complications surrounding childbirth, such as bleeding, also rose substantially in women who had undergone genital cutting, according to new research being published today in The Lancet, a British medical journal.

"Reliable evidence about its harmful effects, especially on reproduction, should contribute to the abandonment of the practice," wrote the study's authors, all members of the World Health Organization Study Group on Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetrical Outcome.

While women's groups and human rights organizations have long campaigned against genital cutting as a rights issue, the study provides the first conclusive medical evidence of long-term physical harm, moving the debate further into the public health arena.

"Finally we have data to prove what health workers have long known: that female genital mutilation is a health issue, a killer of women and children, as well as a human rights issue," said Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition, in New York....

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/world/africa/02mutilation.html

[barb162]

1. Isn't it amazing this sick practice is still being practiced?

It's also interesting that the article refers to "cutting" like it is some lesser sort of issue. Mutilation is way more descriptive of what actually happens. How many more decades will it take to stop this?

[adriennui]

2. what religion or country practices female mutilation

is it limited to somalia and the sudan? animist, muslim, or other?

[barb162]

3. Check this from Amnesty International for geographic areas

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a3

[leftchick]

30. US ALLIES IN THE ME PRACTICE THIS TORTUR!

From your link...

<snip>

In the Middle East, FGM is practised in Egypt, Oman, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates.

[pnwmom]

97. Warning: DON'T READ THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE A STRONG STOMACH

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the term used to refer to the removal of part, or all, of the female genitalia. The most severe form is infibulation, also known as pharaonic circumcision. An estimated 15% of all mutilations in Africa are infibulations. The procedure consists of clitoridectomy (where all, or part of, the clitoris is removed), excision (removal of all, or part of, the labia minora), and cutting of the labia majora to create raw surfaces, which are then stitched or held together in order to form a cover over the vagina when they heal. A small hole is left to allow urine and menstrual blood to escape. In some less conventional forms of infibulation, less tissue is removed and a larger opening is left.

SNIP

The vast majority (85%) of genital mutilations performed in Africa consist of clitoridectomy or excision. The least radical procedure consists of the removal of the clitoral hood.

SNIP


"Girls undergoing the procedure have varying degrees of knowledge about what will happen to them. Sometimes the event is associated with festivities and gifts. Girls are exhorted to be brave. Where the mutilation is part of an initiation rite, the festivities may be major events for the community. Usually only women are allowed to be present.

"Sometimes a trained midwife will be available to give a local anaesthetic. In some cultures, girls will be told to sit beforehand in cold water, to numb the area and reduce the likelihood of bleeding. More commonly, however, no steps are taken to reduce the pain. The girl is immobilized, held, usually by older women, with her legs open. Mutilation may be carried out using broken glass, a tin lid, scissors, a razor blade or some other cutting instrument. When infibulation takes place, thorns or stitches may be used to hold the two sides of the labia majora together, and the legs may be bound together for up to 40 days. Antiseptic powder may be applied, or, more usually, pastes - containing herbs, milk, eggs, ashes or dung - which are believed to facilitate healing. The girl may be taken to a specially designated place to recover where, if the mutilation has been carried out as part of an initiation ceremony, traditional teaching is imparted. For the very rich, the mutilation procedure may be performed by a qualified doctor in hospital under local or general anaesthetic."

SNIP

[icymist]

154. It's all about men who think they should 'own' women!

When things go wrong, they blame the victim! Cultural differences, my ass!

<snip>
The secrecy surrounding FGM, and the protection of those who carry it out, make collecting data about complications resulting from mutilation difficult. When problems do occur these are rarely attributed to the person who performed the mutilation. They are more likely to be blamed on the girl's alleged "promiscuity" or the fact that sacrifices or rituals were not carried out properly by the parents.

[bunyip]

178. FGM is liberating!

Germaine Greer contends that the "criminalization of FGM can be seen to be what African nationalists since Jomo Kenyatta have been calling it, an attack on cultural identity."
...
If an Ohio punk has the right to have her genitalia operated on, why has not the Somali woman the same right?
...
FGM cannot be bad for women, Greer contends, because women are the ones who perform it.

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=307

All practices by women on women must be defended.

Men are the real enemy.

[pnwmom]

181. If an adult Somali woman wants to have that done to herself,

that is a different matter. But to force it on a child is either reprehensible or ignorant.

And Germaine Greer likes to get publicity for saying outrageous things. This is one of them.

[Quantess]

195. I don't understand.

FGM repels men. It must be a turn-off, I'm only guessing...
Men won't rape women then? That's why it's liberating?

What if someone said "all practices by men on men must be defended"?

[noonwitch]

6. It's not necessarily a religious practice, but a cultural one

Some of those who practice it are muslims, but the practice goes back before areas like the Sudan and Somalia had muslims in them. I think it was considered a ritual like male circumcision was in african tribal culture (like Kunta Kinte experienced in "Roots").

Alice Walker has written about this practice in a couple of her books that followed "The Color Purple". One is called "The Temple of My Familiar" and dealt with a lot of different issues. There was a novel after that, of which the name escapes me, that dealt with the issue of female circumcision, but I didn't read it.

[PublicWrath]

9. Yes, it's not necessarily a religious practice, but there is one

probably apocryphal hadith in which Muhammad discusses it with a woman who does it to slaves.

From Wiki's article on Female Genital Mutilation:

No form of genital modification and mutilation is mentioned in the Qur'an, but only in a disputed hadith. <16> Even then, the hadith only permits and does not require the process. Only one of the four Islamic schools of juriprudence or law, the Shafi'i school, ordered for a "slight trimming" of the hood of the clitoris, supposedly in order to enhance sexual pleasure for the woman. Most contemporary scholars reject it completely.

In Saudi Arabia (Hijaz), where Islam originated, FGC was practised during the life-time of Muhammad. To call a man a "circumciser of women" was an insult among the pagan Arabs at the time. There is no evidence concerning whether this was practiced on Muhammad's daughters, but according to his wife Aisha, Muhammad defined lawful intercourse as something that happens when the circumcised parts of the male and female touch each other. Muhammad also recommended in a hadith that the circumcision of females should not be too severe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM#Cultural_background

[PsychoDad]

20. No sanction for this horrid practice in Islam.

Those who advocate for FGM from an Islamic perspective commonly quote the following hadith to argue that it is required as part of the Sunnah or Tradition of the Prophet:

Um Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (pbuh) said to her: Do not cut too severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.

This is known to be a "weak" hadith in that it does not meet the strict criteria to be considered unquestionable (classified as mursal, i.e. missing a link in the chain of transmitters in that none was among the original Companions of the Prophet.) In addtion, it is found in only one of the six undisputed, authentic hadith collections, that is in the Sunan of Abu Dawud (Chapter 1888). According to Sayyid Sabiq, renowned scholar and author of Fiqh-us-Sunnah, all hadiths concerning female circumcision are non-authentic.

There's more about this topic here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=359x16

[PublicWrath]

28. Some Islamic scholars and religious leaders support FGM

I am very grateful to the many Islamic scholars and religious leaders who have spoken out against FGM and who have worked with groups trying to end the practice. Yet I wonder why more Islamic religious leaders haven't explicitly condemned FGM? Are they afraid of community backlash?

Some scholars and religious leader do consider it a wise and virtuous custom which supports the Islamic emphasis on chastity. Others insist FGM is sanctioned by Islam.

(snip from article: TO Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah)

For Professor `Abd-al-Wahhab Khallaf, the term makrumah means that female circumcision adds to the man's pleasure<64>. Shaltut states that female circumcision is a makrumah for the men who are not used to feeling this protruding piece (za'idah) piece of flesh<65>.


The majority leans toward the meaning of a commendable or meritorious act on the part of the woman. It is Professor Zakariyya Al-Birri's opinion that it is better to carry out female circumcision. Anyone who does not do it does not sin if he is convinced in the light of religious texts and doctor's advice that he is under no obligation to conform (to it)<66>. Al-Qaradawi leaves the choice to parents according to their beliefs, in spite of the fact that he favours female circumcision, because it protects girls' morality "especially nowadays"<67>.


A fatwa from the Egyptian Fatwa Committee dated May 28, 1949, has declared that abandoning female circumcision does not constitute a sin<68>. Another fatwa from the same body dated June 23, 1951, is more rigid. Not only does this fatwa not recognise the abandonment of female circumcision as an option, but is further of the opinion that it is advisable to carry it out because it curbs "nature". Moreover, this fatwa considers doctors' opinions on the disadvantages of female circumcision irrelevant (see Chapter III, Paragraph 3, point 2)<69>.


A third much more detailed fatwa from the same institution dated January 29, 1981, is adamantly opposed to giving up female circumcision. The author of this fatwa is the present Great Sheikh of Al-Azhar, the most famous University of the Islamic World in Cairo. He insists that it is impossible to abandon the lessons of Mohammed in favour of the teaching of others, be they doctors, because medical science evolves and does not remain constant. The responsibility of female circumcision lies with the parents and with those in charge of the girl's welfare. Those who do not abide by it do not do their duty<70>.
http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/600/610.medical_sciences_medicine/617/Circoncision_anglaise.html

[PsychoDad]

104. Indeed some do, wrongly. IMHO, and the opinion of others.

The practice is primarily cultural and has been practiced for centuries before Islam, and like many cultural practices, is hard to change. Change is often equally hard among the "wise women" who perform the operation as well as among the "Scholars" who endorse it.

But as more and more Islamic scholars speak out against this practice and more people are educated, less and less women will be scarred by this practice.

The practice is not mentioned in the Quran. In the end the Muslim must understand that this practice is harmful to the girl it is forced upon, and while it is neither condoned or condemned in the Quran, in Islam, a practice that is harmful to a person, although not expressly forbidden by the Quran, is still normally considered haram, or forbidden.

And that would be the majority opinion.



Islam United to Stop Female Genital Mutilation
http://allafrica.com/stories/200511220644.html

"Ministers, politicians and religious leaders from almost 50 Muslim states were gathered for two days in the Moroccan capital at the first Islamic childhood conference.

The resulting "Rabat Declaration" puts special emphasis on female genital mutilation and other harmful practices discriminating girls, underlining it is against Islam.

Female genital mutilation (FGM), which is also called female circumcision, is most widespread in sub-Saharan Muslim cultures, but Muslim scholars for decades have emphasized that there is no Islamic basis for the very harmful practice, which causes many deaths among young girls each year."


And let us all work toward the end of this practice.
Peace

[Massacure]

15. LOL @ The Color Purple!!!

I just got home from my last day of school and you mention the book I finished reading a week ago and took a final exam on yesterday.

/* Massacure tries to turn his brain off again.

[pnwmom]

77. "Possessing the Secret of Joy" is the Alice Walker title dealing with FGM.

Quite a powerful book. Anyone interested in this issue, especially anyone who is thinking of defending it as a "cultural" matter, should read it.

[idgiehkt]

46. it's practiced in all countries.

it's associated with Islam but some theorize it is African in origin. It is practiced wherever there are muslims that still follow this custom.

From the amnesty link:
"It has been reported in Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and USA."

[noonwitch]

253. Shrinks once recommended it as a treatment for excessive masturbation

One of those freudian, blame the little girl things. I'll bet it was done extensively in mental hospitals and facilities for the developmentally disabled prior to the reforms of the 50s and 60s.

[pnwmom]

57. From the Amnesty International site mentioned above:

"An estimated 135 million of the world's girls and women have undergone genital mutilation, and two million girls a year are at risk of mutilation - approximately 6,000 per day. It is practised extensively in Africa and is common in some countries in the Middle East. It also occurs, mainly among immigrant communities, in parts of Asia and the Pacific, North and Latin America and Europe.

"FGM is reportedly practised in more than 28 African countries (see FGM in Africa: Information by Country (ACT 77/07/97)). There are no figures to indicate how common FGM is in Asia. It has been reported among Muslim populations in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Malaysia, although very little is known about the practice in these countries. In India, a small Muslim sect, the Daudi Bohra, practise clitoridectomy.

"In the Middle East, FGM is practised in Egypt, Oman, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates.

There have been reports of FGM among certain indigenous groups in central and south America, but little information is available."

I have also heard that it is practiced among some groups of Coptic Christians.

[pnwmom]

73. The truly amazing part is that people in the US debate whether it is

acceptable to allow the mutilation HERE.

[PublicWrath]

78. It amazes me, too. The very suggestion that FGM should be legalized

here makes me feel like the top of my skull has just popped off.

[pnwmom]

83. YES! Me, too. Most definitely.

I think it splattered all over the ceiling some time ago.

[barb162]

4. kick and thanks for posting!

[DeepModem Mom]

5. This data seems to be an important break-through -- I hope it helps. nt

[DELUSIONAL]

7. What is it with "cleaning up" the words?? Girls are mutilated

and some don't survive the cutting with often the crudest of tools.

Cultures that do this are ones that are extremely misogynistic -- I've posted on this before and found a quote from a male Egyptian doctor who felt it was helpful, and necessary for females to undergo this mutilation. His belief was representative of the culture mind set which continues this horrific practice.

This research reinforces anecdotal accounts from nurses in the Seattle area who work in delivery rooms where Iraqi women had their babies (refugees at the time of post Gulf war I era). I listened to two nurses discuss the horrors they witnessed -- both worked at different hospitals.

This doesn't/didn't happen to ALL Iraqi women -- but to some within specific cultures. The refugees from Saddam's horror seemed to be of extreme religious sects. Other countries -- Egypt, Somalia, certain African nations with religious/cultural sects who support this practice.

[Gormy Cuss]

8. One good reason to use 'cutting' over 'mutilation:'

For many of those who believe in the practice, it is not considered mutilation. By reporting the study finding using less judgmental language, physicians and others may reach some of those who defend the practice.

I remember reading about a Sudanese doctor in the U.S. who struggles to explain to her female patients who were subject to this practice why they shouldn't consent to have it done on the next generation. Her patients didn't want to accept the notion that they were mutilated, which was the impression they got from Western-raised physicians.

[bananas]

12. I thought the subject line was about Caesareans.

[primavera]

14. If the shoe fits...

Okay, I can see the point in clinicians tempering their wording a bit when communicating with people who have had this abomination done to them and are considering inflicting it upon their daughters, but for the other 99% of the population, I don't see the need to soft pedal on what is unquestionably mutilation according to any definition one cares to use.

[Gormy Cuss]

18. As is often discussed here, language matters.

If calling the practice 'cutting' furthers the goal of ending it, it's a worthy framing. I think the choice of the less loaded term might make it an easier subject for discussion in various political bodies in the parts of the world where it is practiced. That I don't know, but it's worth a shot.

[fleabert]

24. this is the same rational that keeps the cirq. tradition going, with no

medical support for the routine practice of such. if dad doesn't get son cut, then what does that say about dad? if mom says no to son getting cut, then what is she saying about dad?

circular false logic. Genitals are just fine the way they are, leave them alone!

[Gormy Cuss]

58. Who's advocating cutting?

I am suggesting that cultural sensitivity might break down resistance faster than antagonism.

[pnwmom]

74. Some immigrant groups in the U.S. advocate to be allowed to

continue the practice.

Some doctors think they can help by doing a version of the procedure in the hospital.

