The amazing Michelle Goldberg has a great piece in the latest print issue of The American Prospect, but you can also read it online. Essentially, she's exploring the question, as the title suggests, of "Rights Versus Rites," when it comes to the much abhorred practice of "female genital mutilation" (by many Westerner feminists) and the much honored practice of "female circumcision" (by many African women). 
Same practice, vastly different contexts and values--as evidenced by the language itself. Goldberg writes:
At first glance, the two speakers seemed to symbolize the dichotomy between modernity and tradition, cosmopolitanism and cultural authenticity. Fuambai Ahmadu (pictured), the American-born daughter of a Sierra Leonean family, wore knee-high leather boots under a stylish rust-colored skirt. A postdoctoral fellow at the University of Chicago with a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics, she looked younger than her 40 years. Beside her was Grace Mose, regal in a red African tunic, matching skirt, and head wrap. Her perfect English was deeply accented by her native Kenya, where she had grown up in an Abagusii village in the country's southwest region. It was easy to imagine her as a champion of the line of midwives who have made their living cutting girls since the beginning of recorded history, women who are now being jailed in some countries for practicing a trade that once brought them money and pride.But it wasn't that simple. Ahmadu, not Mose, is the high-profile defender of female circumcision and the role it can play in inducting African girls into their societies. "My sitting here is a perfect example that female initiation can have a place in a global society," she insisted. "I don't see that initiation is somehow an impediment to girls' development."...Toward the end of the debate, a Senegalese woman, incensed by Ahmadu, stood up and said, "I really feel very frustrated seeing an African sister defending female genital mutilation."
This issue--though often presented as a cut and dried human rights problem--is actually deeply complex, colored by culturally rooted values, religion, history, ritual, and so much more. Goldberg does a masterful job of presenting the different points of view with vivid images, rich personalities, and compelling dialogue. It's further exciting to see a piece of writing where African women, in particular, are not reduced to caricatures--a crime so often committed in mainstream media that doesn't acknowledge the diversity and complexity of the African continent and those who live there.
Also, be sure to check out Michelle's new book, The Means of Reproduction.
UPDATE: Michelle responds to the discussion here.
You can dress it up with as much "culture" and "complexity" and "values" as you want and it won't stop being what it is; the physical mutilation of helpless children. We can recognize the value in different cultures while still keeping our heads attached to our shoulders and making rational judgments about things that are simply wrong. Unless we're willing to do that, we're coping out. By the same argument, it's no big deal that women are paid less for the same work than men because, oh, that's just our culture.
I wish I could say that "I liked" this comment a million times! You really hit the nail on the head! No physical assault on a child should be tolerated, no matter how much religion and culture is involved.
I started to read that but the whole idea just makes me sick. If they want it to be a rite of passage, they should do it only on freely consenting adults. It should not be done to children, ever.
As for the comparison to male circumcision, I think its fundamentally different because it just doesn't cause men health problems and pain throughout their life. The worst I've heard is that it might make them require more extra lube when they masturbate. However, if people wanted to ban circumcising male infants I'd be fine with it-- they can get it done when they're older if they really want to.
The worst you have heard is that it might make men require more extra lube when they masturbate? How about it violates men's human rights? How about it takes away their choice to decide what to do with their bodies? How about it is the mutilation of men's body part without their consent? How about it causes psychological trauma to men later on in their life and unnecessary pain to a baby? It is not fundamentally different form female genital mutilation. Human rights are human rights.
You're opening up yourself to attacks by equating a western practice of male circumcision at birth (often done in hospitals by trained professionals) to human rights violations in Africa. This is not a path you want to walk down.
Male circumcision is not just practiced in the western world nor did it start in the western world. Men all over Africa and the Middle East are circumcised everyday as part of tradition and "culture" just as girls are, in fact 30% of the male population is circumcised, of whom 68% are Muslim. People just don't recognize this because male circumcision is, sadly, seen as normal in the western world.
Actually, male circumcision is only normal in the anglo-saxon part of the occidental world. That is: England and it's former colonies, but not in mainland Europe. As England introduced it in the colonies it is also pretty normal in several oriental parts of the world (besides the Muslim and Jewish) such as South Korea - but that comes from a western practice. It was a standardized practice in the US (and England etc) until quite recently based on false medical myths.
Ancient Egyptians were practicing male circumcision whilst Europeans barely had a Europe. Do you really think in 4000 years that this idea just vanished until the Brits went round spreading their particular brand of 'making life better'?
I completely disagree with you. This is absolutely a path we should go down. Is male circumcision completely analogous to female genital mutilation? No. But the movement against male circumcision has, since the 1980s, been against genital modification in all forms-- that includes FGM and sexual reassignment of intersex children. I think these are all important, interlocking issues. It's not just about male or female circumcision, it's about altering children's bodies to fit into narrow cultural standards of what constitutes the ideal female body and the ideal male body, which has the reciprocal effect of reinforcing a strict dichotomy between male and female (hence intersex children being reassigned and made 'male' or 'female' at birth). There's no good reason to ignore male circumcision, even if you deem FGM a more pressing cause.
Jewish male circumcision has absolutely nothing to do with some cultural standard of the ideal male. It relates to our people making a covenant with God as our ancestors did, such as the founder of our religion (Abraham). Some quest to end all circumcision, as the article states, does not consider important cultural practices and heritages that you wish to eradicate with some broad stroke.
Cultural practices do not take precedence over human rights.
I'm sorry if I offended you-- I really wasn't thinking about Judaism when I posted. I was thinking of circumcision in terms of Western tradition-- circumcision is extremely common in North America and Australia. In the vast majority of cases, this is for aesthetic reasons, rather than religious ones. I do think it's important to separate religious circumcision from the Western cultural practice. I don't think the latter is justifiable, though you may disagree.
...this then is a morally relativistic argument...why is circumcision ok if done for religious reasons, but not if done of asthetic reasons? ...does that then make female circumcision ok if its done for religious reasons?
I'm simply not sure it's my place-- as an atheist-- to decide that. I haven't thought deeply about the ethics of Jewish circumcision and I won't pass judgment on it for that reason.
After reading the Goldman article, I feel somewhat similarly about FGM. I do think it's wrong, but I'm not sure that I-- being a white, middle-class Western woman-- have the right to declare that sentiment. It's not my culture-- hell, I've never even spoken to anyone from those cultures. The women engaging in or fighting FGM can speak for themselves. I really think this is an area where we, as Western feminists, are free to hold an opinion, but we shouldn't impose that opinion on a culture. That's cultural imperialism. And I think it shows in the way we talk about FGM as though it were one monolithic practice, rather than a variety of different practices, and the way we ignore that male circumcision often also occurs in these cultures.
I guess what I'm saying is that at this point, maybe we should be listening, rather than talking.
Really? Does that mean anyone who is not a man has no right to condemn the cultural tradition of wife-beating? Does that mean anyone who was not from India had no business condemning Suttee (where a woman was thrown on her husband's funeral pyre)?
British General Charles Napier had the best response to the latter:
Cutting a baby's genitals is barbaric and cruel, not matter which culture does it and no matter which gods or spirits it's intended to placate. If your "culture" or religion demands it, then it's time to find a new culture or religion.
Wait, what? You're willing to make an exception for Judaism but not for African culture and religion?
I don't think male circumcision is all that bad, but if you do think that then you should be willing to stand up against a religion, just like we want to stand up against the culture that practices FGM in Africa.
There are a shit ton of things we're supposed to do to keep that covenant and most of them have been cast aside. Who even keeps kosher any more? 15 percent of us do, odds are neither of us is in that 15% (I can guarantee it in my case as I stare at a turkey bacon sandwich), but I doubt Abraham would care much more than Hashem.
Besides _od defaulted when Abraham failed to "father many nations".
Exactly. Modern Jews don't sacrifice animals anymore, either.
Or how about we let the kid decide if he wants to keep the Covenant by getting circumcised? It's about bodily autonomy, and everyone has a right to that regardless of culture.
Do you know how many Jewish parents I know who are deciding against male circumcision? When faced with the facts, many of them are just not willing to put culture over health. In a lot of cases, they're putting up with older family members giving them all sorts of grief over it. This is not a discussion that should exclude us Jews, it's one which many of us are taking part in.
Globally the training and ability of those performing both surgeries are probably quite comparable. The practitioner of FGM is no less competent to perform the act than most midwives in the same culture (often they are one and the same person).
We're just used to complex levels of certification and formalized education here in the west; but I would argue that less "formal" forms of learning are often as or more valuable when it comes to the kinds of trades which are passed down from elders through a decade or more of apprenticeship.
This is NOT a justification of FGM! It's a prime premise of our nature to determine what is right and impose that by any means on our fellow animals, both within and without our own tribe, just ask Warren Jeffs and Hitler (need an Ouija board for him).
In a moral sense in both instances you have someone taking away your own choice for your own body for reasons you will be unable to comprehend for many many years.
Now we do this with a lot of things to kids, most have clear material benefits like inoculations against disease or tooth decay; while circumcision (M/F) has no easily quantifiable benefit but the somewhat less clear benefits having to do with assimilation and cultural tradition.
It is very much fundamentally different--circumcised men can still have pleasurable intercourse; many circumcised women cannot. And then there's infibulation, the most severe form of FGM, in which the girl is sewn shut except for a tiny outlet and must be resewn shut after every child born. Not comparable at all, and for the record I am also against male circumcision and my own son is uncut.
