What the fuck is an exceptional case??

I'm really hoping that the fact that they felt a need to revise the law shows that they're serious this time.

This is a step in the right direction, but I think more action needs to be taken to educated people about the health risks associated with FGM, I think more needs to be done than just banning it.

I read somewhere that FGM is practiced among African Christians and Muslims even though neither religion condones the practice. All I've heard was that it's been practiced for many generations. And families were doing because its "tradition."

This is a step in the right direction, but I think more action needs to be taken to educated people about the health risks associated with FGM, I think more needs to be done than just banning it.

I read somewhere that FGM is practiced among African Christians and Muslims even though neither religion condones the practice. All I've heard was that it's been practiced for many generations. And families were doing because its "tradition."

So does this mean that it will now be entirely disallowed in sterile, medical conditions but carried out in dirty huts by mullahs with rusty razor blades and no anesthetic?

I don't know if this is necessarily a good thing.

"Does anyone know more about the history of FGM in Egypt?"

Egypt seems to have gone back and forth on FGM. In 1995 the Egyptian government basically said it was okay (http://tinyurl.com/2ah3cu). More recently in 2006 a group of Muslim scholars in Cairo declared it to be a crime against humanity (http://tinyurl.com/3x4t33). And now, it's finally banned.

Seems like a pretty big step forward.

So does this mean that it will now be entirely disallowed in sterile, medical conditions but carried out in dirty huts by mullahs with rusty razor blades and no anesthetic?

I don't know if this is necessarily a good thing.

"I read somewhere that FGM is practiced among African Christians and Muslims even though neither religion condones the practice. All I've heard was that it's been practiced for many generations. And families were doing because its "tradition."

This is true. FGM is not an Islamic practice, and even Christians and Jews practice it (http://tinyurl.com/3crdd6). FGM is a cultural tradition and not a religious one.

Sorry about the double post. I got a 500 Internal Server error. Typepad needs to upgrade their servers. Badly.

Well I'm pretty sure that it's ALREADY being practiced in unsanitary conditions, snobgrapher.

These types of laws are great to talk about, but at least in Kenya they have led to FGM happening clandestinely, usually in less sterile conditions. It could give the government and NGOs working there something to brag about, but it's not going to do much for the young girls who are still forced to undergo the procedure. Any plan that will successfully eliminate FGM is going to have to come from within the communities who practice it.

Well obviously, Cara, but if they ban it from legal medical sites it can increase the number of FGMs that are performed in unsanitary conditions. It can also decrease the likelihood that a knowledgable and respected medical professional might talk parents out of having it done to their daughters in the first place.

I can't help squirming and clenching my legs together every time this subject comes up, btw.

It seems like this ban (good thing) needs to come with serious penalties that are enforced against people who violate the ban, or else there will just be more FGM in dangerous unsterile conditions (bad thing).

The thing is, UCLA, the people who insist on practicing FGM will continue to do so no matter what the penalty. It really is ingrained insome peoples' traditions as being the "right" thing to do and until the gov't and NGOs are able to respectfully address that and teach both men and women the dangers of this practice so they will resist it, harsh penalties will do nothing but satiate the international community.

I believe gradually fewer people will practice FGM. However, it is a deeply engrained cultural practice. I don't know about Egypt, but I know in Kenya the practice was fascilitated by women (despite what some of you might assume). Older women very much felt like the white colonial govt was taking female power away when they tried to outlaw the practice. According to older beliefs of most tribes in Kenya, children born to an uncircumcised mother were evil, so the fetus either had to be aborted or the mother was an outcast upon birth.

The procedure was traditionally accompanied by some elaborate and individualized traditions during which teens and "young adults" were considered to fully become women. Part of enduring the pain was showing their strength and their readiness to become full-fledged adults. And of course, boys had to go through a circumcision tradition for many of the same reasons. Basically, it ties into a lot of other cultural beliefs and meanings.

The procedure was traditionally accompanied by some elaborate and individualized traditions during which teens and "young adults" were considered to fully become women. Part of enduring the pain was showing their strength and their readiness to become full-fledged adults. And of course, boys had to go through a circumcision tradition for many of the same reasons. Basically, it ties into a lot of other cultural beliefs and meanings.

Does anyone know the source of the 97% stat? I know the report cited here (and on Feministe) says "a survey conducted in 2000," but has anyone come across the source of this survey? (Asking because someone I shared the stat with thinks it is b.s.)

While searching for the survey source, I found this map via Wikipedia:
Prevalence of FGM in Africa

I really worry how much good the ban will do. Bans on behaviors that square with the social mores tend to, well, not work. They just push the practice underground and away from regulation, and sometimes even reinforce the thing they seek to ban.

I whole-heartedly agree that education is necessary to make further strides in eliminating FGM. I know of work being done in Africa to replace FGM with culturally sensitive and relevant practices which have been successful.

However, I also think that policy change is an important step in the process – after all, mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws, smoking bans, and increased prices on cigarettes have contributed to significant public health improvements here in the U.S.

The BBC article on this announcement has the FGM percentage for Egypt at 90%, not 97%. Not a huge difference, but still a little better.

Obviously it's better if change like this comes from the bottom up, if the women themselves started refusing the procedure. But in the abscence of that, maybe there is a chance this can work from the top down. If this is illegal, how many government workers would be willing to risk arrest and disgrace in order to have their daughters circumsized? Then their daughters would be less likely to do it to their own children. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I can see how things might start to change very slowly, from the top down, if this law is truly enforced.

At the same time, though, do we really want to see cultural leaders and grandmothers arrested? The problem is that most of the people performing FGM are not intending any kind of harm, and without a serious education initiative, arrests are only going to be seen as cultural oppression and a violation of rights. Coming off of what Nina said, I think that the best practice is not to try to impose the law on people, but to work with local and cultural leaders directly and try to educate/include them in putting this practice to rest.

Cara, the article I read said that both Chrisitian and Muslim leaders supported the ban. From the BBC:

"The country's top religious authorities also expressed unequivocal support for the ban.

The Grand Mufti and the head of the Coptic Church said female circumcision had no basis either in the Koran or in the Bible."

Obviously that's not all the cultural leaders in Egypt, but it's a start.