[fleabert]

116. i was agreeing with you... nt

[Gormy Cuss]

138. Oops!

Missed that :thumbsup:

[iverglas]

239. very excellent point, thank you.

"Mutilation" was adopted as an accurate characterization to counter the totally inaccurate "circumcision".

That does not mean that the practice cannot be accurately named without characterizing it either negatively or positively. It isn't actually necessary to express disgust when describing something one is disgusted by, and you're quite right, it can be very counterproductive.

Hell, if I called the Liberal Party of Canada pigs at the trough every time I mentioned it, I wouldn't likely persuade many Liberal voters to vote NDP, no matter how well I could defend my characterization. ;)

[PublicWrath]

11. A little girl who was basically kidnapped by a Saudi father

from an American mother and held in Saudi Arabia against her will was later forced to be "circumcised" and God knows what else, in preparation to being forced into an arranged marriage, I believe. I think he had another wife, too. It happened about 4-5 years ago.

[Kittycat]

16. It happens to baby boys every day. Where's the outrage over that?

I was horrified after seeing recentently circ'd boys, while my son was in the NICU. It's horrible that a parent would actually do that to their child for no medical reason :(

[SharonAnn]

17. it would be more horrifying if they remove their penises and testicles.

That would more like what's done to the women.

[PublicWrath]

23. Very true. Male circumcision is not comparable to FGM. nt.

[LeftyMom]

31. I think that's incorrect.

http://www.boystoo.com/fgm&mgm.htm

The cultural bias against sexuality and the superstitions involved are similar.

[Shakespeare]

32. But it's NOT the same.

If it were the same, then the female mutilation would involve only removing the clitoral hood, the corollary to the foreskin. Removing the entire clitoris is tantamount to cutting off the penis. It removes all possibility of sexual pleasure.

[LeftyMom]

33. Both inhibit pleasure, both risk pain, loss of sexual function, infection,

severe disfiguration and loss of life. Both are rooted in old cultural practices and sexual taboos and have no medical purpose.

I'd say they're far more similar than not.

[Shakespeare]

38. While I agree with you regarding the cultural roots of both practices....

...physiologically, they are NOT similar. The chances of male circumcision resulting in loss of sexual function are statistically remote, and adult circumcised males are not inhibited from experiencing sexual pleasure; the same is not true of clitoral mutilation. The removal of the clitoris permanently eliminates a woman's capacity for sexual pleasure.

You don't address my comparison, which is completely accurate: circumcision is equivalent to removal of the clitoral hood (which carries with it the same risks as circumcision, but won't necessarily stop a woman from experiencing sexual pleasure). Clitoral removal is physically equivalent to cutting off the penis. Ergo, clitoral removal is NOT similar to circumcision; the only female corollary to male circumcision would be removal of the clitoral hood, which is completely different and far, far less radical.

[LeftyMom]

39. I think you're underplaying the risks in MGM

but no, I don't mean to imply that FGM is not more damaging, just that there is a great deal of equivalence between the two practices.

[PublicWrath]

49. Equating male circumcision w/ FGM sometimes leads those who don't

know anything about the actual procedures involved in FGM to assume that they are just the same, -removal of the hood. In other words, to imply a parallel minimizes the brutality and misrepresents the extreme procedures involved in FGM. The uninformed may take these remarks literally. I always cringe when I hear such a comparison made; in my opinion such statements can work against efforts to end FGM, though I'm sure that's not your goal.

[pnwmom]

65. Thank you, Public Wrath. I think ignorance must be the root of the

problem here. No one who understood the procedure of infibulation, for example, could compare it to removing a foreskin from the tip of a penis.

[eppur_se_muova]

42. They're certainly different in degree. Death is far more common in FGM.

I read a longish excerpt from the book "Desert Flower : The Extraordinary Journey Of A Desert Nomad" by Waris Dirie, who underwent this procedure in her early teens (most boys are circumcised shortly after birth, and don't remember the experience). The "surgeon" was an old woman who had been doing it for years. She used no anesthetic, and her "instrument" was an old razor blade. The girl was tied down to prevent her struggling, and passed out from the pain, IIRC. Her external genitalia were simply amputated -- nothing left. Her vaginal opening was sewn up very tightly -- scarcely any opening at all. She lost a great deal of blood. While the stitches were healing, her legs were tied together for about two weeks, while she was in and out of consciousness. She later found that a large number of girls die from this procedure--since they are "only girls" their families just accept the loss and never speak of them again. "As we traveled throughout Somalia," says Dirie, "we met families and I played with their daughters. When we visited them again, the girls were missing. No one spoke the truth about their absence or even spoke of them at all."

Dirie, for many years a professional model, is now a spokewomen for women's health issues in Africa, including FGM, and is a special ambassador to the UN.

[LeftyMom]

43. Certainly

but I think in failing to recognize the kinship between the two, and thus promoting the idea that in our culture some number of boys are expendable, we lose any ethical high ground we have on this issue.

[pnwmom]

59. They are not comparable, especially the severe forms of FGM, which

involve removing the entire clitoris and the labia and sewing everything back up, leaving only a tiny passage open for the passage of fluids. When it is time for the woman to be married, her husband or someone else has to cut her open again. Because of all the scarring and adhesions that take place, labor and delivery are much more dangerous.

Men without a foreskin are capable of experiencing sexual pleasure and orgasm. Women without a clitoris are not -- which is the whole point of the surgery -- to keep women pure by removing all feeling. Men without a foreskin do not have to be cut open again in order to have sex. Women with infibulation do.

And you may argue statistics, but there are plenty of doctors who believe there are medical reasons for male circumcision, based on increased risk of urinary tract infections and intriguing data about circumcision in Africa. But there is NO benefit from female genital mutilation.

[LeftyMom]

142. There is no benefit for MGM either.

That's why no medical association in the civilized world recommends routine infant circumcision. All babies deserve genital integrity, but as a culture we have no moral high ground to stand up for baby girls in Africa while baby boys in America are still routinely mutilated.

[pnwmom]

148. There is a lot of data available on benefits of male circumcision

the question is whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

Male circumcision, for example, is known to lower the rate of urinary tract infections in baby boys, which can occur without symptoms and lead to serious kidney infections. Other studies, which are being followed now by major studies conducted by the WHO, have shown a reduction in the incidence of HIV. The results of those studies in Africa will be announced later this year or in 2007.

The jury is still out on male circumcision. There is no case at all for female mutilation.

[LeftyMom]

150. As I have explained to you before

The study which showed lowered UTI rates compared premature males who were not circumsised due to thier fragility with term males who were healthy enough to undergo the procedure. As prematurity is a risk factor for UTI as well as a general suceptibility to infection this resulted in useless data. In any case boys have a much lower UTI rate than girls, who are treated with antibiotics rather than surgery.

Circumcised males engage in more high risk behavior and have lower rates of condom use than intact males, likely due to thier loss of sensation. As we know that avioding high risk sex and using condoms is the best way to protect against AIDS, it stands to reason that to protect our sons we should leave them whole.

There is no advantage to mutilating children, no matter what thier sex.

[pnwmom]

159. What you explained to me before was wrong, and it still is.

There is not just ONE study about UTI's, there are many. But the real point is that there continues to be controversy about medical benefits with regard to male circumcision. This article alone, published by the American Academy of Family Physicians, mentions three studies that have considered the issue.

On the other hand, there is NO controversy about female mutiliation whose benefits are NONEXISTENT.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/980515ap/heller.html


"Uncircumcised male infants appear to be at increased risk of UTIs in the first three months of life. In a study of 100 otherwise healthy infants ranging in age from five days to eight months and admitted to the hospital because of a first known UTI,1 most of the UTIs in infants younger than three months of age were in males, but female infants predominated thereafter. The fact that 95 percent of the male infants in the study were not circumcised led to speculation that the uncircumcised male has an increased susceptibility to UTI--at least early in life.

"This issue was examined in a retrospective study at Tripler Army Medical Center.2 The study showed that uncircumcised boys had a 4.1 percent incidence of UTI during their first year of life, while girls had an incidence of 0.5 percent and circumcised males an incidence of 0.2 percent. Subsequently, a large retrospective study of infants cared for in U.S. Army hospitals supported the theory that circumcision protects against UTIs in young male infants. The periurethral area was found to be more frequently and more heavily colonized with uropathogens, especially Escherichia coli, in uncircumcised infants than in circumcised infants.3

"Winberg and associates4 offer an explanation for the high incidence of UTIs in uncircumcised male infants in an intriguing article, "The Prepuce: A Mistake of Nature?" They suggest that one unphysiologic intervention--circumcision--serves to counterbalance the effect of another unphysiologic state of affairs--exposure of the infant to the microbiologic environment of the maternity unit. In a natural biologic setting, with no perineal shaving or cleansing, mothers often defecate when giving birth in a squatting or kneeling position. Because of this, the infant is colonized at birth with the mother's aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. The infant receives specific protection against infection from these bacteria through immunoglobulins transferred from the mother during gestation and after delivery in the mother's breast milk.

"In contrast, babies born and cared for in a hospital are likely to be colonized by strains acquired from the external environment, against which their mothers may have no immunity. Such infants have little protection against infection from hospital-acquired strains of E. coli that colonize the gastrointestinal tract, the perineum and the periurethral area in females and preputial area in uncircumcised males. Colonization of the prepuce by these potentially dangerous bacteria places the uncircumcised male at high risk for a UTI. Circumcision diminishes that risk."

[Spangle]

51. More sexuality bias against girls then boys

Yes, what is done to boys is horrable. But it's on the same. IF only the hood was removed, THEN it would relate. I WISH we were only complaining about the hood being removed on this thread.

In relation to what is being spoke of here.. ONLY if the penises was removed during the cutting, would it relate. Thank God it's not that bad for boys any more.

There was a time when testicles were removed, even penises, in order for boys to be able to permently keep their' boy' singing voice choirs. THAT practice has now stopped. Or at least, very, very rare.

I would like to see it stopped for girls to. I want to come to the point were we are JUST complaining about te protective hoods being removed from both girls and boys. BUT that day isn't here yet.

The fact that you can't tell the difference from removing a boys 'hood' and removing the whole thing on a girl... THAT shows sexual bias!

[LeftyMom]

55. You're understating the risks to boys

Some get infections, or a lifetime of uncomfortable erections. All lose a great deal of erogenous tissue and sensitivity. Some lose thier penises or the ability to use them. At least one was reassigned gender and raised as a girl. He eventually lost his life to the suffering that caused, other little boys succumb to blood loss or infection during thier immediate recovery.

Nobody should be mutilated against thier will, no matter thier sex.

[Spangle]

63. Your still being sexist, if you say it's the SAME

Again, IF female muilation ONLY equaled to the cutting off of the hood, we would be discussing the EXACT same mutilation and all the exact dangers that comes with it.

When the clit is cut off, it's called female Cir. If the penis is cut off.. is it STILL called male cir? Nope.

In your comments you mention 'some'. I'm talking ALL loose a great deal of erogenous tissues and sensitivity. How does that relate to 'some'? It doesn't. How does ALL losing their cits relate to 'some' accidently loosing the penises? It doesn't.

How does a whole segment of women who have to be 'opened' before sex relate to a few of 'uncomfortable erections?" They don't. For it to even relate, the male cir would have to include slicing and dicing to make alot of SCARS even beyone the ones that cause 'discomfort.' And I'm not talking about accidental situations. But planned, like the girls who are sliced and sewed up until marriage.

i agree that it should stop for both boys and girls. But to say what boys go through is just as bad as what the girls go through, ONLY if the penis is being removed each and every time. And it isn't, unless it's an accident.

[pnwmom]

66. I think some people just don't understand how different the procedures

are. No comparison.

[fleabert]

273. "Nobody should be mutilated against thier will, no matter their sex."

I don't see why people can't get behind this philosophy! cutting off a piece of a baby's body, that's what it is, in simple language. Shocking that we would be against it!

No FGM at any level, from hoodectomy to clitoridectomy to labia removal and closure

No routine male circumcision of the foreskin.

easy schmeasy. :-)

[MaraJade]

242. Nowhere near the same as FGM. . .

After circumcision, a man can still enjoy sex and have orgasm. After FGM a woman can do neither.

[LeftyMom]

21. Absolutely

Let's not forget that that horrific practice leads to painful sex, loss of genital function, disease and death, too.

[pnwmom]

76. In very rare cases. Amputation of a clitoris, by contrast, always leads to

loss of function.

[LeftyMom]

144. Loss of the foreskin always leads to the loss of densely ennervated

tisssue in the prepuce, the loss or destruction of the highly sensitive frenum, trauma to the glans (which is fused to the prepuce in neonates and young children,) loss of sensitivity in the glans and loss of the gliding action of the foreskin and skin of the penis, reducing sensation and lubrication for both partners during coitus. Intense pain is normal and continues for days after the procedure. Potential risks include infection, damage to the penis, loss of sexual function, loss of the penis, gender reassignment and death.

As a society we need to stand up for our own sons if we wish to have credibility when we speak up for others' daughters. All children deserve genital integrity.

[pnwmom]

162. Very few circumcised men seem to be suffering their loss.

And I've watched my two baby boys being circumcised with local anesthetic. One whimpered a little, the other didn't cry at all. No signs of continuing pain, much less for days. (I had already had a baby daughter, so I knew what an unhappy baby looks like.)

[LeftyMom]

164. That sounds eerily like the quotes I've read

from mothers justiying the mutilation of thier daughters. Your observations that your sons suffered genital surgery with only a local and experienced no pain fly in the face of both science and common sense.

All babies deserve genital integrity, but while some Americans deny thier own children that right we will not be listened to when we attempt to speak up for the children of others.

[pnwmom]

171. My husband was right there with me. We had it done because the

research we considered at the time weighed in its favor, but it wasn't an easy decision at all. (My friends were split about 50/50 on the issue.) Also a factor was that my daughter had some kidney damage due to a symptomless infection. I knew the risks of a UTI are real.

Especially for my older son, I was worried about how he would take it and relieved at how little effect it seemed to have on him.

[Midlodemocrat]

210. My dad had to be circumcized at 22 from repeated infections

while serving in WWII. We chose to have our son circ'd. He had no pain during the procedure due to a local anestetic and didn't seem bothered by it at all afterwards.

Now, if I had chosen to do FGM on my daughters, I think the outcome would have been very different.

[pnwmom]

221. My father also knew several men who had to undergo the procedure

as adults. . . and he didn't recommend it! One of our relatives is a urologist who also had some horror stories.

On the other hand, men in the parts of Africa hardest hit by AIDS are lining up for adult circumcisions. Compared to the risk of HIV, they're not worried about the pain of circumcision.

The biggest advance in the U.S. was when they finally started giving anesthetic to the babies. I wouldn't have been able to go through it without that. For my older son, I had to look around to find a doctor who routinely used local anesthesia. By the time my second son was born, that was standard.

[bunyip]

179. Well said, LeftyMom.

Other readers support your position, but the stubborn will continue talking past you.

[barb162]

257. "Very few circumcised men seem to be suffering their loss."

That's an understatement!!BWA. Seriously, without going into details, noone I have ever known was hampered in any way

[High Plains]

211. I'm perfectly happy with my circumsized penis.

I don't remember any pain, never did. It seems sensitive enough, thank you.