I agree that women face more dangerous and harming procedures when it come to genital mutilation. However, I also think it is extremely dangerous that male circumcision is seen as "normal". What i meant was that there is no fundamental difference when it comes down to whether or not it should be preformed on a child, because genital cutting without consent is in my opinion a violation of human rights no matter what the gender of the child is.
I agree. From what I've heard the female kind of genital mutilation is worse. But, given that female and male genital mutilation involve the same part of the body being mutilated, I think it's a bit hypocritical for someone to condemn the one that isn't apart of their culture without condemning the one that is. I don't put you, or most people commenting here, in that category though.
I think its hypocritical if you say that doing anything to a baby that it can't decide on its a violation of human rights. But its not hypocritical to make that distinction if your reasoning is about what hurts them as an adult.
I think that some things SHOULD be done to children without their permission, like vaccinations and dental care. Then some things are kind of neutral-- I wouldn't necessarily do them but it doesn't hurt them later in life so its up to the parents: things like piercing ears, getting tonsils removed, and male circumcision. Then there are things that shouldn't be done to any child because they cause serious damage throughout their lives: things like FGM and foot-binding. And, heck, for the western world, elective plastic surgery. Some parents might want to get a nose job for their child-- I hope they're made to wait until the kid is old enough to decide for themselves.
So it isn't necessarily hypocritical to draw a line between male circumcision (causes pain to the baby in the short run, but doesn't cause problems throughout life, doesn't affect ability to have sex, etc) and female circumcision (even if done safely causes serious problems throughout life, ranging from inability to enjoy or have painless sex, to serious life-threatening complications during childbirth).
And why should it be ok to get a girl's ears pierced? For many, I fear this is an indoctrination into the culture of beauty.
By piercing a girl's ears you're already teaching her, that her body that she was born with, isn't sufficient to live up to cultural standards of beauty.
Even if the girl asks to have it done, I'd be sitting down for a long talk with her about how her body is good the way it is, and how doing what everyone else is doing isn't necessarily the right way to go.
My point was that there is an easy place to draw the line-- does it cause pain and complications after it has healed? Piercing ears doesn't, FGM does. I don't think male circumcision usually does, but I guess that's up for debate.
I'm not a fan of piercing the ears of babies-- I'd wait until the girl wants it done herself. But I don't think it even approaches the level of something that seriously damages your body like FGM or foot binding. My ears are pierced because I wanted it done when I was 13, and now I rarely wear earrings and it doesn't affect me at all. There's no pain, no complications, you can't even see it if I'm not wearing an earring. It didn't even hurt when it was done.
Now, if you don't like ear piercing because of beauty standards and stuff, that's fine, but its a completely different issue. That would put it in the same category of things like wearing makeup, not things like serious life-altering (and threatening) surgery.
I see what you are saying. Female circumcision is in a different category to male circumcision and ear piercing because of the real physical problems it can/does cause.
My point is that the second category is also objectionable (even if it is less so) because it is about bodily manipulation to approach societal ideals of man and woman. You wouldn't let a minor get a tattoo or breast implants.
The piercings in your ears are going to be there for a while. That you're fine with that is great. Many women (and men) feel their piercings help them express their individuality. To others, however, they are always going to be holes in their ears that they regret getting – a branding that is a reminder of their indoctrination into the patriarchal culture. I just think a person should be an adult, able to comprehend and balance societal pressures, before we let them make (or make for them) unalterable choices about their body.
I agree that people shouldn't be doing things like ear piercings to babies-- they should decide for themselves when they're older. But my point is that they are in very different categories, and comparing them is really trivializing the suffering that FGM causes.
This is a post about FGM, a deathly serious major surgery performed on adolescent girls without anesthesia or adequate sanitation, purposely to make sex painful for them for the rest of their lives. In cases that include infibulation it also means that having sex actually rips you apart and requires stitches to fix, and childbirth becomes drastically more painful and dangerous than it was before. Many women also have daily complications like needing 10 minutes to urinate painfully one drop at a time. Its a serious, life or death surgery that causes problems, infections, and complications for the rest of their lives, and can even kill them.
Bringing up other things that are wrong but far more minor is really missing the point and derailing the conversation. I'm not saying that ear piercing and male circumcision are good things, but they do not ruin a major aspect of your life forever.
I agree with you FGM is much worse. It's just that in your parent post you suggested that all these other things were harmless. They aren't. If you hadn't brought it up I wouldn't have discussed it.
I do think ear piercing is harmless. That doesn't mean we shouldn't let people decide for themselves whether or not to do it, but its still harmless, literally. It does not harm you. It hurts for a second if you don't use ice or a numbing cream-- it hurts a lot less than a shot, or even stubbing your toe. And if you don't wear earrings for awhile it will close up-- faster the more recently its been done, but it slowly closes up when you're older too. So yeah, I don't think its a big deal but I still don't see any reason not to leave it up to each individual to decide.
As for male circumcision, I don't know all that much about it, but the men I've talked to are perfectly fine with being circumcised and say it doesn't hurt or bother them at all. If that's generally true, that would also make it harmless. If its not, then its not harmless, but it still doesn't seem to be at all on the same level of as FGM.
Agreed. Not on the same level as FGM.
But still harmful. Not in the physical sense but in the sense that it is a visible (either to yourself or others) symbol of a harmful meme: to fit in you need to conform to the ideal form of man/woman.
I agree with what you said before. It is somewhat like make-up. We learn that a woman's face isn't pretty, it needs to be dressed up before she is beautiful (and beautiful is what she needs to be above and beyond anything else). I say 'rubbish'. Your face is most beautiful when it is clean of anything artificial. You may want to paint it for some ceremonial occasion, fine. Yet, the girl under the make-up will always be more sublime.
Thank you, =Crystal=.
I was mutilated as a baby, and I get equally angry when people trivialize the genital cutting of either male or female children. It is the child's body, not the parents.
Male 'circumcision' removes the 5 most sensitive parts of the penis - the parts capable of sensing fine touch. Pantheon might insist that male and female genital cutting are incomparable, but they both involve the removal of the most sensitive parts of a child's body. This is absolutely wrong. One can make all sorts of excuses, but it is still sexual abuse of children, and a violation of their basic human right to bodily integrity.
If our culture is going to accept male genital cutting, we would be hypocrites to reject female genital cutting as well. Treating children this way is either OK, or it's not.
And Pantheon, circumcision *DOES* cause men problems and pain, but they don't talk about it, because in order to do that, they would have to stop denying that they were mutilated as a baby, AND they would have to feel comfortable disregarding society's injunction against men sharing their feelings. Few men can overcome both of these hurdles.
I disagree. I am a Jewish circumcised male, and your broad generalizations are not representative of all circumcised men. There is absolutely now way to comparatively judge sensitivities with any sense of accuracy since you can't regain your foreskin, or vice versa.
Male circumcision in the western world should not be compared to female genital mutilation in the third world - there are too many external factors that are fundamentally different to make an accurate comparison.
Could I ask you what external factors make FGM in a third world wrong and male circumcision in the western world okay?
The quality of healthcare forums, expertise of doctors and other healthcare professionals, the availability of appropriate anesthetics and medicines, HIV and other communicable disease statistics.
Shall I continue?
Just because the practice is safe does not mean it should be done. I was not questioning which was safer I was questioning how male circumcision is not a violation of human rights while FGM is?
By that logic regarding safety you are calling into any form elective surgery or bodily mutilation ranging from tattoos to abortion, and stating that you're own moral code trumps all. If something is performed safely and parents or guardians consent for a minor, then I don't see how its a human rights violation. The difference is in Africa you have tribes basically forcing girls to go through FGM in order to achieve equal status to the rest of the tribe. This is a major difference.
So if a parent wants to cut off all their baby's limbs, that would be seen as okay because the guardian gave their consent and the procedure would be carried out safely?
And it is exactly the same, baby boys are FORCED by their parents to undergo circumcision to gain equal status with other men of the church, and to be "accepted" by god.
The last time I checked I was talking about elective surgery in America, and there are probably laws on record that don't allow parents to amputate their babies. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
I'm done commenting because its amazing how on feminist sites that choose to discuss FGM it always gets derailed into a conversation about male circumcision and parental rights (which have generally been upheld by the Constitution) are thrown out the window.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that the physical consequences for men who get circumcised are as dire as they are for women. Yet Male circumcision gets discussed because the morality and ethics are similar in many respects. Evaluating why we might consider one to be fine and not the other is enlightening for both. These discussions are useful for refining our arguments, and our ethics.
I think thats a really good analogy. :)
Thanks! :)
Crystal, I don't know...
What you're saying makes complete sense. It really does.
But at the same time JesseR also has a good point; male circumcision is a practice that dates back thousands of years in the Jewish tradition. Making it illegal would be tantamount to refusing Catholics the right to communion, from a religious standpoint.
They are very different things, obviously, in terms of rights, but in the end the effect would be the same; a beheading of a religious tradition that is very central to the religion. Something seen as completely sacred.
Honestly, I think the thing about this is if it WERE to be made illegal, Jewish communities would likely do it anyway, but instead under unsanitary conditions and unsafe conditions.
I understand what you are saying, but in the western world I truly believe that law and human rights must take precedence over religious and cultural beliefs. In my ideal situation male circumcision would not be illegal but should have to wait until the individual can choose for themselves.
FGM has been around just as long as male circumcision and is just as much a tradition.
Yeah. Well, I think the best solution would be to make it so the individual had the choice later in life, like you said.
What a thorny issue. Culture and tradition and long extended timelines of practice... It seems like that would be the best way to compromise the two.