Sorry, but FGM is disgusting and cruel and I don't have any tolerance for mutilating a young girl, even if it is by her grandmother. I don't subscribe to the, "Well it happened to me and I'm fine," kind of thinking, or else the same thing could be said for hitting your kid. Education is key, and fortunately there are programs out there who are working on that (and, yes, probably more are needed), but policy change is absolutely necessary as well.

"The thing is, UCLA, the people who insist on practicing FGM will continue to do so no matter what the penalty. "

I see what you are saying. My intuition tells me that when you raise the punishment for something, the people who don't have strong ties to the procedures will stop. The people who feel it is a necessary part of their culture will resist. But at least you've eliminated some percentage of the practice.

Nina's point, though, is worthwhile - that the ban could harm some women and their offspring if they are viewed as less pure and are stigmatized.

"The thing is, UCLA, the people who insist on practicing FGM will continue to do so no matter what the penalty. "

I see what you are saying. My intuition tells me that when you raise the punishment for something, the people who don't have strong ties to the procedures will stop. The people who feel it is a necessary part of their culture will resist. But at least you've eliminated some percentage of the practice.

Nina's point, though, is worthwhile - that the ban could harm some women and their offspring if they are viewed as less pure and are stigmatized.

"The thing is, UCLA, the people who insist on practicing FGM will continue to do so no matter what the penalty. "

I see what you are saying. My intuition tells me that when you raise the punishment for something, the people who don't have strong ties to the procedures will stop. The people who feel it is a necessary part of their culture will resist. But at least you've eliminated some percentage of the practice.

Nina's point, though, is worthwhile - that the ban could harm some women and their offspring if they are viewed as less pure and are stigmatized.

"Coming off of what Nina said, I think that the best practice is not to try to impose the law on people"

I see your point - it could produce a high degree of resistance if it is seen as coming from outside rather than from within the community.

I read something that said that the way for FGM to end is the same way foot-binding ended, by the people in the communities making pacts to stop. Since there's a big social risk involved in not doing it, people will only stop if they know other people are stopping too. Obviously a prerequisite to them wanting to stop is knowledge about why it's bad, the fact that it's not practiced in everywhere, and other kinds of education.

I see the potential problems with the ban, but I think it could be an opportunity. It won't change things on its own, but it gives people a reason to want to stop - so that they won't be arrested - so maybe people will start pacts to end the practice, and then it really will stop. I wish I knew of ways to encourage that to happen.

I was reading a bit of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and she had suggested that in order for such a law to work, there had to be regular inspection, perhaps annually, of girls to ensure they weren't mutilated. I'm inclined to think it would work.

Okay, not to play devil's advocate (really, I'm not saying I think FGM is a good thing) but couldn't it be kind of traumatic for the individual girls involved to have regular inspections from strangers, and to have all that arguing about whether or not they were doing the right thing?

I know what Kenya wound up with at one point was just a law saying that if a girl did not want to undergo FGM, the government would do what it could to protect her right to choose. Something more along those lines, makes more sense to me I guess.

"So does this mean that it will now be entirely disallowed in sterile, medical conditions but carried out in dirty huts by mullahs with rusty razor blades and no anesthetic?

"I don't know if this is necessarily a good thing."

Suppose some jurisdiction entirely disallows rape even when the rapists wear condoms, and meanwhile some people still get infected with STDs by rapists who don't wear condoms. Is decriminalizing rape with condoms the answer?

"At the same time, though, do we really want to see cultural leaders and grandmothers arrested?"

Since when should being a cultural leader and/or grandmother be a get-out-of-jail-free card?

"The problem is that most of the people performing FGM are not intending any kind of harm..."

Neither are many of the people who pay men dowries to marry and rape preteen girls.

"Sorry, but FGM is disgusting and cruel and I don't have any tolerance for mutilating a young girl, even if it is by her grandmother."

Right on.

"I know what Kenya wound up with at one point was just a law saying that if a girl did not want to undergo FGM, the government would do what it could to protect her right to choose. Something more along those lines, makes more sense to me I guess."

Good point.

Because we don't want to alienate the very communities that we're trying to win over and protect. I think that FGM is atrocious, but I still don't think that prison sentences are appropriate in most cases, in the same way that I think heroin use is atrocious and prison sentences aren't appropriate in most of those cases. Yes, heroin addicts are (usually) only hurting themselves, and those who practice FGM on little girls are not. But I still don't think that it's going to change minds, but only make the resistance stronger.

Also, the idea of doing regular exams on girls makes me kind of nervous. It seems really violating. Not as violating as FGM, sure, but that doesn't make it right.

I have a question that might be slightly off-topic.

FGM is illegal here in the United States. Let's say a 30 year old woman in the US wants to have the procedure done. From a feminist point of view, would it be acceptable to allow this woman to have FGM performed on her of her own volition?

I live in one of the villages in the Nile Valley where FMG is practiced. It is a female tradition and is carried on by the women of the area and has been for thousands of years, long before any of the current religions. It is uncommon among the urban middle to upper class women (if not unheard of) in the cities but common among the poor and rural women whose lives are more ruled by tradition. For this tradition to be changed, the women of the community have to be reached and educated. I can guarantee that "inspections" would be highly traumatic. The problem is that most of the people trying to change the tradition come from outside the community and are thus viewed with a certain degree of distrust. Just where the intervention should be attempted is a tricky question. Young girls have no say in these situations and the older women have been through it and have a vested interest in seeing the continuance. It's hard to justify to yourself having gone through the misery if you are telling everyone else that the procedure is unnecessary and dangerous. Basic cognitive dissonance. That a change would be better for the women is obvious to us...unfortunately it isn't obvious to them.

Jeremy - From a feminist point of view, a woman has autonomy over her body.
Therefore if she wanted FGM, she should be able to have it.
In saying that, I cannot imagine an adult woman living in the States seeking out this kind of procedure...but then, I find pretty much all forms of cosmetic surgery incomprehensible, so maybe I'm not the best judge of these things.

Egypthorses - thanks for giving it to us "from the horses's mouth" so to speak (geddit!).
As someone living in the area, if you were given the task of making FGM socially unacceptable, how would you go about it?