I think you are overstating the dangers and downsides of circumcision, but what do I know?

[barb162]

258. third sentence

mmmmmm, thanks for the giggle

[MaraJade]

243. Funny this. . .

All of my brothers are circumcised and none of them complain. All of them still have their
penises.

All of the men I've known, including my husband, were circumcised and still, no problems and
no complaints.

And I know a number of Jewish men. No problems, no loss of sensation, no infections, no
sexual problems and no complaints.

One of my nephews had to undergo circumcision as a teen due to a "hood" that was too tight.

He and his fiance have reported no complaints. The wedding is on. . .

On the other hand, an African woman that I know, one who braids my hair has had numerous
problems and complaints.

Go figure. . .

[Kailassa]

246. I know 4 Muslim girls who are happy that that they were "done".

They think it is terrible that some women are not "made nice" as they put it, and believe that the normal way women are made is disgusting. A fifth muslim girl in the group was not done, and has a reputation for being very free with the guys, and I'm talking about sex with strangers in parking lots here. So the other girls blame that onto her not being "circumcised" and are determined to one day have their own daughters done.

I tried explaining to them that their friend was just looking for affection, and it had nothing to do with circumcision, pointing out that if it was from being uncircumcised, all us western women would be like that. Their embarrassed reply was: "but you western women are like that."

I find the practice appalling. I love my clit, and the fact that little girls' health is being endangered by having theirs cut out and being sewn up is sickening. However just being horrified is easy, and not very useful. It is already illegal in Australia to have this operation done, but that doesn't stop parents who believe that not having it done will leave their daughters dirty, ruin their morals and wreck their chances of making a good marriage.

Expressing our disgust doesn't help because the muslim world is now disgusted with us.

It would not be surprising if the attacks on Iraq an Iran and the shocking behaviour of many of our troops has set back the clock on this issue by decades, ensuring that muslim countries and muslims in general will reject everything western and cling devotedly to everything that makes them different to us. The only thing that can work is education, and when muslims are being disgusted by our behaviour, and seeing constant proof of the hatred many westerners now have for them, then we can hardly expect then to be particularly interested when we tell them that what they are doing is harmful.

The only way to change another person's behaviour is to live your own life in a way that is worthy of respect, and to stay kind and humble at the same time. This is true of individuals, it is true of countries. Only when we have earned the respect of others will they be able to learn from us. It's well worth trying to educate people about it now, but as things are, we cannot blame any muslim for wanting to do the exact opposite to what any westerner tells them.

[sweetpotato]

268. This is what needs to change...

>>>They think it is terrible that some women are not "made nice" as they put it, and believe that the normal way women are made is disgusting.<<<

The normal way that women are made is disgusting.

Why do they believe this? Why are they taught that women are disgusting?

This makes me want to cry. Women are told that they are disgusting. Not just second class citizens, not just property, but in our natural state DISGUSTING. I cannot understand such a pervasive hate for women in a culture that makes even the women hate women.

This is the problem, FGM is only a symptom.

[Kailassa]

270. Exactly, you put it in a nutshell.

And it's a problem for women all over the world.

I was in my 30s before I read something that brought it home to me that menstruation was not disgusting, and that I was not disgusting for menstruating. Women are made to feel disgusting for having bottoms, for having tummies, in fact, for being female. And governments can even get away with passing laws intended to stop us masturbating, by banning the sale of sex toys. If women had confidence, no-one would dare introduce a law like that.

In out culture it shows in anorexia, and in the competitive bitchiness between girls who want to erase their own fear of humiliation by putting down a sister instead.

The only way female mutilation will stop is through improving the status and the education of the women in these cultures. When they can feel enough pride in themselves as independant people, then they will look differently at the idea of harming their daughters like this. And once the women change, then they will start educating the men.

But first they need schools and jobs, then more will see the need to change things, and have ways to do so.

[pnwmom]

247. Isn't it amazing how American men have been coping, even though

the large majority had this traumatic procedure that permanently destroyed the feeling in their genitalia? You'd almost think they ENJOY having sex.

[pnwmom]

64. Does anything like this happen to baby boys?

Are you familiar with the procedure called infibulation? This is procedure down on prepubertal girls. It involves the complete removal of the clitoris and the inner labia. Then the outer labia are stitched together, leaving only a tiny opening for the passage of fluids. Assuming the girl survives the procedure and doesn't develop a life threatening infection, scar tissue and adhesions form, leaving the whole area to be cut open again when the woman marries. Menstrual periods are difficult and painful. With no clitoris and all the scar tissue, sex is painful too.

[Scout]

212. only 15 posts until someone had to make this about men/boys....

start a thread on it, don't hijack this one.

:mad: :spank:

[pnwmom]

222. yeah, that was sadly predictable

[eppur_se_muova]

36. Should call it "amputation". nt

[PublicWrath]

106. It's common among Iraqi Kurds. nt.

[PublicWrath]

10. Recommended. Considering the cultural emphasis on fecundity in

some of the areas which practice FGM, this study may do a lot more to discourage genital mutilation than anything else. Sad commentary on women's lot in many parts of the world, isn't it?

I get sick thinking of the little girls who are living in the US whose parents take them out of the country for 'vacation' to have them mutilated. And a number of doctors in this country do it secretly, by the way.

[pnwmom]

67. I know. I wish these parents here could be charged with child abuse.

[iverglas]

240. they can

http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_bp_fgmlawsusa.pdf

FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON FGM

In 1996, Congress passed several legislative measures relating to FGM.16 First, the practice of FGM on a minor was defined as a federal criminal offense, unless necessary to protect a young person’s health. Second, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was required both to compile data on FGM and to engage in education and outreach to relevant communities. Third, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was directed to provide information to all aliens issued U.S. visas on the health and psychological effects of FGM, as well as on the legal consequences of FGM under criminal or child-protection statutes. Finally, U.S. executive directors of international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, were required by federal law to oppose nonhumanitarian loans to countries that have not undertaken educational measures designed to prevent FGM.

Criminalization of the Practice of FGM

On September 30, 1996, Congress enacted a provision criminalizing the practice of FGM as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.17 With two exceptions, it provides that “whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”18 The statute exempts a surgical operation if such operation is “necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner.”19 The term “health” in this exemption is to be interpreted narrowly. The statute states that “no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.”20 The statute also exempts an operation if it is “performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed . . . as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife.”21 The above provisions became effective on April 1, 1997, 180 days after enactment.22

Perhaps more to your point:

U.S. STATE LEGISLATION ON FGM

Since 1994, 16 states have passed legislation relating to FGM.43 In general, the statutes address FGM in a manner similar to that of the federal law, by prohibiting its practice and instituting criminal sanctions. Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Tennessee prohibit the practice of FGM on adult women as well as on females under the age of 18. The statutes enacted in California, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, New York, Oregon and West Virginia explicitly address the conduct of a parent or guardian who permits or allows FGM to be performed on her or his daughter. In Nevada, a person may be prosecuted for the removal of a child from that state for the purpose of performing FGM. California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and Oregon have enacted legislation addressing the need for culturally sensitive education and outreach to the relevant communities.

And where I'm at:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/as/1997/c16/whole.html

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec268.html

268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

(2) Every one who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

(3) For greater certainty, in this section, “wounds” or “maims” includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person, except where

(a) a surgical procedure is performed, by a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine, for the benefit of the physical health of the person or for the purpose of that person having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function; or

(b) the person is at least eighteen years of age and there is no resulting bodily harm.

(4) For the purposes of this section and section 265, no consent to the excision, infibulation or mutilation, in whole or in part, of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person is valid, except in the cases described in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b).

273.3 (1) No person shall do anything for the purpose of removing from Canada a person who is ordinarily resident in Canada and who is

... (c) under the age of eighteen years, with the intention that an act be committed outside Canada that if it were committed in Canada would be an offence against section 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or section 170, 171, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272 or 273 in respect of that person.

Criminal law is under federal jurisdiction in Canada, and that section makes it an offence to remove a child from Canada for the purposes of female genital mutilation.

[PetraPooh]

90. I knew a doctor that "did it secretly" but not as you suggest;

she would re-do the surgery after women that came here had behaved like "normal American girls" but then had to go back to the old country. Apparently if they went back without everything sewed back up like it had never been disturbed there were very serious repercussions including being set on fire by your father (?). I think that is what she told me anyway. It was two decades ago that she was my OBGYN.

[pnwmom]

92. Doctors here have been horrified to see the damage done

from this procedure. That doctor must have really struggled with her conscience.

[MaraJade]

244. It's a matter of control over women. . .

cultures that practice FGM want to control female sexual desire. Most often, these are cultures
that practice arranged marriage with a very young woman being paired with a much older man.

If the woman has no sexual sensation, she will not be aware of poor performance or bad performance
of the older man.

This is the reason for FGM.

[Caoimhe]

13. These types of practices

make me ashamed of the human race.

[billyoc]

19. Many's the day that I'm ashamed

of even being a mammal. :scared:

[pnwmom]

84. LOL

We laugh till we cry, sometimes.

[Kailassa]

22. To people asking where it's happening ... everywhere.

Often it's the Muslim women who force this on their daughters, thinking their daughters will otherwise be dirty and oversexed and unmarriagable to "nice" Muslim boys. Muslim communities in all countries have people who will quietly do this proceedure.

It makes sense. These women were put through the hell of circumcision themselves by people they love and trust. So they either justify it or see themselves as having been wickedly mutilated and lose their trust in their families. Some truths are too painful to face.

[LeftyMom]

26. That reminds me so much

of men who won't even consider not mutilating thier sons. This part, I mean:

"So they either justify it or see themselves as having been wickedly mutilated and lose their trust in their families. Some truths are too painful to face."

[manic expression]

25. A few things that must be kept in mind

And now for something completely different....

Look, there is a lot wrong with a lot of societies. It would be very arrogant to go around telling which cultures are advanced and which are not. The practice of FGM is something needs to be changed, but it must be an organic process, and not one imposed by white people.

We (the west) have taken virtually everything from these cultures. Their dignity, their way of life, their ability to exist and more have all fallen prey to European colonialism. Culture after culture experienced depletion or total oblivion because of the efforts of Europeans. There is precious little in the way of cultural diversity, and there will be even less if Europeans continue their insipid destruction of other cultures.

That FGM increases problems in a woman would be seen as a side-effect by people who practice it. The same could be said for circumcision, and even though the practices are far different, who are we to decide which is acceptable and which is not? The people who practice FGM are probably familiar with the effects of it, but they see some worth in it.

Cross cultural interaction is something that cannot be taken lightly. Just because we, as westerners, object to an aspect of culture does not mean that we know the best solution or that we know its meaning. We cannot presume to be superior, nor can we claim superiority. Let us have the understanding and foresight to keep some perspective and have some respect for cultures and their practices. It would be a mistake of catastrophic proportions if we were to repeat the injustices of those who came before us.

(And now I will most likely get some "unfavorable" responses)

[pooja]

27. When it comes to the issue of mutilating people

and oppressing a peson because of gender, it is wrong. I don't care what is societal norm. The mutilation of women is so that they do not feel the pleasure of sex. They remain loyal to one man and are there to only satisfy his needs and his children. I can see why this practise ensued. A woman always knows who her children are. A man on the other hand has to trust that the woman was faithful to him... so by making it so painful in the process of having sex, hopefully she remains loyal. Same reason for covering the female body with many clothes and scarves and hiding them away from society.

[manic expression]

29. I agree, but then I don't

I do agree that FGM (the bad practices...some practices don't do anything serious) is NOT a good practice.

However, I cannot be reminded of those missionaries who thought they were doing the right thing when they sucked the life out of every culture on earth. For instance, the body art of Polynesia was among the most beautiful in the world, not to mention among the most painful. However, it was all lost and destroyed due to the efforts of missionaries. Looking back, was that right?

Basically, the change cannot come from outsiders. If the change that stops FGM is to be natural, it will dramatically increase the effectiveness of the change as well as sustaining the small shred of cultural diversity we still have.

That it is a social norm means that the society which practices it feels it is important. That should not be underestimated or disregarded, no matter what you are objecting to. The people who carry out FGM feel it is worth it, and perhaps we would do well not to question the opinion of an entire society. There is something to be said for respecting another culture. We may not fully understand the workings of that society, we do not understand the value that it (FGM) holds for them.

"Same reason for covering the female body with many clothes and scarves and hiding them away from society."

Same reason for using the female body to sell everything from watches to deoderant to juice? Same reason our ruling party practically won control of the government through anti-choice and anti-feminist rhetoric? Do not be so blind to think that we are even remotely respectful of feminism.

[DemExpat]

35. I can't agree that this is deserving of any respect,

or that we should not question the society's wishes/practice.

This is mutilation, bodily harm to young girls who do not have a choice in the matter. Human Rights violation.

That the practice occurs here in Europe - that there were even discussions of whether the procedure should be carried out by medical doctors here - :wtf: is just too mind-boggling and offensive to fathom.

I agree that some kind of education/persuasion is needed to help mothers decide to spare their daughters, but meanwhile, no tolerance or acceptance or abetting of this should be displayed.

DemEx

[manic expression]

40. Why not?

it is their culture, like it or not. It is not for you to decide which practices are acceptable and which are not. We should not question a facet of a culture, as it is something that is a part of it and trying to do away with it is arguably an insult to that culture and the people of it.

Most males in this society have had their genitals mutilated without a "choice in the matter". Is that a "Human Rights violation"?

Your opposition to letting it be done by doctors is like opposition to providing clean needles for addicts. It's going to happen regardless, so make sure it's as safe as possible. Furthermore, you can be as offended as you want, but do not lose sight of the fact that this is something that should not and cannot be ended by the sensibilities of outsiders. The practice is not a matter of how much westerners like it, it is a matter of something that runs very deep and very close to many. We've made this mistake before, let's not make it again.

[Lars39]

41. And those males go on to have sexual pleasure.

Would you be as supporting of these cultural sensitivities if the penis was totally removed?

[manic expression]

48. So now we're qualifying mutilation?

Who's to say which is good and which is bad? Oh, I forgot, westerners have always claimed cultural superiority.

Removing the penis would compromise the entire sexual organ ability, which is not what FGM does. It is not good, I have said that, but we cannot just go around telling people to do away with their culture.

[Lars39]

53. FGM *does* compromise the entire sexual organ ability.

[manic expression]

124. As in

being able to reproduce?

[Lars39]

127. And that is all that matters to the men, right?

That a female can breed.

[manic expression]

129. That's all that matters to the discussion

the original comparison was not valid.

[pnwmom]

173. It DOES affect the ability to reproduce, since it increases the death rate

among both women and children in childbirth.

[pnwmom]

61. You don't know what you're talking about. Infibulation, which is

one of the practices, involves the complete removal of the clitoris, and the inner labia, and then sewing the outer labia together, leaving only a tiny opening for the passage of fluids. If she survives the surgery, and doesn't come down with a serious infection, the woman then faces years of difficult and painful menstrual periods, followed by the need to be cut open again to have sex with her husband. Which, when it occurs without a clitoris and after years of scarring and adhesions, will always be painful, too.