Crystal, I think the problem here is that you are defining "human rights issue" pretty broadly. You claim that male circumcision classifies as a HR issue simply because the procedure is performed on baby boys who do not provide consent. However, a "human rights issue" is much more situationist than you're making it out to be. In other words, it would be extremely difficult to sit down and write an objective definition of it without context, without some semblance of the who, what, where. This is why people introduce things like ear piercing--under your definition, parents should not be allowed to "force" ear piercing onto their children because the kid did not give consent. But not surprisingly, you don't call this a "human rights issue," do you? Therefore, there's seemingly a lot more complexity to constitutes as an HR issue as you're making it out to be. Jesse and whoever else spoke out against anti-male circumcision are considering the fact that context makes a huge difference in what we call "horrible" and "unfair,"and I think they have a reason to feel that way. Also, could someone explain how FGM is a "rite of passage"? I was under the impression that it was done FOR THE PURPOSE of dulling or eliminating female pleasure during sex. I could be completely wrong about that, though.
You lack an understanding then of what is a human rights issue. Human rights clearly state, "the right to an intact body." Thus cutting off a part of a man's genitals without their consent breach's this simple understanding of human rights. We should not have to compare it's female counterpart to understand this.
Secondly, FGM is done as a rite of passage in many countries, along side MGM. They are both done for the same reasons. http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/ANN-1223115414-MTY
Why are you, and so many others so opposed to calling male circumcision, Male genital mutilation. When that is the most accurate title the act can be assigned. Shouldn't both our sons and daughters be entitled to their whole bodies.
Slavery also dates back thousands of years and so does FGM. There's no excuse for any of these barbaric rites -especially not in the modern world.
So I've been commenting a lot and I promise this will be my last, but thank you for posting this..
Your recounting of your experience has really made me think, and I guess because it is such a widely accepted practice here people don't really think about the effects of male circumcision on someone. I didn't right up until reading this. Anyways, thanks.
What are the five most sensitive parts? My understanding is that male circumcision removes the foreskin -- one part.
The most sensitive parts are: the junction between the inside and outside of the foreskin, the ridged band, the frenulum, and two others that I forget.
The study that found this can be found here:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/
That's interesting -- thanks for the info.
I'm not sure what the other ones are, but the frenulum is definitely not supposed to be removed in male circumcision.
What?! How could the frenulum not be at least mostly removed? It attaches the foreskin to the glans. It is possible to remove the foreskin and leave a large amount of frenulum, but that is rare.
There are no standards for conducting circumcision - there is not a 'right' amount of skin to remove, there is no delineation between the foreskin and shaft skin, so some men end up with a small foreskin remnant, and all of the rest of the penile skin pulled up from their abdomen and scrotum - hair-bearing skin. Their erections are painfully tight; sometimes the skin tears.
This is why I call infant/child circumcision mutilation - it is not cosmetic surgery because the penis has not completely developed, and thus the cosmetic outcome is uncertain.
I'm not an expert on male circumcision, but in the circumcised men I've seen, the frenulum is clearly still there. That's all I know.
Like I said, I'm not against banning it. But I don't think its at the same level as FGM. Most women who've undergone FGM cannot have enjoyable sex, ever. Women who've undergone the more dramatic forms like infibulation can't even have safe or painless sex-- they have to be stitched up again after. That's a very serious health risk.
I'm not saying male circumcision is good, but there are millions of men who've been circumcised happily having sex and enjoying it.
That doesn't sound right. Is it possible that you are mistaking some other structure, or a very small remnant of the frenulum for the actual frenulum?
Comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation is like comparing getting a tooth extraction to having all of your teeth pulled out.
They are not in the same ballpark.
I was circumcised as a little boy and it's never really made a difference to me. I'd hardly call it "mutilation" - unless you consider children getting their ears pierced to be "mutilation".
Many "circumcised" women would take exception to being told that they had been mutilated as well.
Only you didn't get a piercing, a piece of your body was cut off.
Have you ever seen a piece of foreskin on a week old child? You are equating this miniscule piece of skin to FGM done in girls' teenage years?!
I am not equating the severity or safety issue of FGM to male circumcision, I am merely saying that male circumcision is just as much human rights issue as FGM is. In both cases the body is being unnecessarily cut without the consent of the individual.
A "piece of my body" that I never really missed - kind of like having the appendix or tonsils removed.
Sorry, I refuse to be morally outraged that I was circumcised!
It was a medical procedure that apparently happened when I was very young (I literally do not remember when it happened) that has had zero impact on my life, as a kid, a teenager or an adult.
I wasn't even aware that penises had foreskins until I was in my late teens (I just assumed that's what all penises looked like) - so it was hardly a great tragedy or cause of personal sorrow for me.
Maybe you never missed it, but many men do and would have liked to have a say in what happens to their body. And I think it is really sad that you are not willing to stand up for your rights as a human being and the rights of your fellow men. Many women are never deeply emotionally affected by having an abortion but would certainly stand up for a women's right to do what she wants with her body.
This is a thread about female genital cutting, whether you call it circumcision or mutilation. It is very frustrating to see you shut down conversation by saying "But what about the men?!" and discussing male circumcision instead.
I understand the argument you're trying to make. In the context of arguments having been derailed here and elsewhere of discussions about women, POC, or trans individuals, it's just a little bit too much like taking the thread over to talk about men, or white people, or cisgendered people.
Circumcision of the penis is much more of a gray area than FGM, as far as I am concerned. How many men have a drastically reduced quality of life because of circumcision? To compare cutting of the foreskin to the most extreme forms of FGM, to infibulation, is dangerous. There is also the part where removal of the foreskin does not impede orgasmic ability in men. Removing the clitoris in women (and I do understand that not all forms of FGM entail this)? Well, you know what that does.
First of all I honestly did not mean to "shut down" the conversation. I was only contributing what I believe into the conversation.
And once again I would like to say that I don't believe male circumcision is as severe, or life changing, or as dangerous as FGM. All I wanted to say in this conversation is that both are human rights issues and that just because male circumcision is more accepted does not make it right. I never meant to take away from the severity of FGM, which I believe is a tremendous and serious issue.
First of all, this thread is about female genital mutilation in Africa - not male circumcision in America.
Second, of all the human rights issues I could think of in this country, little boys being circumcised - with parental consent and under medical supervision - is pretty low on the list.
So it women's clitoris's were cut off with the consent of their parents and safe medical supervision it would be okay?
That would be a great comparison--if male circumcision involved cutting off the glans.
As it stands, your analogy is a wee bit off.
How about instead cutting off the clitoral hood. Again one of the most common forms of FGM. This is analogous to MGM.
Would it then be ok and comparable for you?
There are different types of FGM, and there certainly is a type that is directly analogous to male circumcision in this country. Your argument is really no different from someone trying to dismiss the idea of FGM as a human rights violation by saying that removing the female prepuce can't be compared to cutting off the entire penis. No, of course it can't, but it's irrelevant because it's a straw man. No one is saying that infibulation is the same thing as male circumcision. But if you're going to say that it's a human rights violation to remove the female prepuce, it's irrational and hypocritical to regard the male prepuce any differently. At base, it is *always* wrong to remove a functional, healthy part of the body from a person who is not able to give consent. It's amazing to me that anyone would try to defend that.
And, you don't know the difference? But many people do. Sex with a circumcised man is different from sex with an intact man, the foreskin providing lubrication and a sensitivity that puts the penis on a par with a woman's vagina, as they are both essentially internal organs. A good deal of sexual incompatibility is due to genital mutilation of both sexes around the world (and while I'm at it I may as well mention episiotomy, the unscientifically-based obstetrical tradition of cutting open the vagina for birth.) To claim that such things don't make a difference is astoundingly ignorant and naive.
I am curious what your sources are, particularly for this statement: *A good deal of sexual incompatibility is due to genital mutilation of both sexes around the world (and while I'm at it I may as well mention episiotomy, the unscientifically-based obstetrical tradition of cutting open the vagina for birth.)*
Can you explain what kinds of problems and pain? I ask because my boyfriend is circumcised and has no problems or pain.
I'm not aware of any studies showing any difference in sexual satisfaction between circumcised and uncircumcised men. I'm also not aware of any function that is missing. In fact I've heard the explanation that rather than removing the most sensitive part, removing the foreskin uncovers the most sensitive part. Its hard to compare since no one can experience both, but we can look at whether there is a statistical difference in satisfaction from one category to the other.
On the other hand, removing the clitoris would be like cutting off the head of the penis-- it definitely removes function. And infibulation is so much worse, I'd compare it to complete castration.
I'm not defending male circumcision-- as I said, I'm not really comfortable with the idea of cutting babies and I wouldn't mind if they banned it. But I do not think its as bad as FGM (either removing the clitoris, infibulation, or something in between).
This is really becoming off topic.
If you want to read about some of the possible complications of male circumcision, aside from the common ones, like not enough skin for erection, or skin tags/bridges/etc., you can go to http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/.
There are not enough studies regarding the sexual satisfaction of un/circumcised men to draw a conclusion, but some have shown that a significant portion of circumcised men rate their sex/masturbatory life as less satisfying than intact men do. As there is no actual medical need for circumcision, (there is always a better alternative treatment) these results should be enough to make people question why we are doing this to our children.
FYI that study that I referenced earlier, the one by Sorrels - it found that circumcised males have a glans that is less sensitive to fine touch than intact males. Circumcision doesn't cut off the glans, but it damages it anyway.
