And it's huge huge huge in that it'll give a lot of credence to groups working to end the practice not just in Uganda but elsewhere in Africa. And so much of that work is talking to one person at a time.
Case in point (happy story): when I was a Grad. School Admissions Counselor, I met with a prospective student from Mali who was mayor of his commune (county, province, etc) and a pretty young dude, I think only 28. He gave great reasons for wanting to get a US degree, partially to work to end FGM/FGC throughout Mali, as he had just gotten it banned in his entire commune, and had been working on it for almost a decade. Talking with, re-talking with, and educating people ("especially the grannies" he said) about what it really does and means.
An incredibly inspiring guy, he made ME cry while I was interviewing HIM :).
@jezebelacious: This is such a great story. I'm SO glad you told it. Thank you, and thank you to that awesomely progressive dude. It's so much more powerful when the motivations for cultural change come from within communities, rather than well-meaning outsiders. I really hope he and his compatriots get all the help and support they need to help Mali shrug off the shackles of FGM.
Yay for Uganda! I have high hopes that this will be effective. Uganda is one of the success stories in terms of decreasing HIV/AIDS rates - which involved changing mentalities and cultural practices. Because that was successful, I really really hope that outlawing this practice - along with increased education of WHY it's abhorrent and should be stopped - will actually reduce the percentage of girls who undergo FGM.
I've heard that in some places, promoting ceremonial circumcision where girls just receive a small (small enough to heal) cut that doesn't remove anything or do permanent damage can be effective in reducing more severe types of circumcision and FGM, but I haven't seen any studies. Some places just do those less invasive forms of circumcision anyway. Has anyone else heard of this/know where I can find more info on places where this has been done?
It does seem like giving people a symbolic alternative helps answer the cultural question while still preventing severe damage for girls.
@Katxyz: There are subtypes of female genital cutting, and the kinds practiced vary greatly based on geography. Here's a good primer on the subtypes: [www.who.int]
(this page has a link to a much more detailed pdf -- it's a report put out by the WHO last year)
I don't know if there have been public health campaigns to switch to the less damaging types that just involve small cuts or pricks, but I do know that this is traditionally practiced in some countries, and yet still falls under the heading of FGM.
Yes, I know about the different types, but I clearly recall a public health campaign of that type. I also thought part of the debate was moving away from calling the non invasive types FGM, so that they would be practiced instead. Faulty memory...
I'm curious to see how this plays out in reality. It is difficult to police, and I expect it will continue despite its illegality. Since Egypt banned female genital cutting in 2007 (prevalence there is ~95%), it has been reported that no one has been prosecuted under this law.
@thesciencegirl: Well, there is a possibility (or at least I very much hope there is) that since so much of the cultural importance of FMG comes from it's publicity (as part of coming-of-age rites, people knowing who exactly has and has not had it and their subsequent "desirability" as a wife) that simply having to be less open and public about it might inherently devalue the practice?
@thesciencegirl: i think it speaks to the culture of women not being allowed to speak up against men more then anything. Look at rape in a lot of the cultures where genital mutilation is common. It is either ignored (assumed to be part of life) or blamed on the woman. Until women are empowered to speak up against men, no matter what the law, attrocities like this will still exist.
@Lucille van Pelt: Surveys of women in Egypt show that the majority of them (72%, I remember reading) claim to support FGM. That says a lot to me about how ingrained this practice is. I have a med school classmate who did a public health project in Egypt, and she interviewed women there, and many of them said that they wanted to continue the practice, but upon further questioning, they also mentioned that they had negative memories of their own FGM experiences, and that they knew that their daughters had to have it done in order to be eligible for marriage. This is definitely an instance when men acting as allies could make a huge difference.
It seems like such a long battle has been fought to get a bunch of people to agree that it is bad to unnecessarily cut up the genitals of little girls in a way that endangers them and puts their future health at risk.
I mean for the fuck of shit. This is good news but I cannot believe how long it has taken.
@morninggloria: Rewriting/reprimanding a cultural tradition is very, very hard. When studying anthropology, we learned that cultural practices were more difficult to change than religious practices because they have had a longer hold over the people. It's a shame, but this is a very, very good first step. Yah!
I hate to put on my anthropology glasses here. It WAS cultural, but the culture has evolved- practices like these develop because there is some use for them in the culture. Honestly I have no idea what it could be and I find it a completely appalling practice, but I strive to be culturally relevant in looking at these things.
And for those who mentioned circumcision? That too developed because it helps keep the penis clean and the foreskin can trap dirt, debris and infection. There was and still is a good reason to circumcise and the few cases where it goes wrong is no reason to stop a practice that has been beneficial for years.