Yes, this is a cultural practice. It is a cultural practice that is all about controlling women -- nothing more -- and needs to be condemned as a human rights issue. If you can support this procedure as a cultural matter, then you must not think women are fully human.

[Lars39]

62. This sentence bears repeating:

"If you can support this procedure as a cultural matter, then you must not think women are fully human."

[pnwmom]

69. Thank you, Lars39.

Of course all I can see now is my typo.

[Lars39]

70. Fixed it!

:hi:

[pnwmom]

79. How kind.

Isn't it funny how something like that jumps out as soon as it's too late to fix it?

[barb162]

88. I think I will repeat it again.

"If you can support this procedure as a cultural matter, then you must not think women are fully human."

[OnionPatch]

109. I'm starting to freak out here

It's amazing how many people don't understand that in most cases, FGM involves the removal of the ENTIRE CLITORIS and sometimes even the surrounding labia! These women cannot have orgasms EVER AGAIN. Thank you for pointing out this distinction.

I didn't know that so many people don't understand this and I'm starting to see why the world isn't more outraged that this practice is so widespread. I was living in Egypt when that woman cut off her husband's penis some ten years ago or so...what was her name? Bobbit?....the entire world was in an outrage, including Egyptians. It was in all the papers. I had just learned that up to 80% of Egyptian women have no clitoris. Where was the outrage about that? Sigh.

[pnwmom]

111. I was kind of shocked, too, Onion Patch.

That's why I kept repeating myself. Hoping to educate as many people as possible.

[manic expression]

125. The point

was that cutting off the entire penis would render the individual sterile, unable to reproduce. It is not the same with FGM. That was the only point I was making, and it's unfortunate that it's been misunderstood.

It may very well be about controlling women. However, it is still part of the culture, and your disapproval of it does not make it without a place in the society.

Another thing is that while I encourage people to not dismiss a cultural practice, could you say that I "support" it? I would say that it is a stretch, as I have stated numerous times that I would be perfectly fine to an organic solution (making it symbolic/without too much harm, etc...).

[Spangle]

139. Now days

We can remove the males donation without him ejaculating. This does bring about legal issues, if a wife wants her dead husbands donation after death.

Also, after a male donates.. does he need his penis any longer? Shall we hve young boys do a life time donation, then just cut it off?

IF this was all just about wither or not people can still breed afterwards.. the playing field could be made more even.

Cut off the clits, cut off the penis.. and go to the doctor to get prego. Who needs their sex organs?

[manic expression]

140. Here's what you're missing

All I'm saying is that if FGM is a part of a culture, then who are we to condemn a facet of another way of life?

If what you proposed (strawman argument) was part of a culture, rooted in tradition, then perhaps you'd have something of a valid point, but you don't.

[pnwmom]

174. Crushing girls feet and binding them into cloth was a part of a culture.

Foot binding was tradition.

Who are we to condemn it? Rational people who care about human rights. Even when the human is female.

[lastliberalintexas]

230. Yeah, and "honor" killings are cultural too

You want to protect those as well? Though maybe you do, since they are typically only carried out against women, not people. :eyes:

[Phx_Dem]

283. Your form of multiculturalism is nihilistic.

[barb162]

85. You're trying to sell cultural relativism when women are dying

and being physically injured from this disgusting practice. Bullshit to that

[pnwmom]

89. Yes, barb162! You nailed it. As someone once said, "When a man is

discriminated against, it's a political issue and a violation of human rights. When a woman is discriminated against, then it's a cultural issue and that's okay."

[barb162]

94. Well, thank you!

I have had enough of women being killed, injured, raped, undereducated, being subject to honor killings, married off without any say, etc., and a whole host of other things, all in the name of culture, like it's okay or something. No, it isn't okay and I am sick of these apologists for these outrages and human rightsw violations against women. But it sounds like I am preaching to the choir. Sorry for the rant
:hi:

[pnwmom]

98. Yeah, but I'd go crazy if at least a couple of DU'ers weren't getting

as worked up as I am! Rant away!

We have a lot of immigrants in my area from countries with "cultural" issues. The first time I saw a man in Sears, accompanied by his wife in full chador (I think that's what it was -- all black with just a tiny mesh area at the eyes to peek through) I felt like punching him. Or at least walking up to him and giving him my two cents. But I didn't say anything. I was afraid I'd just make it worse for his wife.

Why people with that attitude toward women come here to live is beyond me.

:shrug:

[barb162]

254. We should do a new rule...

what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Have the men walk around in those outfits for one year. I have always noticed the men are dressed for the weather, short sleeves, open collars, etc., on hot days

[smirkymonkey]

155. Exact quote from Bernadette Mosala:

"When Men are oppressed it's a tragedy; when Women are oppressed, it's tradition"

The "cultural relativism" argument is bullshit. It's a human rights abuse plain and simple.

Remember, it was the "cultural practice" of Nazi's to exterminate Jews and other so called "undesirables." Should we have left that alone too?

[barb162]

255. "...when Women are oppressed, it's tradition"

Then tradition has to go. Adios tradition

[manic expression]

128. You're trying to sell a culture down the river

and I will have none of it. It's time the west had some perspective on these practices, no matter how shocking they are to us. We can encourage change without imposing our own will on an entire people.

If I could make a tangential point (small rant), it is also interesting that there is such a concern for human life from the only country on earth to have used a nuclear weapon. These cultures never firebombed anyone or shot Iraqis through the head or bombed weddings or exterminated entire peoples or otherwise, so maybe some perspective would be in order.

[muriel_volestrangler]

137. Saying "it's their culture" isn't good enough

This study shows clear harm to women through this practice - threatening their lives. Slavery was a cultural practice too, but it was the right thing to do to oppose it in all cultures, whether ours or others. FGM does not achieve anything. It is purely a form of control over women, which inflicts pain.

Guess what? People here on DU oppose shooting Iraqis too. You should take a look at the threads about Iraq. They don't support the killing. Trying to divert this discussion onto Iraq is pointless.

[manic expression]

141. But isn't it?

I am aware of the study, I am aware of the harm. What I am also aware of is the fact that cross-cultural condemnation is not helpful at all. As I've said, we can encourage solutions from WITHIN the culture, but to encourage the solution of WITHOUT the culture is insane and counterproductive.

The point was that THIS CULTURE is guilty of many things. We are a part of that, whether we oppose it or not (if you live in the US, you are standing on stolen land...unless you're a NA). Until we stand in a country which does not have a great amount of blood on its hands, it is patently hypocritical to condemn another culture's activities as "savage".

Perspective is all I ask for.

[ismnotwasm]

146. And we've had many culture wars have we not?

Because slavery was culturally acceptable, it took an actual war to get it outlawed in the US.
To change this it will takes an ideology war.
It is NOT a religious practice per se, although it's found in Muslim cultures. But not JUST Muslim cultures.
I don't buy the "culturally acceptable" crap. I've met women who were cut and women from the same country who were not. While it's widespread in many countries, there are always pockets of people--say in Ethiopia, who find the practice appalling. I knew a women who took her daughter back to Ethiopia to have the procedure done, and some of the other Ethiopian women I worked with were shocked. It's hard to keep this in perspective if the status of women in certain of these countries is less than human. Women are indoctrinated and shell shocked by one assault after another on their very person hood.

Being sensitive to this issue isn't going to change it--not in this case. It needs to be challenged, brought into the open. No one has to say the equivalent of "your culture sucks" if that's what you mean by sensitivity. We can't afford to play nice on this one.

This is a profound wrong, akin in my eyes to child molesting. In fact since many of the little girls are 6 or 7 when it is done, it is child molesting. It's an internal twisting of sexuality gone very, very wrong.

What IS needed, is education, for education you need stability. And people willing to get out there and help. Here's a good site on how one of these countries are addressing the issue, (and I think probably relates to the point you are trying to make):
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33407

[manic expression]

160. First,

FGM is really a cultural practice. That's common knowledge. Islamic cultures differ as much as Christian cultures, so you find a wide variety of them. However, this specific practice is done in predominately Christian countries as well, so it's not religious at all.

The fact that this is part of a culture is quite the acceptable argument. It is done in some areas of a country and not in others, that's a given. Some Ethiopians might embrace it, others may hate it, but what does that matter?

Bringing it out into the open is what we should do. What we should NOT do is bring it out into the open only to throw proverbial stones at it, but we should have an open and honest discussion about the practice and find the best way to alter it. Being sensitive to the fact that the practice is a part of a way of life, and making sure that if it is to be changed that way of life will not be restricted at all IS something that is very helpful and constructive.

I think you have said something very important. It is "in your eyes", and we must be careful not to impose what is in our eyes unto other peoples with no regard for anything. I'd like to add that yes, this is done without any sort of consent, but circumcision is little different. Actually, circumcision would fall directly under your definition of "child molesting", no? I mean, let's at least be consistent.

Let me make one thing clear. If westerners want to strut into places where this is done and try to lecture the people on how unsivilized they are, that is beyond ignorant. It needs to come from within the community and not without it. Only then will there be a real change for the better.

[pnwmom]

183. Who said westerners were "strutting" into places where this is done?

People who practice FMG are moving into western countries. Our doctors and hospitals are dealing with this every day.

And international organizations like the U.N. are leading the opposition. As they should.

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. Yes, cross-cultural condemnation is helpful

People in other cultures are perfectly free to criticise ours. The more other cultures do, the more likely we are to take notice and change our ways. Similarly, if we point out the pain, danger and cruelty that FGM causes, then the cultures that practice it may realise how despicable it is. You're sticking your head in the sand if you just say "it's someone else's problem, I don't live there, they can do what they like to little girls as long as it's not in my sight".

[manic expression]

163. Not so

While I do not object to cross cultural discussions and criticisms (constructively), the reality is that people of a certain culture do not respond well to criticisms from another culture. How do you think the average American would feel about a European's objection to our fast food industry (for example)? They would go ballistic, even if the objections were completely valid and correct.

Because of this, I think that westerners telling people that FGM is bad only hurts the situation. Upon opposition, people tend to entrench tradition, likely making it "worse" than before. Perspective and constructiveness is what is needed here.

You can point out your perception of the practice, but there are some things to realize. First, it is your perception, and your sensibilities do not translate into what is best for another society. Second, I do not think the people who practice FGM are unaware of the pain and danger, do not be so naive to think that they have not figured out that it hurts like hell. In spite of the pain and danger, however, it is still done because it is, among other reasons of course, part of their culture and their way of life and that is not something to be disregarded.

[muriel_volestrangler]

193. The sensibility here is "treat women like human beings"

which is an extremely constructive criticism. It doubles the number of people in the world who get basic human rights.

I'm so sorry your world is so narrow that you regard women in other countries as completely divorced from you, that their suffering and possible death means nothing to you, and that you are happy for them to be oppressed and tortured on the grounds that it's been done to millions of other women for thousands of years. It's an attitude I wouldn't wish on anyone.

[pnwmom]

198. The United Nations General Assembly disagrees with you. Tradition

or culture doesn't make violence against women acceptable. And, according to the U.N., female genital mutilation is a form of violence against women -- as are other "cultural" practices, long rooted in tradition, such as honor killings, setting widows on fire, domestic violence, acid attacks, etc.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm5.htm

"The provisions of the Convention are strengthened and complemented by the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, adopted by the General Assembly in 1993. It addresses gender-based violence "both in public or private life", and includes within its scope FGM and other traditional practices harmful to women. Article 4 provides that states should not invoke any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligation to eliminate violence against women. The Declaration sets out an internationally recognized framework for action by governments. It details the measures states should adopt to prevent, punish and eradicate such violence. These duties include due diligence in investigating and imposing penalties for violence and establishing effective protective measures.

"The UN Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, resulting from the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, contains a clear condemnation of FGM as a form of violence against women and reaffirms the responsibility of states to take action to curb such violence.

"FGM and the rights of the child
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was the first binding instrument explicitly addressing harmful traditional practices as a human rights violation. It obliges governments to "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child" (Article 19(1)). Article 24 (3) of the Convention specifically requires governments to "take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children."

[pnwmom]

182. People who practice FMG are immigrating to the U.S. Should we ban

them from coming here, or should we require them to follow our laws?

[pnwmom]

180. "These cultures"? There are people in Iraq who practice FMG, there

are Coptic Christians who practice FMG, there are Saudis who practice FMG -- and none of them ever firebombed anyone? Is that what you're saying?

In the past, doctors in the U.S. experimented with clitoral removal. It was wrong then and it's still wrong now.

[lastliberalintexas]

231. Bullshit

Self inflicted mutilation or even mutiliation by choice as an adult, fine with me. It's that person't choice, and there I'd agree with you that the rest of the world has no say.

Apples and oranges.


And yeah, these countries don't kill hundreds of thousands of people in war, they only kill hundreds of thousands of women and girls through "cultural practices." Whether by bomb, bullet or dirty blade, dead is dead. I doubt the victims care how the deathblow comes.

[iverglas]

241. WHOSE culture?

I'd really like you to address that question.

There are always conflicts within "cultures". And in any culture our world has known to date, there are powerful factions oppressing vulnerable factions. Are you suggesting that the cultures in which FGM is practised are somehow different? They are monolithic in this respect, even if in no other? They stand united -- rich and poor, urban and rural, educated and illiterate, men and women -- in a single common front advocating and defending FGM?

I don't think so.

And I think that the person who accuses others of being culturally insensitive for not actively tolerating the oppressive and exploitive elements of a culture is the one needing to do some clearer thinking.

Women's groups WITHIN the cultures you are supposedly talking about oppose the practice of FGM. Governments in countries where the practice is prevalent oppose the practice of FGM. There are divisions, there is dissent, there are people actively working to change what is done from within the culture.

Just as there is on just about every issue one could think of and then call "cultural". What aspect of a society is not "cultural"? What aspect of a society is the subject of universal agreement? What society is not in need of improvement?

Are you telling THEM -- women (and men) trying to change their OWN cultures -- that they should sit down and shut up and accept how their "culture" has always done things? Would you have told women in the western world seeking protection against marital rape, or demanding the right to vote, the same thing?

There are certain things that humanity as a whole has reached consensus on in this century. One is the right to life of every human being, and the right to liberty and to freedom of belief. Not every individual walking the face of the earth has internalized those beliefs, and not every government of every nation acknowledges that it is bound by that consensus. But it is really and truly the benchmark against which we are ALL ENTITLED to judge any culture. No nation, and no culture, is somehow immune to the rules that WE agree apply to all.

Who are YOU to tell US that we must side with the faction of a society that is currently in a position to define its "culture"? Should we have supported slavery in the southern US, had we been there, because it was so ingrained into CULTURE of the place -- purely because the mighty had decided so? Does might make right?

And does the agreement of the victimized make the victimization right? Even when the victims are children?

Rights are not something that anyone can bargain away; they are, you might recall, things like "inherent" and "inalienable". The fact that some segment of a group entitled to exercise some particular right, large as that segment may be, wishes not to exercise the right DOES NOT MEAN that any other member of that segment does not still have that right, and is not entitled to exercise it and to be protected from violations of it.