I really wish that so much misinformation didn't exist on the topic of male and female genital cutting. It would be nice for once for male circumcision to be a part of the discussion (because it is part of the FGM equation) without having it overwhelm the discussion due to the need to address misunderstandings.
Here's a study of Korean men circumcised after the age of 20:
"About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision."
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118508378/PDFSTART
You seem to be assuming that the head of the penis is the most sensitive part. It's not, even on a circumcised man (it's usually the circumcision scar line, or the frenulum if that was left intact). Next time you're intimate with your boyfriend, try stimulating just his glans, and nothing below the rim, and wait for him to tell you you're doing it wrong.
Most circumcised men are fine with being circumcised and that's great, but I still think people should be able to decide for themselves if that want part of their genitals removing. Most circumcised *women* are fine with being circumcised too btw.
Someone who is circumcised as an adult could have experience both. There must be someone out there who can answer the question.
The short answer is: results vary.
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/masood1/
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/fink1/
Few of us can overcome the hurdles as you so bravely have, huh? Most of us are fine with our dicks either way. This anti- male circumcision stuff is so overblown. I think I'm going to go add this to my "overrated" list. It's not all about you and your sad penis. Especially here! I know the issues are related, but this is a discussion about WOMEN.
Well.. Yes it's mutilation but have you heard about how it reduces the risk of transfering HIV in heterosexual sex by 60%? That might be something helpful for Africa in the end (at least a hell of a lot more helpful than the pope was with his anti-condom comments...)
I am not sure where I stand on circumcision for males, but I thought that was a fun fact :)
Sorry to go off topic.
Yeah and cutting off women's breasts is likely to end breast cancer but I would certainly not suggest that. You can't go around cutting body parts off people because it will end a disease or epidemic. Genital cutting is a human rights violation no matter how you look at it.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, just stating facts...
I know, I did not mean to come off as rude. Sorry.
The research has NOT shown that it reduces HIV transmission. The initial studies (the ones in the newspapers) were designed such that they would generate a result in favor of Circumcision. This is why they were published in the newspapers, instead of the peer-reviewed medial journals. People wanted to read that circumcision was good, that that's exactly what they got. More recent studies have shown conflicting results.
FGM could probably reduce the transmission of HIV in women as well. If it's painful to have sex, she won't have sex as often, and thus she will be exposed less often, resulting in less HIV transmission. OF course, that doesn't stop if from being a violation of human rights.
Oh. Well I feel dumb for listening to it then.
Out of necessity for listening to that newspaper and not wanting to repeat the same mistake, where did you hear that? I don't doubt you, but like I said I don't want to repeat the same mistake and not check sources.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
What I heard was that circumcision does reduce the HIV transmission rates, but only in areas where people generally have bad hygeine. I might be wrong on this, but I think I read that introducing proper hygeine had the same effect on lowering transmission rates. The idea being that having a foreskin makes it more likely for stuff including germs to be caught under there, but you can reduce the risk by cleaning it just as well as by removing it.
I've seen recent articles in peer-reviewed journals that have connected male circumcision to lower STI rates, including HIV.
I haven't had a chance to keep up with the newest wave of studies, but to be honest, it doesn't matter that much, because 1)condoms will have to be used anyway, so circumcision just clouds the issue and 2)the researchers insist on studying the protective effect for heterosexual males only. What about their their partners? What about women and gay men? What about other transmission vectors? Employing circumcision as a method of disease prevention has, and always will be folly.
Besides which, I wouldn't willingly trade a part of my penis to even completely eliminate the chance of contracting HIV. I would rather just use a condom, thanks. I expect other men feel the same way, but will be pressured (or literally forced, in some cases) into it anyway.
See, I've never heard anything about it causing psychological trauma. Do you have some evidence of that? That's exactly what I mean-- I know lots of men who are circumcised and they're all fine with it and can happily enjoy sex and everything.
Like I said, I'd be ok with banning the practice*, because it DOES cause pain to the baby, but it doesn't cause anything like the problems that FGM causes later in life.
There have also been studies recently showing that male circumcision reduces the chances of transmitting HIV, but I think that learning how to properly clean the foreskin was shown to have the same effect in reducing transmission, so whatever.
*I know that would cause problems with Judaism. But if we're willing to say that we can step in and change the cultural practices in Africa, why is that different with Judaism? If Jewish men want to honor the covenant they could get it done as adults, with anesthesia.
Personally, I don't think that banning male circumcision is a very pressing cause, precisely because it does not ruin the lives of grown men. It hurts the baby and I don't like that, but barring accidents it does not cause problems and pain later in life. FGM does, and that makes it a way more important issue.
Yes I do. Assuming that you find MY testimony to be insufficient evidence, you can read the book CIRCUMCISION: THE HIDDEN TRAUMA, by the psychologist Ron Goldman, which discusses the topic in great detail. (although, it is 12 years old, so it's missing some of the new studies)
Well, what I'm sort of trying to get at is the details of your testimony. What hurts? What exactly is a problem? How do you know it was caused by circumcision? Did they make a mistake while doing your circumcision or was it normal?
I don't mean to be rude, but I'm curious because I just asked my boyfriend about this and he said again that he's circumcised and it has never hurt or caused any problems whatsoever. All guys I've ever talked to have said that, and they certainly don't seem to have any problems having sex or anything.
So I'm trying to understand what exactly you are experiencing, how common it is, and how it compares to complete lack of sexual pleasure and having large chunks of your body cut off, sewn up, and then ripped open again at various points in your life (wedding night, childbirth, etc).
Personally, I have pain with sex most of the time, and I'm working on figuring out what the problem is. It is a problem. But I still wouldn't compare it with what these girls go through.
I'm not going to publicly share such painful personal information. This forum is not anonymous for me.
I will say:
There is no 'normal' circumcision. Generally speaking, the only time someone will recognize that a circumcision has been botched is when all or part of the glans is removed. Despite the popular misnomer, the glans is NOT analogous to the clitoris - the glans is capable of detecting pressure only, and it acts to trigger the reflex of ejaculation. Ejaculation is not synonymous with orgasm. A man can still 'function' sexually without a foreskin, he just won't feel all the sensation of sex. This is why MGM is analogous to FGM - the women can still 'function' sexually - but their pleasure will be reduced or eliminated. The better question should be: why do we insist that the definition of sexual function is reproduction? Shouldn't it be sexual pleasure?
Whether male or female genital mutilation is more severe is a moot point. They are both a violation of human rights, and thus morally reprehensible.
I'm sorry you have problems with this. I don't mean to pry, I was only asking about your experience because you brought it up.
However, I don't see any evidence that circumcised men can't experience sexual pleasure. All those circumcised men out there happily masturbating and having sex would contradict that idea. And I am definitely not saying that reproduction is more important than sexual pleasure-- I'm not sure how that's even relevant to this discussion, since in all types of circumcision the person can still reproduce.
I guess you might be saying that your personal experience is evidence that at least in some cases circumcision does impede sexual pleasure, but then, you haven't outright said that and you have said you don't want to give details. That's fine and all but if you're going to use your personal experience to assert that male circumcision does cause serious harm, people are going to ask how, and if you don't want to answer, you can't expect them to take your word for it that its good evidence.
I have now pointed you to enough sources that it is not necessary for me to share my personal experience, which is anecdotal anyway.
I didn't say that they *can't* feel pleasure - they just feel less. I don't doubt that this reduced pleasure is enough for some men - some people are perfectly happy to live their entire lives within 20 miles of where they were born too, but that doesn't mean that it will satisfy everyone.
If you really want to know what it's like, just imagine - how would you feel if your parents had paid someone to cut off your labia and clitoral hood when you were an infant? No, seriously, imagine this for 15 minutes - what would it feel like? How would discovering your sexuality have been different? Your body image? Imagine every other woman you ever meet thinks this is the greatest thing ever and insists that you have no right to feel mutilated: you still have your clitoris, after all. How does that make you feel? How does sex feel different? Masturbation? What do you do to deal with the dryness? How would you have even learned that parts of you were missing? How does it make you feel that men think that intact women are 'dirty'? What jokes do you think that other women will make about the cutting/intact genitals? What does your mutilated vulva look like without any folds?
Hopefully this will help you understand.
Removing a part of somebody's body that is necessary for her well-being and "violating their human rights" ARE essentially different things.
Bodyparts, diseases, pain, sex are very real and physical things. Human rights are legal constructs. Imagine a law was passed that said we normal citizens have no right to go to Mars... annoying yes, but not really affecting your life even though it might be a "violation of your rights". We are using the word "break" in fundamentally different ways when we say "you broke your arm" and "you broke the law". Now, the law - or the human right - might be a good construct, but that would be because it relates to something "more real" (like a law against breaking somebody's arm). Then it's justification is not itself - and the "bad" is not just that "you violated a legal construct" but that you violated the physical and real thing that the construct told you not to violate.
There is therefore very big differences in female and male circumcision. Especially if all arguments against male circumcision are just metaphysical and cultural - the arguments against female circumcision are very physical and biological. Male circumcision might cause psychological issues but only in the relevant cultural context (and not having it done might cause cultural-psychological issues in other contexts). Female circumcision have proven objective physical problems independent of culture and whims.
This doesn't mean I think male circumcision is not problematic (mostly because of cultural and psychological issues), but it is a quite different from this issue.
At the risk of offering Too Much Information, I was circumcised as an infant and I've never had to use any lubricant to masturbate.
I didn't even know that men (circumcised or uncircumcised) needed lube to do that!
I don't know if they *need* it but I think most guys I know use hand lotion.