(I realise that that is a pretty big question!)

Anorak, I disagree. It is neither feminist nor morally acceptable, in my opinion, to kill someone because they're suicidal. It is neither feminist nor morally acceptable to withhold food from an anorexic woman. And I don't think it's feminist or morally acceptable for an adult woman to be getting FGM. These choices aren't made in a vacuum, and when people make self-destructive, self-mutilating choices, there may be few ways to stop them, but I don't think a feminist position should be to condone them.

Egypthorses, thank you for your comment. It really gets to the root of the problem. While I fully support the ban, the change will ultimately come from within communities, but information has to somehow be delivered. Education is really key. I've read that many women think that if "circumcision" is not performed their clitoris will grow huge and drag on the ground. No Joke!!! I was shocked when I read about it, but women really do believe that. I don't know how wide spread the belief, but it has been shown that education of the elders as well as the younger generations, seperately and together, makes a huge difference. And it's not about preaching, it's about empowering people, teaching anatomy, physical development, bodily functions and purposes of different organs. It goes much deeper than just saying that what they are doing is wrong. Obviously easier said than done, but education is really the only way.

And my heart just aches for all the girls and women who had to endure this horrible procedure. I hope to see it disappear in my lifetime.

The community pacts re: ending footbinding were in part driven by and definitely accompanied by strict laws prohibiting footbinding as well. It's not an either/or situation. There is no reason why FGM should be the only form of child mutilation kept legal. Accompanying such a ban with community-sensitive forms of outreach is only practical, but I don't see what good letting it be legal does.

Egypthorses, thank you for your comment. It really gets to the root of the problem. While I fully support the ban, the change will ultimately come from within communities, but information has to somehow be delivered. Education is really key. I've read that many women think that if "circumcision" is not performed their clitoris will grow huge and drag on the ground. No Joke!!! I was shocked when I read about it, but women really do believe that. I don't know how wide spread the belief, but it has been shown that education of the elders as well as the younger generations, seperately and together, makes a huge difference. And it's not about preaching, it's about empowering people, teaching anatomy, physical development, bodily functions and purposes of different organs. It goes much deeper than just saying that what they are doing is wrong. Obviously easier said than done, but education is really the only way.

And my heart just aches for all the girls and women who had to endure this horrible procedure. I hope to see it disappear in my lifetime.

Giving people a free pass to do something reprehensible because of their culture, religion, sex, age, race, atc, is the very mechanism by which these atrocities continue to happen.

"And I don't think it's feminist or morally acceptable for an adult woman to be getting FGM...These choices aren't made in a vacuum, and when people make self-destructive, self-mutilating choices, there may be few ways to stop them, but I don't think a feminist position should be to condone them."

Meanwhile, some people would say that it's neither feminist nor morally acceptable for her to get an abortion and that it's a self-destructive choice she's making because of her context.

I'm against forcing FGM on people, and at the same time I'm not keen on having adults arrested for the body mods they choose for themselves.

"The community pacts re: ending footbinding were in part driven by and definitely accompanied by strict laws prohibiting footbinding as well."

Good points.

"Giving people a free pass to do something reprehensible because of their culture, religion, sex, age, race, atc, is the very mechanism by which these atrocities continue to happen."

Meanwhile, ever noticed how people get these free passes for doing reprehensible stuff but not for criticizing it? For example, scraping off her grandchild's clitoris is part of Somali culture and calling FGM barbaric is part of Iranian culture...

"This is true. FGM is not an Islamic practice, and even Christians and Jews practice it (http://tinyurl.com/3crdd6). FGM is a cultural tradition and not a religious one."

I know that in late 19th c USA, clitorectomy performed by M.D.s was common, but I don't remember the process by which it was ended. Anyone know?

"It is neither feminist nor morally acceptable, in my opinion, to kill someone because they're suicidal. It is neither feminist nor morally acceptable to withhold food from an anorexic woman. And I don't think it's feminist or morally acceptable for an adult woman to be getting FGM."

Okay, again I don't know the situation in Egypt, so this may not be relevant. This may not even change your mind about FGM in Kenya. But traditionally in Kenya, the procedure was performed on older teenagers and younger tweens, not young girls. And previous to the procedure, women were allowed a level of sexual experimentation with male partners (as long as there was no penetration), and after the procedure, 1/3 of women can still orgasm. Sure, it's a dangerous procedure in general, but it's much more dangerous in some forms than others (like some FGM involves removing much less tissue than other forms). So it's unnecessary, and often dangerous, but I'm not quite comfortable with equating it to a death sentence. The older the "girl" is at the time the procedure would be performed on her, the more I'd like to see her be allowed to make her own choice though.

And of course, I do think education about the need (or lack thereof) for the procedure and the dangers that accompany it is important.

Nah, Nina. It doesn't change my mind. Withholding food from an anorexic woman isn't necessarily a death sentence. Maiming someone isn't morally acceptable, nor is it feminist, in my opinion, especially if the maiming is specifically being done to women in order to make them fit a misogynist ideal. We see in our culture how far women are willing to go to meet an internalized misogynist ideal--having pieces of their toes cut off, starving themselves, having their breasts cut open and bags of silicone put inside--and the "decision" to do those things is not feminist. Nor is it a feminist position, in my opinion, to say that it is OK to do those things as long as it is the woman's "choice." In this context, what does that "choice" mean?

It occurs to me that many of the same arguments could be made about wife-beating. It is an integral and traditional part of the culture (any culture, really--but let's say for the sake of argument, English), making it illegal would lead to community leaders and grandfathers being jailed, surely it would be better for the health of the women not to drive the activity underground, but to regulate it, many of not most of women involved think they deserve it. I don't care. It's brutal, violent, misogyny. Men who beat their wives should go to jail, and so should people who cut the genitals off of girls.

I'm also not officially comfortable with attributing FGM just to misogyny. Arguably, women in some of these cultures traditionally held more power in society relative to the men than did women in western cultures. And male circumcision was considered every bit as important as female circumcision.