Read the whole thing and inform yourself, if you really are this uninformed:

http://www.afrol.com/Categories/Women/backgr_fighting_fgm.htm

Dr. Nahid Toubia, a medical doctor and women's rights advocate, says that although there is now discussion about legally banning female genital mutilation, some still do not acknowledge that the practice is wrong. Rather than fearing the loss of culture and the disintegration of tradition, society must consider the health of just one girl, who, while being held in place, would have a most sensitive part of her body cut without a say and without the possibility of ever reversing the damage done. The memories of female genital mutilation are never forgotten.

The right to health must be discussed, she says. "I think it is very important that as Africans we start thinking about the rights of our people as individuals and as human beings", she says. Whether a law would be productive or counter-productive is a controversial issue. Female circumcision is a complex issue about gender, belief and power. As a complex issue, it deserves complex approaches.

How best to protect someone's rights is one question; whether someone has those rights is another -- and is simply NOT A QUESTION.

I'm pretty disgusted by the cultural insensitivity on display regularly at DU, and everywhere else one turns, myself. But cultural sensitivity does NOT demand that anyone endorse, allow to continue in one's own society, or even remain silent about elsewhere, gross violations of fundamental human rights.

And demands that gross violations of fundamental human rights be tolerated on the pretext of "sensitivity" are nothing short of endorsement of the atrocities perpetrated on people who do not have the POWER to alter the circumstances of their existence.

[pnwmom]

248. Yes, that's right. The question is "whose culture." The males are defining

the culture in the countries that oppress women. Accepting the claims of culture means accepting the subjugation of women.

[Kailassa]

249. Good on you for pointing out that there are people within

these cultures who are trying to change the practice.

In Australia we have a hotline giving round-the-clock moral support to those who are trying to give up smoking. To be accepted as a volunteer to answer calls, you must be an ex-smoker yourself, as experience has shown that ex-smokers are far more useful in this role than people who haven't smoked. You can't help a person change if you do not thoroughly understand the situation they are in and the pressures they face.

In the same way, the people who can successfully teach others not to have their daughters operated on are those who are already part of the relevant cultures. If we want to help, that help has to be given through those sort of people if it is to be useful.

We must not forget that this operation has moulded the identities of women for over a thousand years. We can only encourage women to go against their traditions for the sake of their daughters if we treat them with respect and understanding.

[barb162]

256. You call it" these practices" as if they are HARMLESS little

acts. They are crimes against humanity.
And give it a break about "These cultures"
What about the beheadings?

[DemExpat]

45. Sorry, I have enough trouble with animal cruelty

issues, let alone atrocious bodily harm to young girls (or boys)....and yes, I do not support circumcism of male babies.

For those males without a choice, I do see it as human rights issue as well.

You are right about having doctors in our part of the world and in our society doing this procedure making it safer, but sorry, that would encourage the practice, and I would be out on the streets protesting if this ever became legal practice here.
Addicts are taking drugs themselves, FGM is harming another person, a child, without their consent - different issue entirely IMO.

Some human rights issues must be enforced - slavery, child labor, child prostitution, etc.......no matter how deeply cultural and accepted the practice harming the individual is.
Waiting for it to change naturally often doesn't work in issues like this, I'm afraid, and is condoning further unacceptable cruelty to girls.

DemEx

[manic expression]

50. Me, too

but the issues of culture does override some of the objections I have with this practice. It's like if you don't agree with bullfighting, but that doesn't mean you can strut into Madrid and tell everyone that they're immoral and they need to stop.

I think that it's good that you say the same about circumcision.

Well, I see your point about perhaps making it a more valid option, but then again, the option would still be there regardless. I understand why you would protest it, but I just think that if we make sure it's done correctly and adhere to some basic things, it would be a lot better.
There is that difference between the two issues, but at the same time, another difference is that FGM is cultural, and that is quite important IMO.

I would say encouraging change, as in offering symbolic and less harmful alternatives would be something that I wouldn't object to. However, trying to make a cultural bend to the will and sensibilities of the west is something that I've seen far too many times in the past, and it is something of the most terrible nature. For once, I'd like to see some perspective and understanding. We're not superior, and we should realize that our objections should not make us do away with another culture's way of life.

[pnwmom]

71. I can't express how strongly I disagree with you.

Unless I resorted to the kind of language I never use.

We are a nation of laws. These laws apply to everyone, native-born and immigrants alike. Girls here have full human rights. FGM is against the law, and we should be enforcing the law.

Families that disagree with OUR culture's view, that don't believe that females are fully human, that want to continue to subjugate them, shouldn't immigrate here.

Sometimes we need to draw a bright line.

[manic expression]

115. Yeah, probably

I know what you want to say, so you don't have to say it.

The fact is that the proposal we are talking about would change that very law. So, really, your argument is kind of meaningless. Furthermore, what I was saying was that on a broader scale, the practice of FGM in other countries should not be extinguished by westerners.

"Families that disagree with OUR culture's view, that don't believe that females are fully human, that want to continue to subjugate them, shouldn't immigrate here."

It is of the utmost arrogance to tell someone that their culture is now inferior and needs to be discarded. The notion that an outsider's sensibilities should dictate the fate of a culture is absolutely incorrect. The law, IMO, should be changed to this end.

[pnwmom]

184. It is of the utmost arrogance for men to move here knowing that

we have laws against FGM, child marriage, wife-beating, and honor killings -- and then go to courts or hospitals and ask us to ignore our laws because their PREVIOUS culture allowed these practices.

[DemExpat]

107. Culture never overrides child abuse/torture

cutting out a girl's entire life of sexual experience.

I have seen documentaries where educated women from the country/ethnic group itself go into the villages to try to educate the people and change this practice, and it is done very much with sentsitivity to tradition.
Also I think I have read where educated women tend to oppose the practice for their daughters.

I do understand your focus on cultural imperialism, but this has to do with torture and mutilation of young girls, and this to me definitely overrides any cultural or religious custom. IMO

DemEx

DemEx

[manic expression]

118. Culture needs consideration

Whatever you think of the practice, it is not an outsider's place to condemn something in another society.

I do like those solutions. Being sensitive to tradition, preserving the culture and making positive changes instead of destructive ones are all great. I would have no objection if the practice was turned into something symbolic or something that doesn't significantly damage the person.

Regardless of how torturous it may seem to us, the fact remains that it is a part of their way of life. That always deserves a great amount of understanding IMO.

[Crowdance]

136. Human Sacrifice--does it deserve a great amount of understanding?

It has played a key role in many cultures, and is still practiced by some cultures. Of course, we ridiculous Westerners insist on applying our own standards on those other cultures; why we even ARREST people for these cultural practices.

Here's a story about the sacrifice of a young boy in Great Britain, imported specifically for a ritual to gain favor from the gods: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4098172.stm

Here's a story about a human sacrifice performed by a Tantrist priest. Tantrism is an ancient Hindu sect, with a vast and long cultural tradition; surely we Westerners, with our short and crass history are not to judge this ancient and beautiful culture's practices.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2892333.stm

I hear there is great beauty in the rituals that sacrifice living beings to the gods. Unfortunately, the beauty is build on the suffering of my fellow beings. Culture is nothing--it is worse than nothing--if it does not serve to enhance life. Culture that supports the suffering and death of the human beings it encompasses is a cruel and evil construct, not something that any of us should condone.

If we are to claim the title "human" we must ensure that all we work toward is for the lifting up of humanity. To stand by and allow any component of any "culture" to destroy human beings, to reduce them in any way, is a craven act.

I'm feeling just a litle sick over this indifference to suffering.

[manic expression]

143. We should understand it

so that we can encourage a better solution for it. Although it is not a good practice, if we do not show perspective, we will make it far worse. If an outsider keeps the tradition intact while making sure the practice is un-harmful, that is better than ignorant colonialist imposition.

To be perfectly honest, I know little about the first link, but the second link I do know much about. Hindus oppose these rituals as much as, if not more than westerners. Therefore, the west can keep its mouth shut and let Hindus work it out, because they can and will and have. For instance, HINDUS, NOT whites, stopped the practice of Sati. It's time to stop thinking we're such morally superior Christian soldiers and start having a little respect, and yes, understanding.

If the rituals were, say, replaced with symbolic practices, then that would be good. If some white idiot tries to exterminate that culture, that is beyond wrong. Even when human sacrifice takes an integral part in a culture (hypothetical, by the way), that role needs to be respected and preserved, while the mere specifics of the practice (the difference between killing or not, for example) can be altered from within.

Furthermore, even if there is human suffering, it is ignorant to place our first impressions and sensibilities above the way of life of an entire people. The suffering is noted by those who do it, so it's not like they aren't aware of the pain it may cause. However, it still is their culture, and it is a part of their lives, and that cannot be fundamentally attacked whatsoever.

"Culture that supports the suffering and death of the human beings it encompasses is a cruel and evil construct, not something that any of us should condone."

Kind of like the only culture in the history of the world to use a nuclear weapon? Kind of like a culture that has been continuously guilty of genocide? Kind of like that? Oh, I didn't think so, because when WE do it, it's OK...when the "savages" do it, it's "cruel and evil". Please.

Polynesian body art hurt a lot, too. However, it WAS beautiful and important to Polynesian society. Ignorant, insipid westerners with good intentions and a lack of perspective destroyed it all. Why? Let's not make the same mistakes again.

"I'm feeling just a litle sick over this indifference to suffering."

I feel the same way over the wanton and blind hatred for other cultures.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

176. You're wrong about sati

For centuries, people in India thought burning widows alive was just dandy until the British banned it. Now it was Indians who actually enforced the law, but only after they had had outside influences.

[pnwmom]

185. I still haven't seen you address the issue of slavery , which

is also rooted in culture and tradition.

[Spinoza]

236. By this argument

".....Whatever you think of the practice, it is not an outsider's place to condemn something in another society."

non-Germans, even Jews, would not have the right to condemn German murder and persecution of Jews in the Holocaust. After all, it was their culture, right? What right had outsiders to criticize a different culturez/

Or if the German Holocaust doesn't work for you, try Southern Americans before the Civil War arguing exactly as you do, that the 'outsider' yankees had no 'place to condemn something in another society'. e.g. slavery.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

145. Just one question, Manicexpression,

are you male or female?

And if you are male, what would you say to a culture where little boys routinely had their penises cut off?

[manic expression]

161. Sure

I am a male.

I would say that the second question is hypothetical and therefore has little relevance on the discussion. The whole point is that REAL cultures should not be condemned, and that there should be perspective on real, existing cultures, not make believe ones.

[Lars39]

169. Women's health and lives should be placed above culture.

[pnwmom]

170. Real cultures, not hypothetical ones, accept slavery too. Are you in

favor of condoning slavery when it is practiced by a culture?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

175. So would you say that the South should have been allowed to

continue segregation because whites defended it as "part of their culture"? (They did, you know.)

White South Africans defended apartheid as "part of their culture."

Crazy flag-waving jingoism is part of American culture (or at least segments of it), and I criticize it plenty.

And my example of a society where some percentage of little boys were having their penises cut off may be hypothetical, but it's analogous. If it were boys being mutilated and condemned to a life of sexual frustration and other physical problems, would that be okay? Was it okay that some European countries used to castrate little boys to preserve their soprano voices?

[barb162]

86. AMEN

[PublicWrath]

56. Wait a second. You advocate allowing doctors to excise the clitoris

and sometimes remove the inner labia (sometimes also outer labia) and sew little girls shut? And how could doctors reconcile FGM with regard for women's health? My god, if the Western medical community ever condoned FGM and involved itself in this horror, what would that do to Western attitudes about women generally?

How many other charming practices would you like the West to regularize? How long would it be before we had to allow child marriage? Sewing little girls up in sacks made of animal skins at first menses?

No, I don't have any respect for cultural expressions like FGM. That's because I have a lot of respect for cultural expressions like protecting little girls from abuse. And that is the cultural imperative which has a claim to respect in America, and to enforcement by our laws.

[pnwmom]

80. Very well said, PublicWrath.

I had forgotten that it could also involve the removal of outer labia, although now I recall that too. The first time I heard about this I was absolutely sick. I remember reading something about using a sharp edged object to "scrape" off the labia and clitoris. All this done on a screaming little girl. It turned my stomach then and it still does. How anyone can argue this as a cultural matter is beyond me.

[OnionPatch]

113. In one book I read about FGM, they said it was routine

for the old woman who performed the clitorectomy to throw the offending piece of tissue, or "evil meat" they called it, out to the chickens, who would fight over it. :puke:

Sorry, but people need to know what a truly grusome practice FGM is.

[manic expression]

119. If you consider the alternative

which would see the same exact thing happen to the same exact people, except in a far more dangerous and unsafe situation, then having doctors perform the procedure is not so terrible.

Dare I say that it is like abortion; it's going to happen no matter what, so let's make sure it's as safe as possible. Also, as soon as we get it in the open, it will be more subject to change from all sides, something that in the long run will be best for all.

Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that this is a facet of a culture, and outsiders should not try to enforce their sensitivities on it. We have seen the damage ignorance of other societies has brought, even though the efforts which sucked the life out of those cultures may have had the best of intentions.

Polynesian body art was perhaps the most painful experience of its type, but it was something that was an integral part of their life and society. It was a cultural expression that should not have been extinguished, and we only have (maybe well intentioned) ignorance to thank for its destruction.

"Protecting little girls from abuse" is, in this case, the opposite of cultural expression. Your perception of the practice has no bearing on its importance for the people who do it. Let THEM change it for the better, let THEM work their traditions into non-harmful practices (even encourage it), but DO NOT try to impose your own outsider sensibilities upon yet another culture.

[Lars39]

120. Obey the 'Prime Directive', huh?

Sorry. There is no excuse for the continuation of this horrible practice.

[manic expression]

123. Not an excuse

it's called perspective. You may not see an excuse for its continuation, but you are not part of that society. That is really something that is important.

[Lars39]

126. If you want perspective, put yourself in the shoes of a young girl

who's had this done to her.

[manic expression]

130. The perspective I presume

is one which takes culture and society into account. I do not claim the practice is not excruciating or not extremely harmful, but I do claim that the practice is a part of a way of life. I am not about to put my values above the existence of an entire people's culture.

By the way, you can see that I've proposed solutions which would not involve a colonialist tinge. Making the practice symbolic or something of the like would be best IMO.

I don't like arguing these points, but the fact is that I do not want to be guilty of cultural ignorance in my own eyes. I could not encourage the doing away of a cultural practice, and that is what this is about for me.

[Lars39]

132. The practice is deadly;woman die from its effects.

Bottom line, you don't value these women's lives.

[manic expression]

133. Who said it isn't deadly

That's what the article is about. No one is saying the practice is "good" (I have actually said the opposite). However, I similarly see no "good" in an ignorant attempt to undo a cultural practice.

The bottom line is that I value cultures. I cannot say the same for those who would revert to colonialism.

I do find it interesting that a person from the same culture which caused millions upon millions upon millions of deaths would claim superiority in such a manner.

[Lars39]

134. Not sure you realized that since you seem to gloss over that fact

I find it interesting that you're trying to thrust a strawman into the conversation.

[manic expression]

135. Well, thank you for making sure I'm informed

It's not a strawman. What if someone from the regions which practice FGM strutted into your town and started telling you that your practices are inhumane and terrible? What if he told you that your country is guilty of genocide and countless atrocities? What if he told you that our country needed to cease in its ways and be more like his culture?