So far as I know, you're completely typical in this regard. But I'm not going to search for statistics about masterbation while I'm at work, so you'll have to accept an anecdote rather than any evidence.
Circumsision is the same whether its on boys or girls. In both cases you're modifying the body of a child who has not given consent.
No, they're not the same. In both cases you're modifying the body of a child without their consent; but in one cases it causes lifelong pain and complications and a much greater risk of death in childbirth; while in the other case it may or may not make them a little less sensitive while they are having pleasurable and safe sex.
Ok, that last sentence might be a little dismissive. Seriously, tell me the worst complications of male circumcision (not cases where they screw up the circumicision and accidentally cut off the whole penis). What are they? Decreased sensitivity? Pain-- when, where, and how much? Is there something worse that I'm missing?
Now compare those to being sewn together so that having sex literally rips you apart and requires stitches to fix.
Do not dismiss the worst outcomes of circumcision for men while only discussing the worst forms of FGM. Please compare apples to apples.
For the men and women who are mutilated, the 'normal' outcome doesn't matter because they are not experiencing the 'normal' outcome.
But as I understand it, the normal, average, expected outcome of the simpler form of FGM is loss of sexual pleasure, and the normal, average, expected outcome of infibulation is pain and complications during sex and childbirth.
On the other hand, the normal, average, expected outcome of male circumcision is that it will heal quickly, the boy won't remember it being done, and will never have any problems from it.
But as I understand it, the normal, average, expected outcome of the simpler form of FGM is loss of sexual pleasure, and the normal, average, expected outcome of infibulation is pain and complications during sex and childbirth.
On the other hand, the normal, average, expected outcome of male circumcision is that it will heal quickly, the boy won't remember it being done, and will never have any problems from it.
So I think that is comparing apples to apples.
If we want to compare worst case scenarios, has anyone ever died from male circumcision?
Yes, many boys have died from circumcision, even in the western highly medicalized setting. The negative outcomes of circumcision are very poorly reported, so I can't give you reliable data. Also, I do not believe that death is the worst possible outcome. I think that David Reimer's experience might have been the worst outcome.
Your characterization of male circumcision is simply incorrect - it is contrary to the evidence linked to by me and others. Problems are not generally attributed to circumcision, so the assertion that they will have no problems does not support your argument. I think it would help if you did some more research - you might discover a study that showed that partners of circumcised men are significantly more likely to experience vaginal dryness than partners of intact men. MGM is not just a men's issue - it affects women too.
No, they're not the same. In both cases you're modifying the body of a child without their consent; but in one cases it causes lifelong pain and complications and a much greater risk of death in childbirth; while in the other case it may or may not make them a little less sensitive while they are having pleasurable and safe sex.
Ok, that last sentence might be a little dismissive. Seriously, tell me the worst complications of male circumcision (not cases where they screw up the circumicision and accidentally cut off the whole penis). What are they? Decreased sensitivity? Pain-- when, where, and how much? Is there something worse that I'm missing?
Now compare those to being sewn together so that having sex literally rips you apart and requires stitches to fix.
I'm not saying male circumcision is good, but I think infibulation is clearly much much worse.
This sort of moral relativism really annoys me. At the end of the day, this is a non-vital and demonstrably dangerous and painful surgery being performed on unconsenting children. I believe that is always morally wrong, regardless of any other circumstances.
Moral relativism is a fact; its that smugness you heard seething in Jerry Falwell's voice...
Look no further than the Religious Right & ask yourself if their brand of morals equals yours. Moral relativism is simply the argument those in power use to denigrate the morals & choices of those not in power.
You can make an argument against female circumcision, but touting the superiority of Western culture over African isn't the way to do it.
I don't see how they were touting the superiority of Western culture though...
While I agree that imposing a set of morals on a different group is wrong, I can't help but see any way out of that in this case... We wouldn't excuse murder within a culture, even if it's culturally ingrained. How is damaging an innocent child any different? There is a line when it comes to morals, and I think that definitely crosses it. Just because they say it's okay doesn't make it okay. Even if we're forcing our culture on them, in the end it's all out of concern for the child.
I agree that we have to be careful about these things, but I really feel that this issue is one where we can't stand by and let this happen to these poor little girls.
I think maybe you are misunderstanding me, or maybe I am misunderstanding you. When I say moral relativism, I mean the belief that some things that you consider wrong are OK by you if other people do them because their culture says it's OK.
I don't believe this. I believe that there are just some things that are just plain wrong, always, period. I believe that cutting the genitals of children, who by definition cannot consent, is one of those things.
I did not intend to denigrate African cultures. However, I cannot honestly say that I respect the part of a culture that encourages the practice of female genital cutting on children.
I'm sorry EG, I jumped at the "moral relativism" phrase in your 1st sentence...Your argument is pretty universal...a little thin skinned on my part...cultural comparisons can be tricky.
It's OK. Cultural comparisons are a very tricky subject indeed.
"When I say moral relativism, I mean the belief that some things that you consider wrong are OK by you if other people do them because their culture says it's OK."
I totally agree with you here, moral relativism is just a total cop-out, and can lead to some horrible things being deemed morally permissible. Not to mention the fact that the argument falls apart upon further consideration. If morality is culturally (or personally) relative, and the city of Madison, WI decides to legalize marijuana, but the state of WI does not, then which culture is more right? From a strictly moral sense, this leads to beliefs that can be very inconsistent, and I don't think that's a correct way to approach moral issues.
Even if we were to allow that morality is subjectively relative from person to person, then one could assume that *everyone's* moral beliefs are correct and no one is wrong. I don't think anyone would be comfortable with that.
While I do think we walk a fine line here between moral condemnation of FGM and cultural imperialism, I *don't* think that there is anything at all wrong with with saying FGM is, prima facie, morally impermissible.
Hmm.. This is tough, because I can't help but wonder where we draw the line on cultural practices? If another country, which never harmed the body in any way, looked at our practice of piercing ears and wanted to make it illegal, a lot of people would be infuriated. But obviously female circumcision and ear piercing cannot even remotely be compared.. I can't imagine what those poor children go through. It just seems so wrong and so horrible.
Where is the line for cultural respect? The people fighting against it's illegality have likely felt like they lost a part of their cultural identity. But....
Well, I think the child's heath, comfort, and right to choice are more important. By far. Yeah, I think that even though there are people who might feel robbed of their cultural identity, there are much better ways to keep in touch with your roots. Mutilating children cannot be included there.
People are allowed to get their children's ears pierced, but that really doesn't cause any complications throughout life, and they pretty much go away if you stop wearing earrings. On the other hand, some adults go in for really extreme piercings-- the kind where they stretch out their ears and stuff. I don't think we would allow that to be done to a child. It has to be a consenting adult. Once its a consenting adult, then fine, they can do whatever self-mutilation they want-- some people love to do that kind of thing.
A better comparison would be something like orthodontics-- having braces is reasonably painful, and in most cases its more about making your teeth look good than fixing their function. But the general idea is that it should make your mouth work better, not worse, and it shouldn't cause any complications later in life. Its also something that can be undone-- if you really want to you could make your teeth crooked again. You can't grow a new clitoris.
Oh yeah I know. That's why I said they weren't really comparable.
I suppose it was an attempt to find something easy to empathize with.. Braces work too, but like you said they help us rather than hinder.
I really can't think of anything we still do that qualifies as a decent comparison. Foot-binding was at least as bad, but that's outlawed in China now. In the Western world the worst thing I can think of is corsets, but those are also gone nowadays, and I'm not sure that wearing a corset really approaches the level of trauma of FGM.
Actually I thought of something closer in Western history- castrating young boys so they'd keep their high singing voices. That was similar to FGM, and I'd say just as wrong. But we don't do it anymore.
That IS really close though. Eunuchs?
Well I think this point is where we fight the inhumanity against female circumcision and get rid of it once and for all. I suppose it's only to be expected that some people will protest.. I'm sure there must have been when it fell out of style for castrating men (although I don't really know the history of that).
Yes, there was a lot of protest when people stopped castrating men, because there were no more *castrati*, men with professionally honed children's voices. Personally, I think FGM is worse than castration, because victims of FGM still feel desire without (in most cases) being able to consummate it. That is as close to hell as I can imagine.
Castration does have an equal in women, it's called a hysterectomy.
Castration doesn't just prevent sexual gratification, it takes away reproductive abilities along with sex all together.
How are they evenly remotely similar?
Women have a more complicated reproductive system due to being the ones who carry the babies. As such, its possible to remove the ability to have sex that is in any way enjoyable or even not horribly painful, and still have the ability to have children, because they are separate organs.
In a man, it would be difficult to do that, because its all closer together. But I suppose you could cut off a man's penis and he wouldn't be able to have sex, but if his testicles still produce sperm you could artificially inseminate a woman and he could still reproduce. Does that somehow make this analogy better?
The point is I did not say they're exactly the same-- they can't be-- but I said they were similar. I'd compare castrating a boy to infibulation of a girl-- the most dramatic and horrific form of FGM.
I'm sorry for the mistake then, I admit I was tired, went to the opening show of Star Trek (was AWESOME).
I thought you were comparing clitoris to testicles. The loss of the two are not equal.
I've never been clear on whether castration means cutting off the testicles or the penis or both or either. I guess I was thinking about cutting off the penis, but that isn't what they did to castrati singers, is it? But even if they still have a penis, without testicles it can't get erect and they can't have sex, is that right? I'm not sure that I have the details exactly right, but again, I was not saying that specific body parts are the same, I was saying the general idea of doing MAJOR mutilation to an adolescent's genitals for social reasons is the same. Castration, whichever way you define it, is very major and serious, like FGM. Male circumcision may not be a good thing but is not as serious as castration.