One final question occurs to me: do you think people who perform circumcision on male children should also be jailed? (please note: FGM does not always involve cutting off the clitoris itself, sometimes it is just surrounding tissue)

"It occurs to me that many of the same arguments could be made about wife-beating. It is an integral and traditional part of the culture (any culture, really--but let's say for the sake of argument, English"

I don't think wife-beating is an integral part of cultures in the same way that FGM has been. With a few exceptions, many cultures consider a wife-beater to be a poor husband, even if he is technically allowed to do it. Wife-beating is also not considered an integral part of a life process or spiritual beliefs or anything like that (at least in most cultures I'm familiar with).

Also, I don't think you can compare having grandfathers and male community leaders jailed with having grandmothers and female community leaders jailed, if a misogynistic trend in society is what you're concerned about.

Case in point: In Kenya, the colonial govt was not initially concerned about FGM. Missionaries who worked as nurses were concerned about it. Missionaries eventually got the colonial govt to be concerned through telling them that FGM led to a higher frequency of abortions and death at childbirth (both of which the colonial govt /did/ consider bad). The colonial govt tried outlawing both abortion and FGM, but when push came to shove they decided the abortion issue was more important, so local govt leaders (who were more likely to be Kenyan than British, and nearly always males appointed by the British govt, given powers individual males would not traditionally have had) began forcing FGM on younger girls so that if they became pregnant they would not abort. So the whole process wound up being controlled by men, and also lost any original positive meaning it might have had for the girls.

I just don't think you can do these things through strict regulation. I think it could traumatize girls, and I just don't know if it would work. I favor the education approach, what can I say? It took awhile in Kenya, but in modern day Kenya the procedure is not nearly as common as it was early in the century.

If regular inspections became mandatory to ensure that FGM is not being performed, who do you think would be in charge of these inspections? I'm betting most doctors in Egypt are male...

Male circumcision is really not comparable to FGM, so I'm not going to engage that question, Nina. FGM takes many different forms; male circumcision takes one, and while I'm not a huge fan of it, it is nothing like FGM.

I think you're splitting hairs about cultural importance. Wife-beating has traditionally been very, very common in western culture, far more so than it is today. It has not traditionally made a fellow seem like a bad guy or a bad husband, and whether or not it has religious significance seems beside the point to me. Religion isn't the only way that something can be vitally important to a culture, and moreover, as far as I know, FGM is not required by any religion.

Also, I don't think you can compare having grandfathers and male community leaders jailed with having grandmothers and female community leaders jailed, if a misogynistic trend in society is what you're concerned about.

I think you can if what you're talking about is whether or not community importance and community tradition/identity justifies brutalization. I don't think it does, no matter who's doing it. When it comes to US elections, we talk all the time about how having a woman in power isn't necessarily a win if she's not advocating feminist policies. If female community leaders are cutting off the genitals of female children, I really don't feel bad about them going to jail. Not one bit.

I'm not opposed to an approach based on education; I think it's a fine thing. But I am also in favor of strict regulation.

As to inspections, I wasn't the one who brought up the idea, but if the choice is between having male doctors perform spot checks to see if girls have their genitalia, and girls having their genitals cut off, I'm going to go with the male doctors. Though I don't know why one would need to be a doctor to check this out. It seems like it could be part of a women-only government post.

I'm also not officially comfortable with attributing FGM just to misogyny. Arguably, women in some of these cultures traditionally held more power in society relative to the men than did women in western cultures.

That's very possible. Women had terribly little power in many traditional western cultures, though not as little as many people think. But so what? Unless there's a comparable practice in men--and removing the foreskin is not comparable, chopping off half the penis, perhaps--the deciding factor on whether or not you get your genitals cut off is your gender. So I'm going to continue to go with misogyny as the deciding factor, and we'll just disagree.

"Religion isn't the only way that something can be vitally important to a culture, and moreover, as far as I know, FGM is not required by any religion."

Well, this may be splitting hairs, but I wasn't talking about "major world religions" with well-defined Gods and everything, I said spirituality. And I absolutely would consider a tradition accompanying elaborate cerimonies during which someone is considered to become an adult with greater responsibility and power in a traditional tribe part of their spirituality.

"Unless there's a comparable practice in men--and removing the foreskin is not comparable"

Well, except that I know men who also argue that male circumcision is an abbhorent practice that should be made illegal (it is equally unnecessary, and it does damage the genitals), so I was just curious how you felt about that position?

"Though I don't know why one would need to be a doctor to check this out. It seems like it could be part of a women-only government post."

Well I wasn't so much saying there couldn't be a better way to do it, as I was questioning how this whole process will realistically work in modern Egypt, which I understand to be a pretty male-dominated country/society. I imagine the people performing inspections would at least have to be trained medical practitioners, as opposed to randoms.

For what it is worth, I do think that the Egyption case is different than the Kenyan case. The procedure also seems to be performed on much younger girls in Egypt. Also in Egypt fear of female sexuality seems to enter the debate a bit more.

Here is a quick article by someone fighting FGM in Egypt about the ways she has to approach people from an educational standpoint:

http://www.cceia.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_03/articles/631.html

I know men who've made that argument too--and in this context, it's very much a "What about the menz" argument. They're not equivalent procedures.

And I absolutely would consider a tradition accompanying elaborate cerimonies during which someone is considered to become an adult with greater responsibility and power in a traditional tribe part of their spirituality.

Your definition of spirituality encompasses a lot--in fact, I just went through a a tradition accompanying elaborate ceremonies after which I was considered to have advanced to another stage of life with greater responsibility and power in my traditional tribe, but my graduation wasn't spiritual. I'm sure that a few hundred years ago, definitions of spirituality and religion would have encompassed wife beating in England too, considering all the religious reasons they cited for the dominion of husband over wife.

I'm not sure why an inspector would have to be a medical professional, anyway--from the photos I've seen, the difference is pretty obvious. A training process, certainly. But an MD or an RN? Meh.

"r culture how far women are willing to go to meet an internalized misogynist ideal--having pieces of their toes cut off, starving themselves, having their breasts cut open and bags of silicone put inside--and the 'decision' to do those things is not feminist."

Wanting to have breasts (even if she doesn't have them naturally - which does happen to some women) is internalizing a misogynist ideal?