I'd say that although we ARE guilty of such things, it is something that must be solved openly and without a cross-cultural condemnation. Our culture is fine the way it is, but we should not be so flippant toward human life. What would you say?

[Lars39]

157. The analogy doesn't fly.

[manic expression]

158. Of course it does...think about it n/t

[pnwmom]

202. When we at DU hear people from other countries decrying our

country's behavior in Iraq or other places, we AGREE with them! We have enough humility to not defend our country and its practices when the practices are flat-out wrong.

Just as many women and other educated people are fighting FGM in their own countries and WELCOMING our support.

[pnwmom]

168. Slavery is cultural, too. That doesn't mean we should accept it ANYWHERE.

[pnwmom]

199. And what culture are you from? The ignorance is in the minds of

those who practice and condone FGM, not in those who oppose it.

No one is claiming superiority. Those who are arguing with you are saying that women and girls deserve full human rights, no matter where they live.

[pnwmom]

201. Guess what? A culture won't survive if it practices deadly customs.

You're acknowledging the fact that the practice is deadly, and yet you're supporting it on the basis that you value cultures.

In Africa, the time-honored traditions of FGM, polygamy, and male dominance are combining with HIV to wipe out a large fraction of a generation. Millions of children are orphaned because of the combination of these traditions with a deadly virus.

Soon there won't be much of a culture left to value.

[Scout]

213. The bottom line is that I value culture

and I guess you think it's just too fucking bad for all those little girls who are going to be mutilated, because they were born into that culture and have no control over what will be done to them.

If I was one of those little girls, and that was done to me, and I knew someone could have prevented it, I would grow up into one damn angry woman full of hate and resentment.

But as long as my culture is still ok, well, then tough shit for me, suck it up and live it with it girl.

[pnwmom]

186. When are you going to address slavery as a "facet of culture"?

[pnwmom]

112. When a man's human rights are threatened, it's political. Wars are started

over it. When a woman's human rights are threatened, it's cultural. And we're supposed to condone it.

You just don't get it.

[smirkymonkey]

156. He gets it, he's just a misogynist and feels that a man's right to

control a woman's sexuality is more important that a girl's/woman's right to live free of such mutilation. He's just disguising it behind the argument of "cultural sensitivity" but I would bet any amount of money that he just doesn't give a shit about what is happening to women and girls in these countries.

If it was the other way around, where women sexually mutilated men for life, I suppose we would hear quite a different tune.

[pnwmom]

167. The United Nations says it's not a cultural issue. It's a human rights

issue that affects women across many cultures around the world. This is why both the United Nations and Amnesty International have taken strong stands against it.

FGM and slavery have both been considered merely cultural issues in the past. Both are actually human rights issues.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm4.htm

FROM AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL:

"FGM is an issue that concerns women and men who believe in equality, dignity and fairness to all human beings, regardless of gender, race, religion or ethnic identity. It must not be seen as the problem of any one group or culture, whether African, Muslim or Christian. FGM is practiced by many cultures. It represents a human tragedy and must not be used to set Africans against non-Africans, one religious group against the other, or even women against men."

Nahid Toubia, A Call for Global Action

At a seminar organized by Amnesty International Ghana in early 1996, Hannah Koroma, Women’s Officer for Amnesty International’s members in Sierra Leone, recounted her traumatic experience at the age of 10:

"I was taken to a very dark room and undressed. I was blindfolded and stripped naked... I was forced to lie flat on my back by four strong women, two holding tight to each leg. Another woman sat on my chest to prevent my upper body from moving. A piece of cloth was forced in my mouth to stop me screaming. I was then shaved. When began, I put up a big fight. The pain was terrible and unbearable. During this fight I was badly cut and lost blood. All those who took part... were half drunk with alcohol."

UNITED NATIONS INITIATIVES

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm7.htm

1994 Plan of Action

"The Plan of Action states that FGM "is a human rights violation and not only a moral issue... is an expression of the societal gender subordination of women". It contains 62 measures for governments to take at a national level. Key among these are: giving a clear undertaking to end traditional practices, and in particular FGM; ratifying and implementing relevant international instruments; drafting legislation prohibiting such practices; and creating bodies and mechanisms to ensure adopted policies are implemented."

1997 Joint Plan

"In April 1997, three UN agencies - the World Health Organization, United Nations Children's Fund and United Nations Population Fund, unveiled a Joint Plan to bring about a major decline in FGM within ten years and to completely eradicate the practice within three generations."

"The plan takes a three-pronged approach: educating the public and law makers on the need to eliminate FGM; "de-medicalizing" FGM - tackling it as a violation of human rights as well as a danger to women€s health; and working with the entire UN system to encourage every African country to develop a national, culturally specific plan to eradicate FGM. The Joint Plan represents a welcome step towards greater integration and coordination of the activities of UN agencies on FGM. Now that recognition of FGM as a human rights issue has been reflected in international instruments, the challenge is to ensure that those instruments are translated into effective action at the national level. This goal can only be achieved in collaboration with the national and international NGOs who for years have been at the forefront of awareness-raising, lobbying and other eradication efforts. It is thanks to their efforts that progress at the international level has been made."

[adriennui]

52. we are talking of the practice of amputating the core of a woman's sexuali

a woman who most probably is at the beck and call of her husband for sex, who most probably goes through childbirth at least 6 times, and is at risk for grave infection, hemorrhage, or death.

it is not a harmless custom. it is the responsibility of the WHO to end this practice. we in the west aren't trusted and the tribes that practice this won't be that easily discouraged.

[pnwmom]

81. Unfortunately, it is also practiced in the U.S. in immigrant families,

and in other western countries. We could and should stop it here.

[manic expression]

121. No one said it was harmless

but I am also wary of the harm that enforcement of outsider sensibilities and customs has on entire peoples. Do not be so naive to believe that we are so superior to claim the best way. Their traditions, like them or not, are important and worth understanding; they can be changed organically, which can lead to a better future, as opposed to colonialist infractions.

As for a solution, it needs to happen as an organic process. It could be done symbolically, or in a way that is not significantly harmful to the female. However, we need to make sure we don't try to ignorantly "sivilize" the "savages", because that only leads to injustice that is monumental. Let the change happen naturally, without the wanton and truly harmful actions of the west.

[barb162]

261. What?

"Let the change happen naturally, without the wanton and truly harmful actions of the west"
So how many females die in between? Why assume it would even stop on its own...organically and naturally? How is it "injustice" to stop serious and unnecessary bodily injury to females? Stopping this bodily harm is justice. The "wanton and truly harmful actions" are not by the people of the West, who are usually outraged by these practices. When Mao took over China and stopped the practice of footbinding, China survived and the women were way better off for it. People who aren't allowed to practice FGM will survive too (let them figure some other way of enhancing their culture)and the women of the society will be better off for it.

[pnwmom]

68. You're right that our culture isn't free of bad practices.

But that doesn't justify FGM. And it especially doesn't justify allowing the practice in the U.S., where girls are supposed to have the same human rights, no matter what family they are born into.

[PublicWrath]

34. I quite agree. Sure, it's a cultural norm in some parts of the world.

Some societies stone women for adultery. Slavery is still common in some cultures. And all these traditions are wrong and should be stopped.

"When men are oppressed, it's a tragedy.
When women are oppressed, it's a tradition."

-Gloria Steinem

[pnwmom]

72. thank you, PubicWrath. And might I add,

those practices aren't legal in the U.S. either. Should we legalize them because they are "cultural" practices? Or "help" them carry out these practices in a better way?

[PublicWrath]

91. We should prosecute for child abuse and aggravated assault.

Because it IS child abuse and aggravated assault. At the very least.

[pnwmom]

93. That's what I think, too. But doctors seem afraid that they will hurt

the women more if they expose the practice.

[PublicWrath]

102. Some Family Court judges and psychologists used to say that removing

incestuous fathers from the home or putting them in prison would be bad for the family and cause the little girls to suffer from too much guilt.

Oh btw, I just finished a book about polygamy in contemporary America called, "God's Brothel". One of the cases covered mentions a self-appointed prophet who performed an improvised clitoridectomy on one of his "wives", (with a sharpened coathanger, I believe). She left him the next day. I've been expecting FGM to make a culture jump with some fundy groups, so I was alarmed, but not surprised. They'll be doing it to little girls next. Maybe some already are doing it.

This is just one more reason, I think we have to take an active stand against FGM. It's going to spread to fundy cults.

[pnwmom]

103. I have a horrible feeling you're right.

We do have to draw the line. If not now, with this issue, then when?

[AngryAmish]

54. as a Westerner, I can say with utter certainty that FGM is beastly

It is a practice with no redeeming value. Sati was a beastly practice, one justly stamped out by Westerners.

[manic expression]

122. As a human being, I can say that such a sentiment is ignorant

You would be so arrogant as to claim superiority in culture? You would be so insane as to claim righteousness, while you stamp upon not only a culture but an entire people? You would be so blind as to be unaware of the importance of traditions and cultures? You would be so asinine as to think enforcing one culture's values upon another is constructive?

Face it: your sensibilities have NO BEARING on the importance the practice has within the culture. The practice is something that is a part of their society and way of life, and your insipid ideas would only destroy the way of an entire people.

If you knew anything, you'd know that Sati was stopped mostly because of the efforts of HINDU REFORMERS, not the wholesome whites you hold in such high accord. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was one such reformer.

Why don't you run along and read "The Placation of the Tribes of the Upper Niger"? :puke:

[AngryAmish]

172. Sati would have stopped without the Raj?

[pnwmom]

187. As a human being, I can say that those who practice FMG are ignorant.

But those who use their intellect to promote it are worse.

[pnwmom]

60. Okay. But what do you think we should do when they immigrate HERE

and want to continue their cultural practices. We have a significant population from the Sudan in our area, and they think they should be allowed to continue genital mutilation. Should we legalize it because it is cultural? Do girls born into immigrant families have fewer rights than girls born into non-immigrant families?

[barb162]

96. No M.D. in this country should ever do it

The Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm. The doc should lose her/his license. I cannot see how physically harming a baby or young girl can be or should be made allowable under our laws. It's like allowing honor killings here because it's a cultural practice elsewhere. It is simply unacceptable

[pnwmom]

99. I agree. If our country stands for anything, it is for a cultural

attitude that both men and women are fully human and share human rights.

[ContraBass Black]

37. I understand the reason for using neutral language,

But I thought this was about episiotomy until the third paragraph.

[mike_c]

47. so did I.....

eom

[eppur_se_muova]

44. Thanks for posting this, DMM. I saw a BBC article on this but didn't post

because there didn't seem to be much mention of the health effect on the mothers--only the babies. Struck me as rather a strange omission. Maybe it was just unclear wording on their part.

[genieroze]

75. Call it what it is, Female Castration!

[pnwmom]

82. Good point.

[pnwmom]

87. Thanks for the posting, DeepModem Mom

I hope it's been very educational.

[burrowowl]

95. In reply to many that think that excision of the clitoris

is the equivalent of circumcision:

clitorial excision removes part of the uretha, the tube you pee throught.
Circumcision DOES NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Clitorial excision is like removing the glans of the penis and part of the ureatha!

Improper cleaning of the area covered by the foreskin results in infections. Circumcision also reduces chanes of infecting others with aids and the virus that gives women cervical cancer.

[pnwmom]

100. You're right, burrowowl.

The benefits vs. risks of male circumcision are controversial -- as opposed to FGM, where the benefits are NON-EXISTENT. This is why the American Pediatric Society is currently straddling the fence on the issue of male circumcision, but not on FGM.

A number of studies have shown that male circumcision reduces the risk of urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can occur without noticeable symptoms and result in serious kidney infections. Also, as you mentioned, studies have suggested that circumcision can reduce the spread of the AIDS virus (unfortunately, it only seems to reduce infections in men, as I recall) and can lower the risk of cervical cancer in women with circumcised partners. Large scale studies are currently being conducted in Africa, where AIDS is an ever-growing problem, which may help to settle the issue, at least in the developing world, where good sanitary practices are harder to maintain.

[PetraPooh]

117. I believe you are wrong about the urethra being cut.

I would welcome an MD to address this, but a woman's urethra is not involved or close enough to the clitoris to be cut during a clitoral excision.

Furthermore, my clitoris for whatever bizarre reason is set in such a way as to NEVER be stimulated during intercourse. In addition due to a somewhat botched open heart surgery when I was four years old, I have ZERO feeling in my breasts. So even though neither of my sexual pleasure centers actually offer any pleasure; I have had a long and happy relationship with sex. As I read through all these posts regarding the supposed unfairness of removing a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure, I keep wondering what the big deal is. Also I would like to point out the a huge percentage of perfectly normal women have been complaining for decades that they have to "fake" orgasms on a regular basis anyway, with many women in their older years claiming to have never had an orgasm at all. My point being that having a clitoris doesn't exactly guarantee sexual satisfaction.

Now do I agree with this type of circumcision, I don't think so. BUT, seems like the main points here are somewhat invalid to forcing our views on others. If the health and lives of women and children during childbirth are an issue; that could easily be solved by exchanging natural childbirth with c-sections, that are becoming quite ordinary here in the states even when there is no medical reason to have one (ie they are for convenience of the mother).

Since the goal, I am assuming, is to improve the outcomes of childbirth for these women; I think we should be looking into more than just ranting about the "evilness" of the procedure itself.

[Lars39]

131. You haven't been mutilated, you are made differently and have

learned to cope.
"As I read through all these posts regarding the supposed unfairness of removing a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure, I keep wondering what the big deal is." Unbelievable.

[PetraPooh]

149. Well, the primary arguments against this practice on this thread seem

to be focused on the idea that a woman must have a clitoris to enjoy sex. And that conversely, every woman with a clitoris enjoys sex. Neither of these assumptions is true. I posted above that one of my OBGYN's would sew these women back together after they had come the states and had sex casually while here. From the lengthly conversations we had about this, I never once got the impression that the women she was sewing back up had disfunctional sex or had only had sex once because of pain or any of the suggestions set forth here. And though you seem to choose to focus on only one sentence of my post; I do comment on the concept that MANY women with untampered with genitalia don't ever enjoy sex for a variety of reasons.

Mutilation occurs willingly throughout the world for a variety of ridiculous reasons whether it be a nose job, a boob job, lyposuction, penile enlargements; the list is long. I just don't see why everyone seems so focused on the right or wrongness of this type of mutilation. I personally think putting children (and adults) through years of chemotherapy and radiation therapy for cancers that are known to not likely be cured is far more horrific than this, and yet in these states a parent can go to prison and have their children taken away if they don't force a child to go through this.

[pnwmom]

188. If you read the posts where the operations are described,

you'll see that there is often a great deal of scar tissue and adhesions that also form, that can make sex painful throughout life.

And that is the point, really. To keep women's sex drive in line.

[fleabert]

152. you are advocating that instead of educating people about the

risks of FGM- we instead push for a forced C-section for women who have it done? Major abdominal surgery?

Just because something is common doesn't make it safe. A high c-section rate in any area is usually more about convenience than about safety for the mother and child.

Ending FGM is a much better solution than forcing ANOTHER surgery on these women.

sheesh.