Castration refers only to the testicles.
Penectomy (sp?) refers to the cutting off of the penis.
My point was milder forms of FGM, like type 1. Does not compare to castration.
But that is a pointless argument. Because both done for anything but medical purposes is a breach of human rights. I will fight both with equal vigor regardless of which I consider more severe.
Strictly speaking, castration makes an erection all but impossible. Drugs and mechanical devices can help achieve an erection. But orgasms (which is different from ejaculation, they just both usually happen at the same time) end up being painful instead of pleasurable.
I'm just saying that Type 1a FGM is very similar to MGM. It is still protected by the UN, yet MGM being analogous to Type 1a of FGM is not protected by the same organization.
I could never argue that more extreme cases FGM are not more severe then MGM (at least the version of MGM I'm talking about). I'm simply saying that MGM like type 1a FGM should be protected. On moral grounds if nothing else.
Side note, in Italy yes they castrated boys (removed testicles) to keep their higher pitched voices for choir and the likes. This is a form of MGM, and circumcision is a milder version of MGM. But like all forms of FGM it deserves to be protected too.
I've seen a couple of documentaries that dealt with foot binding (don't ask me which ones it was a while ago). What was brought home to me was that for those whose feet were already bound, the ban had negative consequences. Certainly the result of the ban was a good thing, but the way it was decreed and enforced showed little sympathy. Foot binding was an integral part of the culture in some regions and the position of the young women in those societies became uncertain, sometimes difficult as a result of the ban. Many women continued doing it in secret to avoid the social stigma of having large feet in that society. (Even in western society there is a perverse belief that women should have small feet – why? Larger feet are good for balance, swimming etc. I've even heard a fashion designer say that he likes high heels because they have the same effect on women's pedal appearance and walking style as foot binding does).
Anyway, my point is that today I doubt you would find anyone, even in the regions where it was popular, who thinks foot binding was good. Despite the short term negative consequences for the women at the time. For this reason I'm going to offer the opinion that keeping with culture isn't the best way to go here.
It sounds like a horrific rite in practice, conducted for the pure repression of women...i suppose if it was done clinically & freely by the women themselves...Of course male circumcision is also a painful, *mostly* cosmetic practice so there's an aspect of this that seems like cultural "imperialism" on the part of the West...it could be a *pot-kettle* situation, though in actual practice I don't think this is conducted clinically & safely, or with the freely made choice of the girl. And since this is a unnecessary *medical* procedure with lifelong implications, I don't think its a situation parents should be able to decide for their children (much like parents can't prevent their kids from having an abortion).
As far as the "role reversal" of Ahmadu & Mose is concerned, its not uncommon for 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants to claim mother country customs--all of them--as a way to validate their own identity in a Western society that often marginalizes it. Sometimes they even emphasize them beyond even the mother country. And its not uncommon for 1st generation immigrants, as in Mose's case, to bend over backward in assimilating, distancing from most or much of their culture. In fact, this is about the most common thing in the world. I had an Italian American boss whose father anglicized the pronunciation of the family name in order to fit in more...nothing could be more common.
why do you assume male circumcision is merely cosmetic? and some the women in my family that were circumcised, did it on their own. others, like my mother, had it done to them when they were babies, like all the men
While some circumcisions are for practical reasons (for instance, Botswana is going on a circumcision spree to cut HIV infection rates (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090507/hl_afp/botswanahealthaids_20090507214654)), the usual motivation in the cultural context of most people here is mostly cosmetic/tradition. The hygiene benefits are fairly minimal, and the sexual use/satisfaction benefits are pretty minimal.
I don't think that the article really makes FGM to be as "complex" as you say; all it is really saying is
1) In most places it is a social signifier of privilege
2) Women who have been cut are just as deeply invested in maintaining the practice as men, if not more.
For example, in many places it seems that to be recognised as an adult, one must be cut. That isn't an argument for FGM, anymore than the social stigma attached to hairy underarms is an argument that shaving is a beneficient practice. The article starts out by seeming to present "two sides" to FGM. It finishes, pretty tamely, by arguing that opposition to FGM must be bottom-up, not top-down.
Which, as a conclusion is not that fucking incredible.
Not to mention that the stories I've read about it being done are just horrific, beyond the result of the surgery.. I don't know the statistics but it seems pretty common to do this without anesthesia, without proper sanitation, etc.
We might think its no big deal to remove an appendix, but we wouldn't do it on a conscious child with a dirty knife.
I have to say that I find it especially interesting to see the Westerner as the defender. My main question, are YOU circumcised, oh champion of tradition?
Yes, she is.
First line of the article:
"On Feb. 6, 2007, two women, both of whom had been circumcised in Africa, met in the conference room of a small foundation on Fifth Avenue in New York City for a highly unusual debate."
Now, the circumstances of her excision are very different from most, she was a senior in college, not a child, but she was excised.
I think if we're talking terminology, "female genital cutting" seems to be a neutral term that would not offend either side.
However, I find the practice reprehensible. The woman mentioned in the article who was cut when she was 18--fine. That was her choice. The children that are cut--not okay.
I personally abhor most Imperialist sentiments of cultural superiority, however, I do believe that there are some basic right and wrongs that cross cultural lines--and causing devastating, dangerous physical genital cutting on children is one of them.
(I am also opposed to male circumcision as well, but it is so much less damaging than FGC that I think FGC deserves more attention.)
Chrissy, I think that FGM and Male-GM do require equal attention because I have noticed that the western practice of promoting the shoddy research that "showed" that MGM reduces the transmission of HIV has actually resulted in promoters of "female circumcision" suggesting that FGM reduces the transmission of HIV as well. I'm thinking specifically of a news article from Kenya...
Anyway, we do run into the 'pot calling the kettle black' issue. Areas which practice FGM almost always practice MGM as well, and they're both seen as a rite of passage (there are exceptions of course). So, I we tell someone that it's not OK to cut the genitals of a female child, but that it is OK for some reason to cut the genitals of a male child, we simultaneously destroy our credibility, and we reinforce the idea that male and female children should be treated differently.
My general approach is that improving the world begins at home. I think we should outlaw the cutting of all children's genitals, no matter if they be male, female, or intersex.
The article states the the most mild form of the "circumcision" is removal of the clitorus. This is complete bullshit. The most important part for me in this article is where it states that the more choices girls have the more they run as fast as the fucking can away from this practice. I'm sorry that this comment is lacking in subtletly and deep analysis. This issue makes me too damn sad and angry for that.
No, the most mild form is actually removal of the hood, which is the form most practiced in Egypt.
Damn right, well said. I sometimes think "well, maybe I don't know everything, maybe I should just suspend judgement for a while". And then I think , they are talking about cutting off a woman's CLITORIS AND SCRAPING OUT HER VULVA. That is not a cultural relative. That is a biological absolute. There is no fancy way of saying "that's fucked".
I think that this is a conversation that can be had without bringing male circumcision into it. In a strict sense, the same argument can be made - that it's modifying their body without their consent - and if it were to be made illegal here, I'd be fine with it, hell, I'd be for it for the sake of consistency. But the magnitude is simply so different that the comparison doesn't seem necessary. Most males of my generation are circumcised, and nobody I've known has ever seemed to care (oddly enough this is the sort of conversation that comes up among my friends, whatever that means). Female circumcision, at least as I understand it, drastically reduces if not eliminates the ability of the person to enjoy sex, which I would argue is one of the more interesting parts of life. That is cruel.
male circumcision has the same effect on sexual pleasure.
That is simply not true.
Unless, over night, male circumcision has come to involve chopping off the glans coupled with crippling the ability to achieve an erection (preventing penetrative sex), for example, it isn't even near being on par with FGM.
I would be cautious how you approach your conclusion. To which form of FGM are you referring?
The mildest and most common form, I was under the impression is cutting of the clitoral hood. Doesn't that sound alot like cutting of the foreskin? Both are analogous body parts.
I'd also point out that the foreskin has been documented to hold over ten thousand nerve endings.
Type 1:
Excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris.
Type 2:
Excision of the clitoris with partial or total excision of the labia minora
Which type is the most common?
Types I and II are the most common, with variation among countries. Type III, infibulation, constitutes about 20 per cent of all affected women and is most likely in Somalia, northern Sudan and Djibouti.
This is the information I found. They say that the types I and II are the most common, and even the the type I can be done with the excision of part or all the clitoris.
I am sorry, but I do not think "cultural issue" can be an excuse used to subvert individual freedom. I find it ridiculous that a very painful act like genital mutilation- male or female- can be looked on as alright, because a lot of people do it. Culture, in my humble is fluid. It changes. It needs to adopt to changing practices. A lot of languages we speak now would not be there, had it not be for this change. And it is moral relativism, indeed cowardice to take on a horrific act performed on a helpless infant and label it a "cultural rite of passage". No matter what religion or "culture" sanctions it. Slavery by the same relativistic idea can be seen as "cultural". And another this I do not understand is how one or the other person can become a spokesperson for an entire set of people. After all it is an accident of birth that makes a person of a particular race/culture or color- not something they pre-determine. I wonder if ritual prostitution as is still carried out in parts of India- where the women in question are just pubescent should also be sanctioned under "custom". (I can quote thousands of misogyny masquerading as culture examples- female infanticide, dowry etc etc). I am disappointed that this site of all the places needs to take such a wishy-washy outlook on a fundamental right. Like one of the commentors said, if adults wish to undergo a rite of passage, they are free to, it should not be imposed on children.
