Wow. And people STILL say that feminism has happened, been there, done that, it's no longer needed. The following quotes from the article, are, in my opinion, two reasons why our world is as fucked up as it is (no matter which religion you're practicing):

"It is a challenge to get men to give up some of their control over women."

“As a male society, the men took parts of religion that satisfied men and inflated it. The parts of the Koran that helped women, they ignored.�

They're not even asking for full autonomy, just the right to keep their clitorises (clitori?) intact. I wonder if it would make any difference, in terms of reaching out to people there and stopping this practice, if they knew that the clitoris helps women to orgasm, which, in turn, helps women to conceive. Is it ethically wrong to appeal to them this way? Don't want girls pregnant who don't want to be pregnant, either...Just a thought.

I hate to say it but we need to look at FGC in a Transnational Feminist point of view...

1. We have male circumsicion (MGC) in the United States... in fact the numbers are the percentage of men in the U.S. is higher than most other countries.

2. There are 3 levels of FGC... Level 3 is the worst removing every pleasure and sewing everything up to look like a hole. Level 1 simply removes the hood of the clitoris (much like male circumcision)

3. Like abortions... if the countries disallow FGM or FGC (which ever you prefer) the culture might not embrace it and you would end up with these "Back alley FGM" .. sounds like a familiar story?

So in conclusion... Do I believe in FGC? No. but Im also not nearly as freaked out about male circumcisions as I am about female ones b/c 1. I know they are done in hospitals (although infants have died from it) and 2. Im an American.

There is just no way to make a reasonable comparison between male circumcision and female genital mutilation. Male circumcision is performed for aesthetics, cleanliness and even as a way to reduce HIV transmission. The pain involved is brief and, while complications are possible, there is very little risk involved. There is little to no effect on sexual function and pleasure or quality of life in general.

Female circumcision is vastly different. Its function is purely to oppress and subjugate women in one of the most painful and degrading ways imaginable. At best it removes nearly all ability for a woman to experience sexual pleasure; at worst it makes every sexual act of a woman’s life agonizing rape and torture. Even when performed by medical professionals the procedure has a high risk of infection or death.

The article doesn’t go into detail of what genital mutilation involves in its most extreme forms but I’ll be graphic here because I think it’s something all feminists should be aware of if they aren’t already. In the highest level of genital mutilation a young girl’s clitoris is entirely removed and the lips of the vagina are sewn together, leaving only a tiny hole for urine and blood to pass through. The hole may be so small that it could take the girl up to half an hour to urinate. This procedure is often done without anesthesia. On the girl’s wedding night this procedure must be reversed by her husband either with a knife or tearing, brute force. This must happen again during childbirth. The risk of hemorrhage, infection and death is continually present.

I understand the need to respect other cultures and their traditions, even if we don’t understand. However, I think this goes far beyond a cultural difference and becomes a human rights violation that cannot be ignored. Women are being subjected to this torture every day and as feminists I believe we must educate ourselves and support the groups working to stop this practice in any way that we can.

Natalia,
Your comparison with abortion would only make sense if it were legal for parents to force their little girls to undergo abortions. If adult women are *choosing* to get their clitoris chopped off, by all means that is their choice, but this is not what we’re talking about. FGM should be made illegal just like it is illegal to chop your child’s hands off.

And I can’t emphasize too much, male circumcision and FGM are not in anyway comparable in terms of risks or in terms of how they affect the quality of the person’s life (sex life in particular). As a matter of fact male circumcision is sometimes medically necessary. My partner for example had to get his done due to an infection at the age of three.

In response to your comments..
I would LOVE it if FGM were no longer practiced, if women had a choice, LOVE it! But... we as Westerners can't outlaw this, although we have before by threatening countries to outlaw FGM or they would not receive U.S. sanctions, so countries outlawed it but their society that oppresses women hasn't changed and women continue having to endure this terrible processes, but this time , not in the hands of a doctor (b/c its been outlawed) but "back alley" FGM.

The women who are trying to stop FGC/FGM in their own countries need to be supported by us, but we can't control it without having some kind of repercussion; which has been "back alley" FGM... that has increased the risk of girls and women dying from infection or bleeding b/c they are not done in hospitals.

Also, I am not comparing levels 2 or 3 of FGM to circumcision... but I will compare level one which is the removal of the hood of the clitoris... like "E" said.. one of the reasons for male circumcision is aesthetics... which is the sole reason of FMG... HIV/AIDS I can understand of course, but "cleanliness" has been debunked by doctors for years.