[fleabert]

151. the female equivalent to male circ is the removal of the clitoral hood-

a form of female circumcision that is practiced, and is condemned by WHO and western culture/medicine.

(so is routine male circumcision)

Not one medical entity advocates or supports routine male infant circ. The studies you casually refer to in your comments have been refuted and proved false many times over. the samples sizes and control groups in many were stilted in order to derive the results that were achieved, I give them no credit.

Improper cleaning of female genitalia also results in infections- it's one of the reasons people who advocate FGM use to support their practice of removing labia.

It's really quite easy to teach a little boy to clean his penis properly.

condoms are the most effective way to reduce the chances of infecting a partner with HIV and HPV, among other STD's- and a less permanent one than circumcision (and one the person chooses of their own free will, unlike circ.)

[BlueIris]

166. Thanks for defining the difference there, for those who skipped upthread.

It always enrages me when people don't understand the distinction, no matter what point they're trying to discuss when they equate the two. GOD. People need to be educated about their bodies.

[pnwmom]

189. Early results from the World Health Organizations large scale studies

point to a value in male circumcision for reducing HIV transmission. The results will be out early next year. Until then, we can agree to disagree.

[fleabert]

192. removing my uterus will result in a 100% reduction in cervical cancer risk

we will have to agree to disagree.

I will be curious to see the sampling groups used, and if they were similar to those done in Africa in the past.

[pnwmom]

197. I"m sure you realize that the AIDS rate in Africa is far higher than

the rate of cervical cancer anywhere.

[fleabert]

208. I am sure that you realize I was overstating the simple truth that a

permanent, painful, potentially dangerous surgery is so much worse than the implementation of a painless, temporary, riskless device- the condom. Esp. when the permanent choice is one not made by the individual receiving the surgery.

sex ed, condom availability, and money (for support, education, protection, and women's shelters) would make the largest dent in the AIDS crisis in Africa. That and religious leaders advocating the use of condoms. I don't see forced surgery on infants to remove part of the genitalia as the answer, male or female.

[pnwmom]

214. 3 yr. study of male circumcision shows 60% reduction in HIV contraction

in a study conducted in Africa. Preliminary results of larger-scale follow up studies are expected to be announced later this month.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2209173,00.html

"FIVE southern African countries that have been hit hard by the Aids pandemic want to encourage men to be circumcised after a study indicated that the procedure reduced dramatically the risk of HIV infection.

"Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia were holding talks with the UN Aids agency on making circumcision more accessible to men as part of HIV prevention efforts, a UN Aids adviser said.

"A three-year study involving 3,274 men aged 18 to 24 in a South African township suggested that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 60 per cent. “What we showed was a dramatic effect. Those who were circumcised were protected against acquiring HIV,” said Adrian Purven, the deputy director of the Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who led the study. So conclusive were the results that the researchers stopped the study in July and offered circumcision to all the men taking part.

"UN Aids officials have launched two similar studies in Uganda and Kenya involving nearly 8,000 men. Interim results this month could establish the use of male circumcision in fighting against Aids. “This could be revolutionary for prevention but it is important to say this is not the silver bullet,” said Mr Lundstrom, who emphasised that condoms still offered the best protection against HIV."

[fleabert]

215. we will have to disagree.

“This could be revolutionary for prevention but it is important to say this is not the silver bullet,” said Mr Lundstrom, who emphasised that condoms still offered the best protection against HIV."

I do not advocate using a painful, involuntary, dangerous surgery to possibly prevent a disease that can be easily prevented by the use of a condom.

the studies that I have read- meaning the actual study, not the articles about the study- were based on a sample of intact men that frequented prostitutes, while the cut men did not. I am curious to know the parameters of this study you cite.

edit: html

[pnwmom]

216. This is a study conducted in Africa, in places where polygamy

and lack of easy access to clean water can add to the problem.

[fleabert]

226. all of the studies with these findings are done in africa.

with poor statistics and even worse control and sample groups.

condom use is still the undisputed best way to prevent AIDS and other std's

[pnwmom]

228. Is that racist or what? Wow.

"Poor statistics and even worse control and sample groups?" Because the studies are done in Africa?

I'm really shocked that someone would say this. Don't you think non-Westerners are capable of carrying out good studies? Sorry, but the studies are being conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organization and the United Nations, which have a very serious interest in getting good research done.

And the U.N.'s strong recommendation is to continue to use condoms as the mainstay, while adding male circumcisions, vaccines, and biocides as preventative measures. No one wants to discourage condom use.

[fleabert]

232. no. not racist.

I refuse to get upset about this offensive remark and will just say that the groups were chosen purposely to obtain the test results the researchers wanted. they are flawed studies by their design, from a scientific perspective. You misunderstand me. It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with who is conducting the study, and what their intentions are- it ain't condom manufacturers, for sure.

I am vehemently opposed to inflicting a permanent, painful, dangerous 'solution' on a population that has no say in the matter, infant boys.

the studies were flawed in part because the sample group of intact men were mostly made up of men that frequented prostitutes, and the cut men did not. One must account for that to make the study results comparative, they did not.

ps- do you know many racists that marry men of color?

[pnwmom]

233. Where is the information about the study or studies you are referring

to? In what country were they conducted? You don't know that we're talking about the same ones.

[fleabert]

237. it's been several years since I was involved in this research

the info is on my old, dead computer. Every single study that I researched that supported the idea of routine circumcision as a preventative measure for AIDS was performed in Africa, there were three at the time that had been discarded by the professional birth community as poorly executed. It is generally accepted in my peer group (doula's) that these studies were poorly conducted and are disreputable. and not because of 'africa'...because of the lack of good, solid research.

it would take me some time for me to pull all of the documentation together, but rest assured, a quick google should get you some decent results.

midwifery and doula sites are a good start.

[pnwmom]

245. Newer research was conducted by the WHO and announced last July.

There are two more large scale studies being conducted under the auspices of the U.N. whose preliminary results are expected to be released this summer. Together, these studies are expected to provide the definitive answer. Note that the latter two studies "will be important to clarify the relationship between male circumcision and HIV in differing social and cultural contexts." In other words, they are expected to address the cultural issues that muddied the results of the earlier research.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr32/en/

"26 JULY 2005 | RIO DE JANEIRO -- The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS notes with considerable interest the results of a trial examining the potential link between male circumcision and a lower risk of HIV acquisition that were presented today at the 3rd International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment, being held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The trial was carried out in Gauteng province in South Africa among men aged 18-24 years and was funded by the French Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA (ANRS).

"Although the trial shows promising protective effects of adult male circumcision in reducing HIV acquisition, UNAIDS emphasizes that more research is needed to confirm the reproducibility of the findings of this trial and whether or not the results have more general application. In particular the findings from two ongoing trials in Uganda and Kenya, funded by the US National Institutes of Health, will be important to clarify the relationship between male circumcision and HIV in differing social and cultural contexts.

"The results of these trials will need to be considered by governments and other key stakeholders in order to determine whether male circumcision should be promoted as an additional public health intervention to reduce the risk of sexual transmission of HIV.

"If male circumcision is confirmed to be an effective intervention to reduce risk of acquiring HIV, this will not mean that men will be prevented from becoming infected with HIV during sexual intercourse through circumcision alone. Nor does male circumcision provide protection for sexual partners against HIV infection. It will therefore be essential that it be part of a comprehensive prevention package, which includes correct and consistent condom use, behaviour change, and voluntary counselling and testing. Any new prevention modality must not undermine existing protective behaviours and prevention strategies that reduce the risk of HIV transmission."

MORE HERE:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL&type=printableL

"French and South African AIDS researchers have called an early halt to a study of adult male circumcision to reduce HIV infection after initial results reportedly showed that men who had the procedure dramatically lowered their risk of contracting the virus.

"The study's preliminary results, disclosed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal, showed that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 70 percent -- a level of protection far better than the 30 percent risk reduction set as a target for an AIDS vaccine.

"According to the newspaper account, the study under way in Orange Farm township, South Africa, was stopped because the results were so favorable. It was deemed unethical to continue the trial after an early peek at data showed that the uncircumcised men were so much more likely to become infected."

The problem, as I understand it from reading elsewhere, is not whether the results are valid or not -- they were received with a great deal of interest at the July international aids conference in Brazil. The problem is that the dramatic drop in transmission because of circumcision benefits the man who has the circumcision, but not the female partner (who is exposed to the virus through the semen). While they think male circumcisions could sharply reduce the infection in males, they don't want men to stop using condoms, both for their own sake and for the sake of their partners.

No one is saying that condoms don't provide the most protection, but that other measures should be taken, too, including circumcision, biocides, and vaccines. Circumcisions are a preventative measure that can be offered immediately, while the others are in development.

[fleabert]

252. i saw all that last year too.

I have yet to see the actual study, just articles about it. Forgive me if I have some doubt based on my previous research- gimme the actual study.

i refuse to accept that cutting of a piece of a baby's penis is the answer to AIDS prevention. The same way I would refuse to accept that a hoodectomy on infant girls would be the answer to AIDS prevention (just wait for that research to come out...)

if adults are choosing to do this to their own bodies, fine. I will not EVER support a permanent, painful, forced surgery on an infant as a supposed 'solution', when condom use is more effective.

I don't understand why you keep hammering this with me yet don't see my point- I keep saying it over and over. I don't support female or male routine circumcision- for anyone under the age of consent. It's that simple. i want the world to stop cutting up babies and young children. period.

btw- thanks a lot for taking back the racist accusation.

[pnwmom]

264. Your earlier post seemed to dismiss the studies because they were

conducted in Africa. I had no way to know the race of your spouse, but clearly I wouldn't have thought you were racist if I had known. My apologies!

[fleabert]

272. thank you.

I certainly didn't intend to imply that the location was part of the problem, simply that there had been multiple studies with the same results, that had the same study parameter problems, and they were all done in Africa. Race was not at all an issue. I would love to know who funded these studies, all of them. (that is something I wish all medical studies were required to disclose in huge letters on the front page)

all that aside, I think we are in the same camp when it comes to FGM- and that is a good thing. I will be sure to let you know (and vice versa please) if I get my hands on the most recent study parameters and methodology.

I think everyone, WHO and UN included, want a quick fix, and are even quicker to look longingly at any study that says __________reduces HIV/AIDS. It's very understandable. I just happen to be a rabid anti-circ person and refuse to accept it as an acceptable preventative measure for a population that won't even be having sex until at least puberty!

[HuckleB]

274. Not large scale studies.

Studies, yes. But not large scale. Also, is it not possible that those who were circumsized came from wealthier families with different cultural cleansing opportunities, and/or sexual mores? If so, wouldn't this be a very drastic but worthless way to proceed?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

177. Actually, the urethra doesn't pass through the clitoris

However, if the labia are sewn up too tightly, as in the most extreme forms of FGM, it can make urination--and menstruation-- difficult and painful.

[burrowowl]

194. Many times the entire clitoris is removed

and the surgery is not necessiarily precise and the end of the uretha is affected. Along with as you say the labia being sewn up too tightly.

[pnwmom]

227. I'm going to be sick.

[pnwmom]

101. "The study found that the women who had undergone genital cutting

of any degree of severity and their babies were more likely to die during childbirth. More extensive genital cutting produced the highest rates of maternal and infant death during childbirth, even many years later.

"The lesser forms of cutting caused about a 20 percent increase in death rates, while extensive procedures caused increases of more than 50 percent.

"By almost all measures studied by the World Health Organization, a history of genital cutting put both mother and baby at risk. Mothers who had had the procedure had longer hospital stays, experienced more blood loss, and were more likely to need a Caesarean section. Babies were nearly twice as likely to require resuscitation at birth.

"The researchers noted that the study almost certainly underestimated the potential for death and damage, because it only tracked women who delivered their babies in hospitals."

SNIP

In other words, according to the NY Times article cited in the OP, ANY DEGREE OF CUTTING INCREASES DEATH in childbirth, for the mother and for her baby.

[sutz12]

108. I'm all for pointing out the medical consequences of this

But how about we ban this procedure because it is a disgusting, medieval, oppressive thing to do?

[pnwmom]

110. Absolutely.

[onager]

105. Some horrifying personal accounts in this great book..

Khul-Khaal: Five Egyptian Women Tell Their Stories by Nayra Atiya

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0815601816/103-0812004-9079044?v=glance&n=283155

I've been in Egypt for quite a few months now (and am still here, in Alexandria).

An Egyptian woman recommended this book to me. It's an interesting look into the lives of poor and mostly rural Egyptian women. ("Khul-khaal" means "anklet," and refers to the anklets often worn by married women in rural Egypt.)

Four out of 5 women in the book had been circumcised. (The fifth is a Copt--Egyptian Christian. They don't normally practise FGM, but in some villages they do. I would guess strictly from peer pressure.)

Their stories of this barbaric "procedure" are horrifying. One woman remembered that her mother prepared a special treat for her after the cutting--lemonade. She says she has not been able to stomach the taste of lemonade ever since...

[onager]

114. How about a tattooed toddler?

OK, some Middle East expert explain this to me.

I was just out walking around Alexandria. A woman, and a man carrying a little girl, came out of a park. The kid was maybe 2 years old, if even that. A tiny little thing.

The baby was tattooed from roughly ankle to knee with strange designs: lines, dots and triangles, and one symbol that looked like the Eye Of Horus. (He's still popular around here, despite 20 centuries of dour monotheism from the Xians and Muslims. My job site is near the Egyptian town of Dammanhor, which translates as "City Of Horus.")

At first I thought what any decent, liberal modern 'Murican would think: Those are fake.

Then I saw that her mother's arms were tattooed with similar designs. Those were definitely not fake. The tattoos were as weathered as the woman's skin.

Now I know some Bedouin tribes tattoo women, and that's not an uncommon sight here in Egypt. Those range from small lines tattooed under the chin, to a pattern of small dots on the face or lines/dots on the arms...like the baby's mom had. In some tribes, tattoos advertised a woman's skills--good weaver, excellent bread-maker, can carry 4 live chickens on her head, etc. And that, of course, increased her value in marriage.

But I've never heard of it being done to babies. Maybe they were fake. I sure hope so.

The father had no tattoos, which is not surprising. Tattoos are taboo in Islam, though you occasionally see men with them. Ironically, one of the most common tattoos is also one of the most common Islamic religious symbols: the crescent moon.

[fleabert]

153. I think it's terrible. but I also think piercing an infants ears is awful.

Change of the human form should come about only from the human that's changing.

(ps- I am pierced and tattoo'd) :-)

(pps- I also would never dock my dog's tail or ears)

[BlueIris]

165. No shit? In other news, Bush is the worst president ever.

[pnwmom]

190. Thanks for the laugh, BlueIris.

[pnwmom]

191. United Nations says "tradition" does not excuse FMG or other violence

against women and children; and compares FMG to dowry deaths, domestic violence, and acid attacks.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm5.htm

The United Nations strongly opposes FMG, and rejects the idea that it be accepted as a cultural issue.

"General Recommendation 19 draws a connection between traditional attitudes which subordinate women, and violent practices such as FGM, domestic violence, dowry deaths and acid attacks, stating that: "Such prejudices and practices may justify gender-based violence as a form of protection or control of women". The Recommendation also recognizes that violence against women not only deprives them of their civil and political rights (such as the right to physical integrity); it denies them their social and economic rights: "While this comment addresses mainly actual or threatened violence, the underlying (structural) consequences of these forms of gender-based violence help to maintain women in their subordinate roles, contribute to their low level of participation and to their lower level of education, skills and work opportunities."