@BinderClip, @Cole23: A post about FGM in Africa is neither the time nor the place to re-invoke what is now a more-than-year-old comment debate about the appropriateness of male circumcision in the developed world. It's insensitive the women who are subjected to FGM, and it is an attempt to de-elevate the issues of FGM in the developing world by making it about a developed world political debate and about men. It-- and those commenters -- have been the subject of warnings before and I'm tired of it.
@Liz11685: Back to cultural evolution: do you have any insight into how FGM came about?
I am not particularly up to date on this, though I remember a recent NPR piece where an American woman with ties to Africe (I am sorry but I forget which nation) chose to undergo FGM to bring her closer to the culture. This move horrified many women (again of that nation whose name I've forgotten) who were actively crusading against it. It's strange that something so horrific would be actively chosen by someone seeking connection to a culture.
@Ailanthus-altissima: This is a good point, and I'm glad you brought this topic back - cultural evolution. How in the world did anyone decide that it would be a good idea to ruin womens' genitals--removing all pleasure from sex, causing infections, causing difficulty in childbirth, etc?
I assume, as I unfortunately assume with many things, that it began when men wanted to keep women subdued, and no one challenged it for a long time because the victims were powerless, and it got ingrained into these cultures. But I'm woefully uninformed on these things.
@Ailanthus-altissima: @tscheese: I don't really have much information on the topic, even my most open and controversial professors wouldn't really talk about it much (and I'm guessing few people have dared been published on the topic) but tscheese, I think you hit the nail on the head. My guess is that it is stemming from men wanting to be sure that the children they are raising are theirs. This makes a lot of cultural sense, but the practice no longer does. Another one of my theories is that the practice has also evolved to a point where it no longer benefits the culture and that is why it is so horrific and appalling to us.
@Ailanthus-altissima: @tscheese: It has to do with ensuring virginity, and the subsequent property and inheritance rights. (Note: I'm using generalizations, and I know these things vary from region to region, I'm just trying to give an overview.) Some of the justification is this: FGM removes sexual pleasure for women, so there's no motivator for women to lose their virginity before they're married - therefore, a man can be sure that his wife's children are his. Women who haven't been cut are thought to be unpure and unclean, as it is impossible to ensure their virginity. There are schools of thought that hold that a woman isn't really female until the clitoris is removed, as that is a "male" part of the body - hence some of the coming-of-age aspects of the procedure.
Basically, its the worldwide obsession with virginity manifested in the worst way possible.
@CherriSpryte: Ehrm, in case people aren't familiar with my other comments on this topic, my comment above shouldn't be taken as support for FGM. I just tried to outline the justifications I've read.
Wll, myb gnd cn tch prts f mrc lssn rgrdng gntls, bdy prts nd hw sfl thy r. Gntl mtltn s ls lv nd wll n mrc whn t cms t mn, nd t s hds prctc whthr t's cnsdrd cltrl hbt r hbt f th msnfrmd. Ths nds t stp fr bth mn nd wmn.
@Megan: I understand your post, but seriously, try to be a little nicer. I was not intentionally "threadjacking". Someone wrote a post that I found to be interesting and I wanted to know why she felt the way that she did. I concur that it is important to stay on topic, especially considering the seriousness of FGM, but please, don't get sassy with me. It is inappropriate.
@Cole23: You know what I find inappropriate? The fact that half of the threads on this post about female genital cutting are about male circumcision. I can understand Megan's frustration.
@Cole23: I could only decipher the last sentence of Ninles's post, and I happen to agree. FGN is vile for obvious reasons. Threadjacking in general is uncool, but I don't think bringing up the other mutilation is inappropriate, given that all recipients don't have a say in the matter. It's ridiculous that we have to tiptoe around this subject.
@thscncgrl: Grt. Nw yr ff-tpc. Stck t th trcts f FGM. Ths thrd s nt fr ffrng xcss fr smn ls's bhvr. Mgn's rght, bt sh cld hv bn lss ctty. Dn't bthr rspndng. Sv th thrd fr wht t rlly nds t b bt.
@richcreamerybutter: It is when the specific topic at hand is about women. Save it for the discussions about male circumcision, which do in fact come up.
As this is Megan and the other's site, they have every right to decide this sort of thing is threadjacking and to enforce it.
The problem is that in discussions of women's, poc's, and other minority groups...discussions of men, whites, etc. is inappropriate. Because it's co-opting the discussion. It's that simple.
Male circumcision may be a valid topic, when the OP is about it. But not now.
@tiredfairy: The problem is that in discussions of women's, poc's, and other minority groups...discussions of men, whites, etc. is inappropriate. Because it's co-opting the discussion. It's that simple.
Thank you for saying this, as I tried to above as well. The issues facing women of color in developing countries shouldn't be viewed strictly as an "in" for discussing issues facing white men in the developed world.