Thanks for your interesting and well though out comments.

"...one of the reasons for male circumcision is aesthetics... which is the sole reason of FMG..."

Female Genital Mutilation is not done for aesthetics. It is performed to protect a woman's virtue. Un-mutilated women are considered whores. There is no aesthetic involved.

I agree that we can't do anything about FGM in other countries. We can't invade them to stop the practice - after all, this isn't oil we're talking about.

On the other hand, I can press my government (Canada) to prosecute the hell out of any doctor or parent who allows the procedure in Canada or contracts the procedure for a Canadian citizen in another country. I can speak up about it everytime I hear reference to it, and even when I don't. I can let my daughter know that it happens and encourage her to be angry about it too. And, as you mention, I can support women in other countries who are trying to stop the practice.

Oh, and I'm equally opposed to Male Genital Mutilation or circumcision.

"Female Genital Mutilation is not done for aesthetics. It is performed to protect a woman's virtue. Un-mutilated women are considered whores. There is no aesthetic involved."

I wouldn't be surprised if some element of hazing is involved too, given how some girls who suffered FGM grow up to mutilate their daughters even after their husbands tell them not to.

"I can speak up about it everytime I hear reference to it, and even when I don't."

We can also point out that letting a girl keep her clitoris is not just a Western thing! This garbage is no cherished custom in the traditions of the Ashanti, Chinese, Iranians, Mexicans...

"Male circumcision is performed for aesthetics, cleanliness and even as a way to reduce HIV transmission."

From what I've heard, it only reduces HIV transmission for men who already have other untreated STDs.

Basically, he who was circumcised, has a bunch of open sores on his penis, and has unprotected sex is

a) less likely to catch HIV than he who wasn't circumcised, has a bunch of open sores on his penis and more on his foreskin, and has unprotected sex

b) still more likely to catch HIV than he who uses condoms during sex in the first place

So, promoting circumcision to reduce HIV transmission in men is pretty much resorting to a "they'll never use condoms, they'll never stop cheating on their partners, they'll never postpone sex until adulthood, but at least they'll cut boys' genitals" attitude.

Meanwhile, what about cultures that insist upon circumcision as a custom for both sexes? Doesn't promoting male circumcison make discouraging female circumcision harder in these circles? When they do keep circumcising, does the increased risk of HIV for girls and women cancel out the decreased risk of HIV for boys and men, or not?

from http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brady1/

"...At the same conference, a research study performed in Nairobi indicated that FGM predisposes women to HIV infection in many ways (e.g., increased need for blood transfusions due to hemorrhage either when the procedure is performed, at childbirth, or a result of vaginal tearing during defibulation and intercourse, and the use of the same instruments for other initiates). Because FGM raises the social status of the parents, the dowry demands can be high and therefore the young girls can be married off to older men who are already infected. Contact with blood during intercourse is believed to be responsible for the transmission on HIV infection among homosexuals..."

Some day, there will be a thread on female genital mutilation that does not end up having as many if not more comments about male circumcision. Clearly, today is not that day.

OMG this issue makes me SO ANGRY!!! I really fucking hate that many of these cultures try to justify this procedure by sayings its islamic when its not!!! truth is-islam affords women more rights than men but because of the patriarchal society it was brought into-these points get ignored. Praise Allaah i was taught about islam with the cultural rubbish removed! on another note-someone mentioned the clitoris. In islam-denying a woman an orgasm is a grevious sin and somthing she can divorce you on. bet you wont learn that in school though!

Oops, I cut and pasted the quote wrong. Sorry! Here's a better cut and paste:

"...At the same conference, a research study performed in Nairobi indicated that FGM predisposes women to HIV infection in many ways (e.g., increased need for blood transfusions due to hemorrhage either when the procedure is performed, at childbirth, or a result of vaginal tearing during defibulation and intercourse, and the use of the same instruments for other initiates). Because FGM raises the social status of the parents, the dowry demands can be high and therefore the young girls can be married off to older men who are already infected. Contact with blood during intercourse is believed to be responsible for the transmission on HIV infection among homosexuals.

"Women who have had FGM done have a small opening, just large enough for the passage of urine and blood. Penetration or intercourse is difficult, often resulting in tissue damage, lesions, and postcoital bleeding. These tears would tend to make the squamous vaginal epithelium similar in permeability to the columnar mucosa of the rectum, thus facilitaing the possible transmission of HIV..."