"The provisions of the Convention are strengthened and complemented by the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, adopted by the General Assembly in 1993. It addresses gender-based violence "both in public or private life", and includes within its scope FGM and other traditional practices harmful to women. Article 4 provides that states should not invoke any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligation to eliminate violence against women. The Declaration sets out an internationally recognized framework for action by governments. It details the measures states should adopt to prevent, punish and eradicate such violence. These duties include due diligence in investigating and imposing penalties for violence and establishing effective protective measures.

"The UN Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, resulting from the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, contains a clear condemnation of FGM as a form of violence against women and reaffirms the responsibility of states to take action to curb such violence.

"FGM and the rights of the child
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was the first binding instrument explicitly addressing harmful traditional practices as a human rights violation. It obliges governments to "take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child" (Article 19(1)). Article 24 (3) of the Convention specifically requires governments to "take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children."

[DemExpat]

204. Thanks for finding this and posting it.

I would have been really discourgaged if the UN had stated otherwise.

DemEx

[pnwmom]

205. Me, too.

And you're welcome.

(This whole thread was discouraging enough.)

[Quantess]

196. I will get flamed for this, I know.

Darwinian?
Stupid practices get people tossed out of the gene pool.

[ismnotwasm]

200. Goddammit

We got your rape apologists. We have your spousal abuse apologists. We have general misogyny bullshit behavior apologists. I'm sick of the WORD apologist but I'm practicing nice language at 2am, I'll use it. Now we have female MUTILATION apologists.
So a little girl has her labia and clitoris cut off with a piece of broken glass while being held down by her grandma but hey, don't judge, it's just cultural.

For some, evidently the only way to get this back into "perspective" is to bring back the Eunuch. Once a very acceptable practice. We can bring back a time-honored cultural tradition. The pain stops after a while, and you won't have to worry about that pesky facial hair. Decreases the chance of testicular cancer as well. Loads of benefits. Any volunteers?

[DemExpat]

203. I find myself wondering if the FGM apologists are pulling our legs....

for I find this almost as abhorrent as the practice itself.

:crazy:

DemEx

[Lydia Leftcoast]

206. Anything a culture does to women is just its "culture" according to

the misogynists.

A newspaper columnist in Portland once wrote a wonderful column about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. She pointed out that if any country put the same kind of restrictions on a racial minority (both males and females) that Saudi Arabia puts on women, they'd be condemned by the United Nations, as apartheid-era South Africa rightfully was (while South Africa insisted that apartheid was "part of its culture.")

She asked the readers to imagine a society where black people (male and female) were required to cover themselves head to toe out in public, were not allowed to drive or hold certain jobs, were not allowed to do any number of things without permission from a white person, and could be killed or beaten for not following these rules.

Of course the whole world would be up in arms.

But since it's "just" women in Saudi Arabia who are under those kinds of restrictions, why, it's "their culture," so its okay.

The hell with that noise, as my grandmother used to say.

[onager]

207. And yet not even Saudi Arabia is big on FGM

That's baffling to me. I lived in Saudi Arabia for 2 years, and you've probably seen my rants about that elsewhere.

In comparison to Saudi, Egypt seems so much more modern and liberal that it was a real shock to find FGM so prevalent.

Over at the Human Rights Watch website, they mention that in 1994 Egypt announced it was "making progress" or had "almost eliminated" FGM or somesuch BS. The govt. was immediately embarassed by a study showing that over 80% of Egyptian females had been cut.

Religion may not be the driving force behind it, but it is certainly used as a justification. In rural Egypt you'll hear the statement that a woman cannot be a Muslim unless she is circumsized. (That's in the book I mentioned above.)

But otherwise, as I said, the difference is like night and day. Here in Egypt, when I'm walking around with my camera, whole gaggles of young girls, mostly teens, will come up and ask me to take their picture. They're obviously Muslim in most cases. They're wearing the hijab (head covering).

If I had tried that in Saudi Arabia I would have gone straight to jail. I don't even want to THINK about what would have happened to the girls.

Things like this never happened in Saudi Arabia, either:

One day in a farm village here in Egypt I was taking pictures of some little kids. One little girl ran over and grabbed a baby boy from his Mom, just to get him in the photo.

A few days later I had prints made and passed them out. The Mom, holding her little boy, was standing across the road and one of the local men started yelling at her.

I asked my translator/driver if something was wrong. For a second I had visions that I had committed some horrible offense and the woman was in trouble.

"No, nothing's wrong," the translator said. "He's just telling her not to be so shy. To come on over and talk to you."

She eventually did. Naturally she wanted to ask about the pictures of her baby. Some things really are the same all over the world. I made sure she got a copy of the pic.

And one guy wanted a picture of his little girl, who is about 9 or so. Talk about shy! He had to get her by the arm and literally drag her over to get her picture made. She didn't smile once, in any of the pics. Not the first time.

Happily, she's now completely over that and has turned into a total ham. (Poor choice of words for a Muslim country, I know...)

Whenever she sees the camera she's right in the front of the line to get her picture made. And if she's outside when our car comes thru the village, she gives me a big wave and a smile and hollers at me. That's kind of nice.

[pnwmom]

223. Those are some really interesting stories, Onager.

Are you working over there? Is your camera part of your work, or is that just for fun?

And, I hope you don't mind if I ask, are you a man or a woman?

[onager]

229. The camera's just for fun.

Yes, I'm a-working over here as a Field Engineer. I think that's my job title. This week, anyway...

I'm a man and don't mind you asking at all. Considering the subject matter, I probably should have made that clear already.

Wherever I go I generally like to read up on the local area. One of the books I've picked up here to read soon is Leila Ahmed's Women And Gender In Islam: Historical Roots of a Modern Debate.

Published by the American University in Cairo (AUC) Press, like many good books about Egypt, if you're interested in doing some reading on the subject yourself.

I'm a little surprised this one snuck past the Egyptian censors, who are very active and get a lot of help from such objective...cough, cough...experts as the Islamic Research Academy. But like censors all over the world, they tend to censor titles that really catch their eye, so a lot of stuff that would probably horrify them gets passed right up. (However, the Film Censor Board just banned "The Da Vinci Code" in Egypt. Bootleg copies will be available at all newsstands any day now, though...)

If anyone is coming here on vacation, make sure you read the AUC's recent reprint of E.M. Forster's classic Alexandria: A History And A Guide. Dated--it was first published in 1922, IIRC--but well worth reading.

[pnwmom]

234. thanks Onager!

Um . . . I would sure feel isolated if my husband ever got an assignment in a place like that. Do you have a family with you or is this an adventure of your own?

That's interesting that so many people in Egypt don't seem uncomfortable about having you approach women with cameras. And it's good, too, if it means that they don't all hate Americans . . . yet.

[onager]

260. You're welcome!

:hi:

I'm here alone. (Divorced for many years and childless.)

The Egyptians still like Americans, in general. I haven't had one cross word (or glance) directed at me in many months. Just the opposite. It's quite an experience to have VERY poor people try to give you part of their lunch--just because you're a foreigner and they want you to feel welcome. (That's happened to me many times.)

Now our government is a different story. If Zogby polled Egyptians about The Shrub's current popularity, lemme tell you, 20 per cent would be an upgrade for him over here.

That's a remarkably consistent opinion, too. I get to talk to Egyptians from many different walks of life. They ALL hate him.

[pnwmom]

265. I'm glad to know that they still differentiate ordinary Americans from

our Administration. Part of that must be because good people like you are also representing us over there.

But I wonder how long before they give up on us all?

[Triana]

218. Interesting how they package it up...

...in order to continue getting away with it. Put female castration/genital mutilation/torture into a box that says "culture" and sell it that way.

McDonalds is in a pretty box too. Doesn't mean it's decent food. Even for a dog.

The same garbage is inside no matter what the box or label says.

[pnwmom]

220. Related to this, I read about a situation in France.

A white woman with some sort of mental disorder was prosecuted for sexually mutilating her daughter. But when authorities were confronted with families of immigrants from Africa who were doing the same thing, they were hesitant to prosecute, on the grounds that FGM was a cultural matter. But others -- other black immigrants, as I recall -- said that it would be racist for the state to say it is a crime when a white girl is mutilated, but not when the victim is a black girl.

[redqueen]

235. Woman is the *!%%#) of the world.

Someday...

[barb162]

281. Never met your grandma, but I like her

[fleabert]

209. can I nominate someone?

[pnwmom]

224. I'll second

[Triana]

217. Female CASTRATION

...yet another term they avoid -- but that's what IT IS.

[nodehopper]

263. technically, no

castration, by definition, is the use of surgical or medical techniques to eliminate testosterone produced by the testes in a male. If you wanted to extrapolate from that to a non-gender analogy-definition, it would have to be interference with female production of estrogen. Who needs that term, anyway? It's mutilation, plain and simple.

[Kailassa]

271. To be pedantic, the removal of the ovaries is also castration.

But you are right that the term does not belong in this discussion.

The effect of castration in men is to eliminate testosterone production, but castration means the removal or destruction of the gonads, the gamete producing glands. Ovaries are also gonads.

[bobbieinok]

219. what I learned about this ..

It destroys all pleasure in sex for the woman. This would be a major means of controlling women; if there is no pleasure in sex, why would a woman commit adultery?

In cultures where it is practised, women demand that young girls undergo this 'in order to be marriageable.'

Something similar to this was advocated/done in the 19th century to 'control girls.' (Wasn't something like this suggested by Charlotte Perkins Gilman's doctor?? She was the author of The Yellow Wallpaper.)

****

A big question I have

--doesn't the fact that bleeding occurs in intercourse radically increase the possibility of HIV infection??

--would this be why areas of Africa have no young adults and children are being raised by grand-parents??

****

Those claiming that this is a cultural practice that the West should not mess with are akin to those claiming the practice of Indian women throwing (being forced to throw) themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres is a cultural practice that the West should not mess with.

[pnwmom]

225. You're right. Part of the reason that the U.N. and local governments

urgently want to stop FGM is that it does lead to higher rates of HIV transmission, both when the procedure is performed using unclean instruments, and later when the women are susceptible to bleeding during sex.

And the U.N. groups FGM in with other forms of violence toward women -- like killing widows, honor killings, acid burnings, etc., -- that cannot be excused by any claim of culture or tradition.

[barb162]

259. To me ,these acts are crimes and the people doing

them should be prosecuted to the hilt. They are very serious, inexcusable crimes against women, nothing less.

[TankLV]

238. Sorry - I passed out after "genital" and "cutting"!

What was the question again?

[Kailassa]

250. Just be glad you're not a straight guy in Egypt, ...

being given a knife to take to bed on his wedding night.

Some aspects of this tradition are pretty horrible for men too.

Enough to make a guy turn gay, if you ask me. ;-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

251. That's not done in Egypt, but in some of the other parts of Africa

:scared:

[Kailassa]

269. It might not be common in Egypt, but I mentioned Egypt because

I knew a man who looked like having to do just that. However, when he obviously couldn't go through with that, The girl's family did it for him on her wedding night.

The practice is not only horrible for the women, but it's not particularly nice for the men either, as they are then stuck with, at best, unresponsive partners.

[barb162]

262. I would ask what you mean here, but I'm afraid of the answer

[iverglas]

266. allow me -- and it's time the squeamish paid attention

(grammar fix)


The actual nature of the forms of FGM at the serious end of things that the initial post was about really seems to be escaping a lot of people (not talking to/about you here).

In the most extreme form --infibulation -- and not forgetting that this is commonly practised without anaesthetic or antibiotics and without any concern for the girl's physical or emotional response to the pain -- the entire outer genitalia are removed -- the clitoris, all of the outer labia and portions of the inner labia.

This ISN'T about loss of sexual pleasure. This IS about mutilation. It is about a period of torture followed by a lifetime of pain and disability.

Once the cutting is done, what's left of the girl's vulva is sewn almost shut, leaving only a narrow opening for urination and menstrual flow. This is a surgical chastity belt. It absolutely prevents women from having sexual intercourse unless the opening to the vagina is recreated. THAT is why it is performed. THAT is why the knife.

Imagine childbirth.

Forget circumcision. I would suggest that a reasonable analogy is cutting out a person's tongue with a chunk of broken glass so that they must eat by straw for the rest of their lives, in order to prevent them from overeating some time in future. Or speaking up.

[pnwmom]

267. And, lacking surgical thread, they improvise. Thorns are often used

to hold the whole area together.

[barb162]

282. It's 2006 and this barbarism is still happening.

2-0-0-6!

[barb162]

280. It's just too disgusting, iverglas

outright mutilation.
crime.
senseless.
sick.

[Veronica.Franco]

275. This place amazes me ...

You'll discuss this female genital mutilation story for DAYS ...

Austin Texas has known for years about the underground GAY community there ... Pretty Boy Governor Perry, local cops, DA assistants, and now the GW BUSH story ...

But, hey, let's talk about Mary Kay Letourneau marriage next ... OK? ...

[TankLV]

276. Glad to oblige you!

But I'll let you in on our little "secret" here on DU:

WE CAN AND DO "MULTITASK"!

But "thanks" (in the Scalito manner) for your phoney "concern"!

[Veronica.Franco]

277. That was sarcasm ...

Female genital mutation postings that continue for nearly a week passed multitasking a couple of days ago ... they're into obsessed now ... "thank me later" ...

[pnwmom]

278. If you had read more of the postings you might have seen that

the discussions ran far beyond FGM into issues about whether claims of "culture" or "tradition" can or cannot ever justify practices that deny women or children or any other group of people their human rights.

Not exactly a trivial matter, when looked at this way.

Also, since the AIDS crisis has become a worldwide emergency, any unnecessary practice like FGM that increases the risk of AIDS needs to be eliminated as quickly as possible. The question is how to do it in view of the cultural issues.

[iverglas]

279. "NOT EXACTLY A TRIVIAL MATTER"

Not that the initial subject was anyhow, eh? Funny how it got lost along the way. Maybe it should be reintroduced as a sort of concluding note. Allow me:

Genital Cutting Raises by 50%
Likelihood Mothers, Newborns
Will Die

The first large medical study of female genital cutting has found that the procedure has deadly consequences when the women give birth, raising by more than 50 percent the likelihood that the woman or her baby will die.

As if millions of women in the places where this practice is common don't have enough problems in the area of maternal and neonatal mortality ... let's just mutilate their bodies to, er, improve the chances that they will die (or heck, at least suffer a whole lot) when they bear children. Let's make sure that our "culture" suffers the loss of more of its members, that more children are left motherless, that more resources are wasted.

Of course, there's one tangent we have managed not to go off on. The striking parallel between this and denying women legal access to safe abortions ...

Yup: "practices that deny women or children or any other group of people their human rights" really ain't just grist for the old internet discussion mill for a lot of people in this world.

But hey, Veronica doesn't have to think about any of it, and anybody who wants to can just wring his or her hands about these dreadful attempts to interfere in someone else's culture, and then wipe his or her hands of the whole thing.