I sure as hell wouldn't want a random person inspecting my genitals, personally...
When the Kenyan colonial govt first tried regular inspections, they discovered that their own inspectors did not know nearly as much about female anatomy as did the locals, some of them had difficulty knowing what was part of the clitoris and what was not.

And there is some debate and research to be done about the health affects of FGM, like about how much affect it has on sexual function, depending on how it's performed -even UNICEF concedes that much.

"They're not equivalent procedures."

The clitoris has more nerve endings, sure. But the part of the clitoris that sticks above the surface of the vagina is not necessary for women to reproduce or to experience some sexual pleasure, as far as my knowledge goes. So the main arguments against it are basically that A) depending on how it is performed it poses a hygenic problem or problems during childbirth and B) no matter how it's performed it can affect sexual function, right? It might be more severe than male circumcision, but depending on how it's performed I'm having trouble understanding how you can argue that the procedures are fundamentally different other than in matter of degree.

Another thing as it seems to me: most of the women who have this down are working class rural people (the procedure is not so common in urban areas, and with wealthier people. I saw a statistic indicating the 97% might be wrong, it might be 80% of all Egyption women that still have the procedure), most of these poor rural women will enter male-dominated marriages, most of them will have a pretty tough life overall (very tough by American standards). Do you think being forced to drop the procedure will overall have a great affect on the life quality of these women?

First of all, degree matters. Degree is the difference between a 1st-degree burn and a 3rd-degree burn. It's the difference between falling down the last couple stairs and falling off the roof of a building. It's the difference between a fever of 99.5 degrees, which is unpleasant and irritating, and 106 degrees, which causes brain damage. It's the difference between throwing up once and having to be taken the hospital for rehydration. Degree matters a lot.

Second of all, FGM in its most common form involves cutting off the clitoris, and often involves cutting off the labia and sewing up the vagina. It's not an issue of "affecting sexual function"--it is designed to remove sexual pleasure. Vaginal intercourse ends up causing intense pain and infections. Three-quarters of women who are victims of FGM are never able to have orgasms. The clitoris is the main organ of sexual pleasure in most women--saying "well, there're internal parts to the clitoris, so they haven't had all pleasure taken away" is disingenuous, especially when, I've read, the internal parts of the clitoris are often scooped out as well. The condition that circumcision leaves millions of men is simply not comparable. I have thoughts and opinions on male circumcision, but they're not relevant to a discussion of FGM.

I sure as hell wouldn't want a random person inspecting my genitals, personally...

Well, personally, I wouldn't want my grandmother cutting off my clitoris, so this may well be a lesser of two evils situation.

Wanting to have breasts (even if she doesn't have them naturally - which does happen to some women) is internalizing a misogynist ideal?

It's pretty rare that woman naturally has no breasts, and certainly the vast majority of women who undergo boob jobs in this country don't fall into that category. Risking general anesthesia and having someone cut you open in order to make your breasts big enough to meet some patriarchal standard of beauty is indeed internalizing a misogynist ideal, in my opinion.

Do you think being forced to drop the procedure will overall have a great affect on the life quality of these women?

Do I think that not having to undergo completely unnecessary mutilation and being able to live with an intact body will have a great effect on the life quality of these women?

Yes, yes I do. Just as I would think that not cutting off their ears would have a great effect of life quality.

"Second of all, FGM in its most common form involves cutting off the clitoris, and often involves cutting off the labia and sewing up the vagina. It's not an issue of "affecting sexual function"--it is designed to remove sexual pleasure. Vaginal intercourse ends up causing intense pain and infections. Three-quarters of women who are victims of FGM are never able to have orgasms. The clitoris is the main organ of sexual pleasure in most women--saying "well, there're internal parts to the clitoris, so they haven't had all pleasure taken away" is disingenuous, especially when, I've read, the internal parts of the clitoris are often scooped out as well."

Well, again I'm not that familiar with the case in Egypt, but this is certainly more extreme than what usually happened in Kenya. I have never heard of scooping out the inside part of the clitoris. From wikipedia, I see that sewing the parts of the vulva together is called "infibulation". Perhaps that is what is most common in Egypt, do you know? If we are not to equate male circumcision with FGM, then I also don't think we can equate all these different sorts of FGM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Again, I'm not saying FGM doesn't hurt life quality, I'm just saying I think improving the socioeconomic conditions of these women, or focusing on punishing husbands for raping their wives or something, would be just as important if not moreso, so I am suspicious of how much these women will be helped by a modern male-dominated govt trying to outlaw one particular tradition.

Jeremy: Sites like BME (http://www.bmezine.com/) have shown that many women who VOLUNTARILY undergo some form of FGM are often (at least supposedly) pleased with the results, although people don't usually go back for a 10th year anniversary interview, so who knows about long-term psychological effects. While I have trouble with body mods that go beyond the usual piercing/tattoo/etc. variety, I have to respect a woman's choice - that sounds familiar! :) - to do what she wants with her body.

Side note: 'Possessing The Secret of Joy' by Alice Walker first opened my eyes to FGM… I'm assuming most (if not all) of you have read it, but if you haven't, it's a must-read.

The clitoris' only function is bringing sexual pleasure and most women experience orgasm primarily through clitoral stimulation. Clitoral removal happens precisely to take away pleasure from women during sex. While I find that alone atrocious, add labia removal and/or sewing up the vaginal opening and you have a "culturally acceptable" form of mutilation. For me, culture is absolutely not an excuse. Put it on the books and ban it completely.

While I can't speak for Kenya specifically, the "extreme" forms of FGM most definitely happen in Africa, just the same as these stories from Egypt.

"Well, except that I know men who also argue that male circumcision is an abbhorent practice that should be made illegal (it is equally unnecessary, and it does damage the genitals), so I was just curious how you felt about that position"

I would say those men are silly!

If FGM was just a little snip of the vulva or something ceremonial like that, then yes, I think that would be a valid point.

But the FGM that I think people are referring to here is the slicing off of the clitoris or the sewing together of the vaginal opening, both of which can cause severe lifelong pain during sex.

Not only are male circumcision and FGM different in degree, they are also different in function. The function of FGM is to control and restrict women's sexuality and to enable greater male control of sexuality.