@greenglass, @ninles: This stops here and now. This is threadjacking, and I'm sick of it. FGM is a practice in Uganda that causes women pain, suffering, death; increases maternal mortality; increases their chances of contracting AIDS; and denies them the possibility of sexual pleasure.
Your political positions on male circumcision can and will remain confined to those threads discussing that topic. Period.
@colormeroutine: Bear in mind that there are different kinds of FGM. Removing or nicking the clitoral hood could be comparable to male circumcision. Infibulation, which is what most people think of when they think of FGM, isn't the only kind, and in many countries/regions, it's not common. But to your point, yeah, circumcision and infublation are really not comparable at all.
@Megan: Some body parts are less not useless than others, my clitoris being the least not useless with the possible exception of my brain, depending on the day and the weather and how much alcohol I have consumed.
Maybe it will be hard to enforce, but hopefully the government will do something to educate its citizens about why FGM is useless and actually harmful.
@Zombie MissSkittles is not your kind of lady: Thanks for that warning. I had that reaction re-watching the Pilot of Mad Men when I saw a speculum, I don't need to see the knife.
"It's just part of our culture" has got to be one of the ABSOLUTE WORST excuses for violence in the history of the world. Nice try, but no. Good for President Museveni!
07/07/09
And it's huge huge huge in that it'll give a lot of credence to groups working to end the practice not just in Uganda but elsewhere in Africa. And so much of that work is talking to one person at a time.
Case in point (happy story): when I was a Grad. School Admissions Counselor, I met with a prospective student from Mali who was mayor of his commune (county, province, etc) and a pretty young dude, I think only 28. He gave great reasons for wanting to get a US degree, partially to work to end FGM/FGC throughout Mali, as he had just gotten it banned in his entire commune, and had been working on it for almost a decade. Talking with, re-talking with, and educating people ("especially the grannies" he said) about what it really does and means.
An incredibly inspiring guy, he made ME cry while I was interviewing HIM :).
07/08/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
It does seem like giving people a symbolic alternative helps answer the cultural question while still preventing severe damage for girls.
07/07/09
(this page has a link to a much more detailed pdf -- it's a report put out by the WHO last year)
I don't know if there have been public health campaigns to switch to the less damaging types that just involve small cuts or pricks, but I do know that this is traditionally practiced in some countries, and yet still falls under the heading of FGM.
07/07/09
Yes, I know about the different types, but I clearly recall a public health campaign of that type. I also thought part of the debate was moving away from calling the non invasive types FGM, so that they would be practiced instead. Faulty memory...
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
I mean for the fuck of shit. This is good news but I cannot believe how long it has taken.
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
And for those who mentioned circumcision? That too developed because it helps keep the penis clean and the foreskin can trap dirt, debris and infection. There was and still is a good reason to circumcise and the few cases where it goes wrong is no reason to stop a practice that has been beneficial for years.
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
I am not particularly up to date on this, though I remember a recent NPR piece where an American woman with ties to Africe (I am sorry but I forget which nation) chose to undergo FGM to bring her closer to the culture. This move horrified many women (again of that nation whose name I've forgotten) who were actively crusading against it. It's strange that something so horrific would be actively chosen by someone seeking connection to a culture.
07/07/09
I assume, as I unfortunately assume with many things, that it began when men wanted to keep women subdued, and no one challenged it for a long time because the victims were powerless, and it got ingrained into these cultures. But I'm woefully uninformed on these things.
07/07/09
07/07/09
Some of the justification is this: FGM removes sexual pleasure for women, so there's no motivator for women to lose their virginity before they're married - therefore, a man can be sure that his wife's children are his.
Women who haven't been cut are thought to be unpure and unclean, as it is impossible to ensure their virginity.
There are schools of thought that hold that a woman isn't really female until the clitoris is removed, as that is a "male" part of the body - hence some of the coming-of-age aspects of the procedure.
Basically, its the worldwide obsession with virginity manifested in the worst way possible.
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
:/
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
As this is Megan and the other's site, they have every right to decide this sort of thing is threadjacking and to enforce it.
The problem is that in discussions of women's, poc's, and other minority groups...discussions of men, whites, etc. is inappropriate. Because it's co-opting the discussion. It's that simple.
Male circumcision may be a valid topic, when the OP is about it. But not now.
07/07/09
Thank you for saying this, as I tried to above as well. The issues facing women of color in developing countries shouldn't be viewed strictly as an "in" for discussing issues facing white men in the developed world.
07/07/09
On a downer note, does this make it harder for women trying to get asylum if the practice continues anyway and they are trying to escape mutilation?
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
Your political positions on male circumcision can and will remain confined to those threads discussing that topic. Period.
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
Maybe it will be hard to enforce, but hopefully the government will do something to educate its citizens about why FGM is useless and actually harmful.
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
07/07/09
One question though, how will this be policed?
02/10/09