That's because you're coming at it from a post-Enlightenment, Western, individualistic perspective. If you were in an Eastern culture where the rights of the group precede those of the individual you could reach a different conclusion. See the Chinese movie "Hero" for an interesting juxtaposition of the two...In fact, and this is a brain twister, individual "rights" are just those things the group decides you should have: Cuba says you have a "right" to free health care, the US says you have a "right" to free speech. Or consider the UK, which actually lacks a Bill of Rights...and yet we don't call them immoral.
BUT...One of the few "universal" rights is the right to free of bodily pain and restraint. As its practiced that covers both female circumcision and slavery and "ritual prostitution".
The problem with moral absolutism is that those in power determine what's moral, which in this country generally means that gays can't marry, women's bodily integrity is threatened, women can freely choose contraception or abortion, and everyone constantly asks, "What would Jerry Falwell do?"
sorry meant "women CAN'T freely choose contraception or abortion"...
i know my perspective on it (post-enlightenment, western, etc), and i think the article makes some good points about having a dialogue and working toward the elimination of this practice from the bottom-up, but yeah, like you said, there are universal rights and if you asked me to make a list of them, "the right to not have someone cut on one's genitals before one has the capacity to consent to such a decision" would be pretty far up there.
i can't see any way that this practice is ok to perform on children, period, and it really bothers me to see intelligent people writing in a way that suggests that it is, ever.
Every evil in the earth is part of someone's 'culture'. I don't accept 'but other people do it!' as an excuse.
Would you accept 'culture' as an excuse for slavery? For sexual abuse? For female infanticide? All these things were at one time OK in somebody's culture.
I know I am being crotchety here, but why the hell can there never be a conversation about FGM on a feminist website without someone bringing up male circumcision?
Can't we focus on women for 2.1 seconds?? Why does it always have to be about the men??
And you know what? Removing the foreskin is not remotely comparable to removing the clitoris. And infibulation is an abomination.
Okay, rant over.
Looking back over the thread, I agree with you-- the male circumcision discussion was an inappropriate derail. Sorry for contributing!
I think my problem is this: We argue that FGM is wrong because girls can't consent to it. Then we dismiss adult women who support/continue/practice FGM, because clearly they've been duped into doing so. So at what point can girls and women consent to an action or articulate their own experiences? By not listening to adult women, we infantalize them. If women are infantalized as adults, then the concept of girls' consent becomes negligible. If we infantalize women, we're continuing (or at least building on) a history of colonialism. The only way to *not* infantalize women is to approach the subject with an open mind, rather than assume that anyone who supports FGM needs to be saved from themselves.
Being an adult, though, does not always mean being right. Both adult men and women make bad choices, and when those choices affect others adversely, those making the bad choices should be held accountable.
Holding someone accountable is not infantilizing them. I think this woman should be held accountable for endorsing a practice that has hurt millions of women. What she chose is being forced on others.
I don't blame the Senegalese woman for being upset.
Indeed, not only is holding people accountable not infantalising them, it's basically the necessary and sufficient criterion for not infantalising them.
because the desire to circumcise their girls and boys come from the same place in these cultures. it's western ideas of feminism and gender roles that distort the circumcision and make it an attack on women, when in fact its seen as a rite of passage.
look i feel it should stop, but for both men and women. no boys or girls need to be cut to be acceptable within society. but stating that it's always about men or the male element to this discussion derailed the conversation, ignores the fact that in thee cultures (and i am from one such culture) this is not a gender issue. it has been made one by people with a western lens
The desire to circumcise both genders come from the same place? Bullshit. Practices such as clitoridectomy and infibulation are direct attempts to regulate the sexuality of young women in these cultures. If sex is painful or unstimulating, the reasoning goes, there is less temptation for the women to cheat.
If the male version of circumcision in these cultures made sex painful and/or unsatisfying, I would agree with your argument, but that is usually not the case. And why is that? Because boys are allowed to want and enjoy sex. Girls aren't.
It's the same ol' universal misogyny that dictates that women aren't allowed to define their own sexuality, and just because there are women who buy into it doesn't make it right.
As for rites of passage, we have a number of such things in this country. Hazing in the Greek system, jumping in of gang members; it's harmful and cruel and inhumane.
I have no patience for those who use culture as an excuse for barbarity, and I applaud the African women and men who are working to change it.
you call it bullshit but offer nothign to support your postion. circumcision in many cultures is seen a cleansing and a means to control sexualitiy in both genders. offer some evidence that shows the desire in these cultures is to regulate the sexuality of young women, other than western desire to see it as such. oddly enough, my anecdotal research and experience has shown this cutting actually has the opposition effect, and makes women more sexuality active, tho for different reasons.
the male version is always painful. some happen as babies so w only deal with the creams for a short while, but others happen at adolesence and is quite painful and takes away a great deal of sexual pleasure. talk to guys that were circumcised as adults, after they had had sex and ask them the difference. it's a big drop in sexual pleasure. you choose to see this as a solely female issue when in fact it isn't. you find it normal that men are the only ones cut in the west, so when a woman is cut you assume its an attack on them when in fact it comes from the same desire to regulate sex, 'cleanliness' and in some cases mark a move into adulthood. a friend of mine from tanzania, male, was circumcised at about 14. it was done in the bush. he spent time with older males in seclusion and they explained to him what was expected of him as he became a man. he bonded with other boys his age and basically meditated for a period of time. then he was circumcised. this happened in the bush, with natural pain killers. there was no attack on his maleness, but a rite of passage. he said the experience marks an important period in his life. i can see if one would want to destroy such a experience because it involves cutting, but to assert that malice is involved simply because you want to see it as such is wrong.
Genital mutilation is done to both boys and girls, yet only girls deserver your attention. Why instead of only girls or only boys can it be just about genital mutilation.
It because people are unwilling to accept male circumcision as genital mutilation that it's so important. Once we get over that, maybe we can tackle the problem of genital mutilation and not be sexist in our terminology of human rights issues. Cutting penis=bad, cutting vagina=bad. Is that so hard to grasp?
If you insist on talking about FGM, and ignoring the problem of MGM. I guarantee you someone will always bring up MGM.
MGM is certainly worthy of attention, but this particular post is about FGM. Please look at the title again. The word female is used twice.
And the reason I get annoyed when it is derailed with endless discussions on MGM is the same as when we discuss domestic violence against women and some commenter invariably comes on to say "men get abused too." Or, when we discuss rape, "men get raped too."
We know! But why can we not focus on women on a site ostensibly FOR women? Why is it always about the men? Why are women never as important as men?
Oh, right. We just aren't.
So sorry. Won't presume women's problems are important again, especially not on a FEMINIST website like Feministing.
BECAUSE it's not JUST a feminist issue. It's a human rights issue. Both genders suffer.
You are willingly picking girls to be your worthy gender of your attention. When a comparable (I understand the difference in severity) crime occurs to boys.
There are legitimate times, even here, to be concerned about the treatment of men, and object to a problem being presented as a woman problem when it's a human problem.
This isn't that time, however.
I disagree. AGAIN Type 1a FGM is essentially the same thing as MGM. All anyone had to do to shut me up is say they deserve equal protection. Disagreeing with this simple FACT. Will always cause me to speak out.
I disagree. AGAIN Type 1a FGM is essentially the same thing as MGM. All anyone had to do to shut me up is say they deserve equal protection. Disagreeing with this simple FACT. Will always cause me to speak out.
If you're crotchety, I'm with you. At this point I'm nearly ready to say that, okay, male circumcision is bad and should be banned - not because I agree but just so that people will shut up about it and focus on the actual issue at hand, which is NOT male circumcision.
I'm wondering under which category "this is just like male circumcision! Let's talk about that instead!" falls in Derailing for Dummies.
Amen! EXACTLY what I thought! I mean, it's like, you talk about battered women and someone starts endlessly asking "what about battered men?" It's as if nothing is really very important unless it happens to men.
If someone wants to have a long discussion on male circumcision, fine, but not by hijacking a discussion on female genital removal.
I wonder how women who have had FGM performed on them feel about it? Wouldn't this question of moral relativism vs. moral absolutism be a little easier to think about if we got the point of view of women who have had it done to them and are trying to end it? If they exist, then that alone answers part of the question of whether or not we are imposing our Western culture onto another. It's extremely difficult to argue that a practice should continue when people within your own culture are attempting to speak out against it. (Someone like Mose, for example)
The first place I ever heard of about FGM was in a copy of Reader's Digest that I read when I was about 12, and it gave me nightmares. It was an in-depth article about a woman from Africa who came to Europe to be a model. But she was having more and more complications from her infibulation, to the point where it took her 10 minutes and horrible pain to pee, one drop at a time. Her period was a nightmare. She finally went to a doctor in Europe who was able to help her a little bit, but she could never regain what she had lost. Having painless sex was out of the question-- the goal was to help her be able to function on a day to day basis.
She also told the story about how it was done to her when she was 8. She was grabbed by the older women of the tribe, including her mother, with no explanation. They held her down and cut her with no anesthesia, no sanitation, and then tied her legs together to let it all heal back up.
It was an incredibly horrific story. I don't know how to find the article again but I think it might have been an excerpt from a memior or something? Anyway, it was her own story and it was clear her life would have been much better if she hadn't had that done to her.