Further, while the occasional botched male circumsicion can cause problems, it's nothing like the lifelong health problems that can be caused by FGM. Here is a nice summary: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brady1/

There was a conference talk on this issue at the last Human Behavior and Evolution conference, and some of the procedures they showed were really quite horrifying. Nothing at all like the little snip during male circumscion.

"If FGM was just a little snip of the vulva or something ceremonial like that, then yes, I think that would be a valid point."

But the thing is, some forms of FGM /are/ just that. Or just removal of the clitoral hood (which is considered analogous with the foreskin... so, in those cases, is it right or wrong?)

"Clitoral removal happens precisely to take away pleasure from women during sex."

You know, you can say you hate FGM in all forms, and that it should all be illegal, I respect that position. But many places in Africa, including those who practice varous sorts of FGM, allow young, unmarried, uncircumcised women to experiment sexually with male partners, and some also encourage male partners to learn how to please their women. (which before about 30 years ago, is more than you could say for most of western culture). So it seems to me that reading about Egypt, that is a large reason for female circumcision in Egypt. But that is not the case everywhere. And even still, Egypt is a largely Islamic country. Islam certainly does not encourage women to seek pleasure during sex -do you really think reasons for outlawing the practice have to do with helping women to attain greater sexuual autonomy?

"The function of FGM is to control and restrict women's sexuality and to enable greater male control of sexuality."

I just don't think that's necessarily the case. I do think that's one reason in Egypt. But in many places, that argument is not used to support the practice at all. If people have false beliefs (such as those in Egypt, that the clitoris would not stop growing, or in Kenya, that babies born to uncircumcised mothers would be evil and would wreck disastor on their families, I think sometimes you have to take other people's beliefs at face value, and not overanalyze it.) I just don't like the colonial mentality (we've already had a couple hundred years of the western world thinking they know everything and that they have to impose it on the rest of the world, with force if necessary. How much good has that done? How much has that done for our relationship with other countries? Or the socioeconomic conditions of those people? A lot of historians try to argue that capitilism first hurts women's life quality in a society, for instance). I do like education, and empowering people.

I just have so many problems with the way this debate is being framed, and the way all FGM is being lumped together. (I mean between a culture that tells young women that their body and masturbation is disgusting (i.e. ours) and a culture that practices type I and sometimes type II of FGM (see wiki entry) but accepts female bodies in many shapes and sizes as well as sexuality as natural, which one is more reprehensible?) I'm not so sure of the answer, personally. I think these are complicated issues. And whether or not it justifies it, I think people very often do things just because of their culture traditions, without much abstract thought or malevolent purpose behind it.

"While I can't speak for Kenya specifically, the "extreme" forms of FGM most definitely happen in Africa, just the same as these stories from Egypt."

Egypt /is/ part of Africa, you know.

""Well, except that I know men who also argue that male circumcision is an abbhorent practice that should be made illegal (it is equally unnecessary, and it does damage the genitals), so I was just curious how you felt about that position"

I would say those men are silly!"

Male circumcision is painful. It /does/ affect sexual functioning for the rest of a person's life. Personally, I think if you're going to make all types of FGM illegal, then by the same logic male circumcision has to be illegal. The only reason I can think of /not/ to do that is if you are Christian/Jewish. And then who is letting their silly "religious" beliefs control their behavior? I would question anyone who thinks FGM in all forms is abbhorent, yet has their young sons circumcised.

Another thing I would be curious to know, I guess, is how the rates of women who orgasm in places that practice Type I and Type II circumcision compare with the rates of women who orgasm in cultures that are oppressive to female sexuality in general but that do not practice FGM. If a significant percentage of women orgasm after the procedure, how can you know for sure that the rest of the women are /incapable/ of orgasming because of the procedure.

"Another thing I would be curious to know, I guess, is how the rates of women who orgasm in places that practice Type I and Type II circumcision compare with the rates of women who orgasm in cultures that are oppressive to female sexuality in general but that do not practice FGM."

That's a good question.

But, I think we can assume two things:

1. Many forms of FGM don't just reduce pleasure during sex, they increase pain, infection, and risk of mortality. So even if orgasm rates are equal, I think a safe bet is that they experience more pain and less physical pleasure than women without FGM.

2. I see where you are going with your question - that maybe no women or few women orgasm in those cultures (close your eyes and think of Egypt). But if we are to assume that for about 70% of women orgasm primarily through clitoral stimulation rather than vaginal, than I would guess the rates of orgasm would have to be lower for women with FGM.

"I would question anyone who thinks FGM in all forms is abbhorent, yet has their young sons circumcised."

If FGM was just a little snip, like it was for male circumscicion, then I don't think many people would care very much. There isn't much evidence either way that male circumscision has a positive or negative effect on sexual experience, despite some large studies asking the question. FGM on the other hand can have dramatic effects. Given how dramaticaly different FGM is from male circumscion, it doesn't seem like a contradiction to me to be strongly opposed to one and not the other. If people were engaged in a comparable form of MGM where, say, they scalded the glans of the penis so that it was extremely painful to have sex from then on, I'd be against that just as much.

"Personally, I think if you're going to make all types of FGM illegal, then by the same logic male circumcision has to be illegal."

I think most people are referring to forms of FGM that:

A. Permanently alter one's ability to feel pleasure (and, in fact often to feel pain during intercourse) AND/OR
B. Come with significant risk of death or serious health risk.

Again, if people want to do a little snip snip, I'm not necessarily pro-snip, but certainly it's a very different phenomenon with different consequences.

"And whether or not it justifies it, I think people very often do things just because of their culture traditions, without much abstract thought or malevolent purpose behind it."

I agree that is likely often the case. But, regardless of the explicit motivation, it still has the very practical function of restricting women's sexuality as well as the various negative outcomes we've discussed.

Imagine a society where there was a tradition that a man was supposed to beat a woman every time she became angry with him as a way of beating out the spirits that have possessed her. Even if the explicit reason for wife-beating isn't "let's control women", it still has the same effect. Same with FGM and women's sexuality.

I see the lens you are looking through - centuries of westernization haven't necessarily made things better in other places. And I agree that education is a useful tool. But I think in this case, because of the negative health and sexuality consequences for women, I it's useful to carry a big stick (enforceable ban), some carrots (incentives to give up the practice), and education to change people's views.