Waris Dirie? Her story is INCREDIBLE! Not just the FGM part, her entire story. She lived in a nomadic tribe in the desert and was raped by a family friend at a young age. She ran away shortly after the FGM I believe and found her way to Europe where she was discovered by a photographer. She has written several books. I think they all start with the word "Desert." I forget which one I read. I think "Desert Flower."
Also one of the models on ANTM basically went through the same thing and wants to become a spokesperson against FGM. I'm sure if you did a quick Google search for people against this horrific "rite of passage" you'd find out that many of them have had it done to them as well. It's not just a "Westerner looking in" type of problem.
It probably was her. It was years ago so I don't remember the name, but everything you posted seems to fit.
There is always a trade-off between individual freedom and cultural conformity. Of course, cultures have condoned things that we now see as awful (slavery, spousal abuse etc..). But cultures serve positive and indispensable functions by binding people together through share of common values. People cannot exist without community. Individualistic liberalism and feminism has to place some value for cultural conformity and a community's right to dictate some norms that has enabled the community to survive. So yes, this is going to be a line-drawing problem, as everything is. And I think the take-home message, as others here have said, is that whenever we may be concerned about imposing Western values on non-Western countries, we should listen very carefully to those who are in the culture who are doing potentially harmful activities. It is conceivable that in some cases, women are happy with female circumcision because of the value they receive from participating in that cultural practice. Maybe they young age of the child is an important part of the practice. Saying that we need to wait til the girls are at the age of consent frames the issue to be an individual right rather than a cultural right. This level of framing may be correct here, but I do not think that it is always OBVIOUSLY so.
I find FGM very very hard to understand. But of course I would, because I am no expert and it is not practiced in my culture. I find male circumcision easy to understand. It is practiced in my culture, and it seems like it has positive value by bonding groups together religiously and culturally through shared norms.
If a critical number of people from within the culture want help changing the practice of FGM, as many have, then we should perk our ears up, but also be extra sensitive to internal debate and our own statuses as outsiders.
This reminds me of a practice that use to affect hundreds of millions of Chinese women for probably at least 1000 years: foot binding. Haven't heard of it? That's because it was abolished about a century ago. You can look up "Foot Binding" on Wikipedia for the gory details.
I just like to make two points considering the parallel. First, everything "good" that one can say about FGM can be applied to food binding -- it's a rite of passage, it's traditional culture, many women themselves took pride in it, so on and so forth.
Second, those Chinese who finally ended it (and it was the Chinese themselves, including the various modernizers, Nationalists, Communists, etc.), minced no words and made a frontal attack on it -- this was a shameful example of the backwardness and barbarity of Chinese culture; Western cultures were superior and more advanced ("if you want evidence, look how these foreign devils beat the crap out of us in those wars in the 19th and early 20th century"); we needed to take down this decrepit old culture and emulate ourselves to the West. They did not need the concept of human rights. They fully subscribed to the notion of Western cultural superiority. And they ended it.
The great puzzle to me is how can a woman from Sierra Leon, looking at how broken down her own country is (ranked lowest on the UN Human Development Index and going nowhere fast), can stand before vastly more successful Westerners and defend its culture like this, all without a trace of shame.
simply stating that western culutre is far more superior is ignorant to say the least... look at your priviledges of being in a first-world nation. many third-world nations are exloited by 1st-world nations through SAPs and labor. how superior is the west if the reason capitalism works is by exploiting cheap labor and resources from poorer countries? try to understand the other side and not just shame her from being a nonwestern country; although one would find the practice morally wrong, there are many economic reasons for it and women who do it have more opportunities in pooer countries because otherwise she would be less likely to marry or provide for herself...simply outlawing the practice cant work unless the culture changes. and fgm started in the west...look it up
foot binding was not done to men so it isn't an apt comparison. if both genders are being circumcised, how is it an attack on women?
The utter stupidity of this argument, and I hesitate to be so rude, is its complete ignorance. Its one of the problems in cultural comparisons, not denigrating the other culture just because you disagree with them. The Chinese weren't saying that Western culture was superior, they were saying it was more scientifically & economically advanced.
And that's still the case today. It was argued that the internet and the opening of trade with the Chinese would liberalize the country. But as it is it just gives them more tools to be Big Brother.
There's no objective means of claiming the "superiority" of a culture. You might just as well try claiming the superiority of white people...or men...or maybe you happen to believe that.
What am I missing here? Are self-professed feminists actually defending a culture that proudly, on a massive scale, openly practice mutilation on young women? Are they -- those who practice it and those who publicly defend it such as this Ahmadu character -- not GUILTY? Are they not CRIMINALS? If you agree they are guilty criminals (legally or otherwise), you must have, as I have, JUDGED them. You and I both come from a culture that abhors such practice (as far as I know no Western society tolerates this, and if it is done it's surely done secretly for fear of public outrage and punishment by law). But if our culture is no superior to theirs, what right do we have to condemn what they do? If a judge is an embezzler, how can he be fit to pass sentence on a thief?
I fear my example of the Chinese foot binding may have been less than clear in making its point. When I say a culture is inferior, by no means I'm saying all people in such a culture are inferior (by the same token there are plenty of hypocrites and outright reactionaries in a superior culture). During the turn of the 20th century there was a courageous minority in China who declared war against their own thousand year old culture. They justified their war in the name of modernization and progress, which I believe continues to be the one of the most potent ideological weapons one can wield in a developing country that is trying to catch up: Shame On Us! Should we not be embarrassed to stand in front of the world and behave thus? Should we not adopt the more enlightened practices of others? Are we condemned to be the object of scorn and horror and pity in the eyes of the more advanced West forever? Those courageous and capable Chinese modernizers did this. They fought tooth and nail and destroyed an integral part their own culture. Good for them.
I firmly believe in progress for culture, no less than for science. And every story of progress is also a story of war, where a minority rebels against the tyranny of the majority, the ancien regime, the old ignorance and stagnation. It is utterly naive to pretend that those who fight against FGM (like foot binding) are doing anything less than attacking their own culture and trying to build a superior new culture modeled on the Western culture, on the ruins of the old (one where women are not mutilated, if nothing else). If the new culture is NO BETTER than the old, what are they but contemptible fools?
So yes I do hold the cultures that practice FGM to be inferior to Western cultures (and contemporary Chinese culture, and any other culture that holds such practice to be an abomination, for that matter). And I give my heartiest applause to those courageous minorities who work tirelessly in such countries to overthrow their own backward culture and end FGM. And I have no sympathy for the likes of Ahmadu, who are working for the dominant culture and in effect holding back the progress of their own people.
"can stand before vastly more successful Westerners and defend its culture like this, all without a trace of shame."
WTF. I think this is an awful statement. "without a trace of shame"??? "Vastly more successful Westerners"??? Really?
Anyone who didn't bother to read Goldberg's piece, READ IT! NOW! I'll admit that I was initially reluctant to read anything that might possibly be a form of FGM apologism, but this is definitely not the case. Read it, read the whole thing.
If there's one idea -- an idea that I haven't worked over sufficiently, I'll admit -- that stands as the core of my feminist ideology, it's that in culture, tradition, and even biology, the cards are stacked against women. Toxic cultural institutions must be dismantled, but they must be dismantled from within.
She looks like Sideshow Bob.
what the fuck? No attacks on women's looks here, please.
In my understanding female circumcision/FGM/genitalia cutting is not one monolithic tradition or rite. It is heavily influenced by the culture that adopted the practice and its ideals of how females are viewed in society.
I've heard of everything from a ceremonial letting of a drop of blood from the clitoral hood as a rite into adulthood to the full removal of the clitoris and sewing of the vagina.
FGM is not only one specific thing, and until we understand the nuances of the societies that adopt it and how religion factors in and the differences in FGM in different parts of the world, there is no way that finger wagging from Western industrialized societies is going to have any impact on the way women are treated in other countries and societies.
When child abuse (because that is just what it is) happens in Western society, it's child abuse. When it's done to non-white non Western-born children, it's culture and we ought to respect it.
I don't know about all of you, but the condescending liberal perspective of "respecting culture" seems like the ultimate form of well-meaning racism to me. No one clamored to "preserve" the misogyny of white culture, why do we do so when it comes to non-white culture? I personally think that all children, whether white/Western-born or not, have the right to decide what happens to their bodies, and that cultures are dynamic and not static and can be changed to create a less toxic (i.e. less pro-abuse) environment for those children.
While I agree with the main thrust of your argument (no excuses for FGM), I want to argue that this is no at all the equivalent of child abuse. According to Ahmadu in her country this is practiced on a large scale and openly done, and those who undergo it are initiated into a society where members are held in honor and esteem (and presumably those who do not undergo such procedures are ostracized).
Compare this to child abusers in our society: they are condemned by the public, children are taken away from them if they are found guilty, and surely there is no exclusive "society of child abusers" parading around. Child abuse is seen as an aberration, a violation of norm, a cautionary tale told to warn people against what not to do.
This points to the daunting challenge faced by those who are trying to eradicate this practice: you are fighting not just the act, but a whole culture (laws and traditions and social norms and expectations). You are not picking hair out of soup. Almost the whole thing is hair.
>
It is child abuse in the sense that you are abusing a child. I'm not saying that it's their culture's version of child abuse, I'm saying that IS child abuse.
Wow. Another example of feministing trying to be too politically correct. This is why I read some of what is posted here with a large grain of salt. This post is absolutely ridiculous.
how is this politically correct? We have an issue here that affect African women, with two African women that have very different views on this.
If anything, that post the other day, which defended Miss California, THAT was politically correct and I didnt' care for it.