"The only reason I can think of /not/ to do that is if you are Christian/Jewish. And then who is letting their silly "religious" beliefs control their behavior?"

I'm neither.

"And even still, Egypt is a largely Islamic country. Islam certainly does not encourage women to seek pleasure during sex -do you really think reasons for outlawing the practice have to do with helping women to attain greater sexuual autonomy?"

I think it would be useful start.

Worst case scenario, it doesn't change women's positive experiences with sex, but at least fewer women will die or live in significant pain.

I just read that FGM was pretty common in America 60 years ago. I wouldn't have guessed. Here's the link. And the quote:

"Less known is that FGM was common in the United States and United Kingdom until the 1950s, prescribed as a cure for such 'female deviancies' as lesbianism, masturbation, nymphomania and even epilepsy. In 1996, after decades of feminist lobbying, Congress passed legislation making it crime to perform FGM on a minor."

I just read that FGM was pretty common in America 60 years ago. I wouldn't have guessed. Here's the link. And the quote:

"Less known is that FGM was common in the United States and United Kingdom until the 1950s, prescribed as a cure for such 'female deviancies' as lesbianism, masturbation, nymphomania and even epilepsy. In 1996, after decades of feminist lobbying, Congress passed legislation making it crime to perform FGM on a minor."

I just read that FGM was pretty common in America 60 years ago. I wouldn't have guessed. Here's the link. And the quote:

"Less known is that FGM was common in the United States and United Kingdom until the 1950s, prescribed as a cure for such 'female deviancies' as lesbianism, masturbation, nymphomania and even epilepsy. In 1996, after decades of feminist lobbying, Congress passed legislation making it crime to perform FGM on a minor."

"I just don't like the colonial mentality (we've already had a couple hundred years of the western world thinking they know everything and that they have to impose it on the rest of the world, with force if necessary. How much good has that done? How much has that done for our relationship with other countries?"

Who said anything about foreign force? Remember, the post topic is the Egyptian government banning FGM in Egypt.

Meanwhile, what's so colonial and Western about thinking FGM is a horrible thing to force on someone else?

What about people who are Ashanti, Iranian, Rwandan, Swahili, or whatever instead of wholly white and who still disapprove of cutting a girl's clitoris off?

"I mean between a culture that tells young women that their body and masturbation is disgusting (i.e. ours) and a culture that practices type I and sometimes type II of FGM (see wiki entry) but accepts female bodies in many shapes and sizes as well as sexuality as natural, which one is more reprehensible?"

That's why it makes more sense to judge customs than entire cultures.

It's entirely possible *both* for culture A to have a less reprehensible custom than culture B regarding topic X *and* for culture B to have a less reprehensible custom than culture A regarding topic Y *at the same time*.

I got a 500 Internal Server Error last time I posted this, so here goes:

"I just don't like the colonial mentality (we've already had a couple hundred years of the western world thinking they know everything and that they have to impose it on the rest of the world, with force if necessary. How much good has that done? How much has that done for our relationship with other countries?"

Who said anything about foreign force? Remember, the post topic is the Egyptian government banning FGM in Egypt.

Meanwhile, what's so colonial and Western about thinking FGM is a horrible thing to force on someone else?

What about people who are Ashanti, Iranian, Rwandan, Swahili, or whatever instead of wholly white and who still disapprove of cutting a girl's clitoris off?

"I mean between a culture that tells young women that their body and masturbation is disgusting (i.e. ours) and a culture that practices type I and sometimes type II of FGM (see wiki entry) but accepts female bodies in many shapes and sizes as well as sexuality as natural, which one is more reprehensible?"

That's why it makes more sense to judge customs than entire cultures.

It's entirely possible *both* for culture A to have a less reprehensible custom than culture B regarding topic X *and* for culture B to have a less reprehensible custom than culture A regarding topic Y *at the same time*.

I got a 500 Internal Server Error last time I posted this, so here goes:

"I just don't like the colonial mentality (we've already had a couple hundred years of the western world thinking they know everything and that they have to impose it on the rest of the world, with force if necessary. How much good has that done? How much has that done for our relationship with other countries?"

Who said anything about foreign force? Remember, the post topic is the Egyptian government banning FGM in Egypt.

Meanwhile, what's so colonial and Western about thinking FGM is a horrible thing to force on someone else?

What about people who are Ashanti, Iranian, Rwandan, Swahili, or whatever instead of wholly white and who still disapprove of cutting a girl's clitoris off?

"I mean between a culture that tells young women that their body and masturbation is disgusting (i.e. ours) and a culture that practices type I and sometimes type II of FGM (see wiki entry) but accepts female bodies in many shapes and sizes as well as sexuality as natural, which one is more reprehensible?"

That's why it makes more sense to judge customs than entire cultures.

It's entirely possible *both* for culture A to have a less reprehensible custom than culture B regarding topic X *and* for culture B to have a less reprehensible custom than culture A regarding topic Y *at the same time*.

I got a 500 Internal Server Error last time I posted this, so here goes:

"I just don't like the colonial mentality (we've already had a couple hundred years of the western world thinking they know everything and that they have to impose it on the rest of the world, with force if necessary. How much good has that done? How much has that done for our relationship with other countries?"

Who said anything about foreign force? Remember, the post topic is the Egyptian government banning FGM in Egypt.

Meanwhile, what's so colonial and Western about thinking FGM is a horrible thing to force on someone else?

What about people who are Ashanti, Iranian, Rwandan, Swahili, or whatever instead of wholly white and who still disapprove of cutting a girl's clitoris off?

"I mean between a culture that tells young women that their body and masturbation is disgusting (i.e. ours) and a culture that practices type I and sometimes type II of FGM (see wiki entry) but accepts female bodies in many shapes and sizes as well as sexuality as natural, which one is more reprehensible?"

That's why it makes more sense to judge customs than entire cultures.

It's entirely possible *both* for culture A to have a less reprehensible custom than culture B regarding topic X *and* for culture B to have a less reprehensible custom than culture A regarding topic Y *at the same time*.

Wow! What a great discussion!

I have two sons, both of them have "intact" penises. I read and read and read whatever I could about male circumcision and felt that it was not in their (or anyone's) best interest. I watched one being done and it looks extremely barbaric! I had always said that it should be my sons' choice to have a part of their body amputated and that if they want it done when they older, then we would pay for it if insurance won't.

I had always felt that female circumcision was barbaric and should not be tolerated in any form. Then I thought about it and wondered if it would be ok for these women to have it done when they are adults and have made that decision for themselves, but then again, it probably wouldn't be a decision of pure free will.

I also wonder if maybe we aren't overstepping some boundaries here. I mean, it is THEIR culture and if they want to do that, then who are we to dictate what they should or shouldn't do? We have some pretty barbaric traditions in our own culture that others think are horrible. A friend of mine from Germany was thoroughly disgusted over male circumcision and she said that it isn't common in European countries. Women in our culture are encouraged to torture their bodies, sometimes to the point of death, to fit some stupid ideal of beauty. Women in this country die from plastic surgery. We have people going in and having parts of their stomachs removed to lose weight. We have people who die from taking drugs to obtain the ideal body, ie, steroids and diet pills.

Isn't it oppressive to deny these women a procedure that ties them to their culture, if that is what they want? And, wouldn't it be better if it were performed in sterile conditions, such as a hospital or doctor's office by a trained professional?

Wow! What a great discussion!

I have two sons, both of them have "intact" penises. I read and read and read whatever I could about male circumcision and felt that it was not in their (or anyone's) best interest. I watched one being done and it looks extremely barbaric! I had always said that it should be my sons' choice to have a part of their body amputated and that if they want it done when they older, then we would pay for it if insurance won't.

I had always felt that female circumcision was barbaric and should not be tolerated in any form. Then I thought about it and wondered if it would be ok for these women to have it done when they are adults and have made that decision for themselves, but then again, it probably wouldn't be a decision of pure free will.

I also wonder if maybe we aren't overstepping some boundaries here. I mean, it is THEIR culture and if they want to do that, then who are we to dictate what they should or shouldn't do? We have some pretty barbaric traditions in our own culture that others think are horrible. A friend of mine from Germany was thoroughly disgusted over male circumcision and she said that it isn't common in European countries. Women in our culture are encouraged to torture their bodies, sometimes to the point of death, to fit some stupid ideal of beauty. Women in this country die from plastic surgery. We have people going in and having parts of their stomachs removed to lose weight. We have people who die from taking drugs to obtain the ideal body, ie, steroids and diet pills.

Isn't it oppressive to deny these women a procedure that ties them to their culture, if that is what they want? And, wouldn't it be better if it were performed in sterile conditions, such as a hospital or doctor's office by a trained professional?

a culture that practices type I and sometimes type II of FGM (see wiki entry) but accepts female bodies in many shapes and sizes as well as sexuality as natural

Type 1 FGM is very, very rare, and I've read that when it is used at all, it is largely in response to intensive anti-FGM campaigns. A culture that practices clitoredectomy is clearly not accepting of female bodies in all shapes, nor of sexuality as natural.

SassyGirl, your recital of all the crap that our culture does to women just leaves me wondering what one thing has to do with the other. I find it remarkable that it seems almost impossible to have a conversation about FGM. Within a few comments, there's WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ circumcision and the completely unrelated nasty crap that American patriarchy does to women. But what does any of that have to do with FGM?

some people would say that it's neither feminist nor morally acceptable for her to get an abortion and that it's a self-destructive choice she's making because of her context.

But Mina, those people would be mistaken, because there are no pathological consequences to abortion. One doesn't wind up with the many health problems cited above, or unable to endure sex without massive pain, etc. The fact that some people misuse an argument doesn't mean that the argument is inherently invalid in other situations.

My point is, the fact that something is a cultural tradition says nothing to me about whether it's acceptable. We have threads running into hundreds of posts on this blog where we castigate each other for wearing high heels and changing our names, explaining in great detail how "choices" to do these things are delineated by patriarchal thinking. All of a sudden, when women and girls are routinely mutilated, their clitorises amputated, and their vaginas sewn up, well, we shouldn't judge, because it connects them to their culture? No. I won't accept that. Misogyny is endemic to all cultures I have heard of. There are misogynistic practices, practices designed to abuse women in whatever culture you look at. Marital rape is a common cultural practice, and you will find women who accept it because of their culture. That doesn't mean I will. There are plenty of women from cultures that practice FGM who campaign tirelessly against it--don't they deserve the support of western feminists?

In fact, it seems to me to be rampantly colonialist to say "Ah, well, it's their culture." It reifies the idea of, in this case, Egyptians as some kind of monolithic Other--so alien as to be beyond our ken, whose practices are set in stone, and whereas we find sexuality important, those poor brown folks have other concerns, and the sexual well-being of those women is just a luxury, not like ours. But clearly it is not so monolithic. The Egyptian government is opposed to the practice; there are plenty of women from these regions who work to stop the practice; and quite frankly, all feminist political aims start out as minority resistance against an entrenched traditional position. Clearly, also, human cultural practices are immensely malleable. And I have real problems with Westerners sitting around devaluing the importance of the sexuality of non-Western women.

Now this all reminds me of part of Mr. Cranky's review of the movie Talk to Her:

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/talktoher.html

"...And before you jump on me for failing to sympathize with a bullfighting casualty just because I don't understand bullfighting, let me clarify: I *don't* understand bullfighting. This is because bullfighting is idiotic and cruel, and I'm not about to let that slide just because it happens to be idiotic and cruel in another language. Do we really need to respect everything another culture does just because it's another culture? Well, then, bring on the clitorectomies, dog-barbecues and Pakistani tribal justice! Conversely, I don't expect the rest of the world to automatically respect U.S. culture, which is currently dominated by a reflexive totalitarian march to destroy every other nation, creed and species on Earth just so our unelected leader can enrich his prep-school butt-buddies. (Bush should try that at the next press briefing: "Bombing hapless third-world nations for profit is just part of our culture, and I'd like the U.N. to be a bit more sensitive to that.")..."

Sorry! I have to admit my drunken ignorance and recognize the person who called me out for talking as if Egypt wasn't on the continent of Africa. My bad.