FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) has long been used as a hammer with which to beat Muslims, and especially us nasty wasty fundamentalists. The practice is confined largely to Sub-Saharan Africa, but as it is no longer acceptable to denigrate black people, they must be recast as Muslims so as to be collectively vilified. The small matter of the procedure being practiced by African Christians as well as Animists is conveniently ignored.
Enter stage left, the self-appointed protectors of black women who are largely white middle-class feministas with bright red-rimmed glasses, spiky hair and lips pursed tight with moral outrage and lipstick. These grim faced harridans always clutch the latest gospel (this week, it is the fraudulent asylum seeker Hirsi Ali’s tome, Caged Virgin).
However in a recent piece in the prestigious British Medical Journal, surgeons reveal the full extent and motivation of largely white women who pay top dollar to have their vaginas mutilated.
The literature on female genital mutilation is long on polemic and short on data. Some writers make unsupported claims of physical and psychological adverse effects, something that hardly makes their case more credible among the very people who need to be convinced in the cultures which practise genital mutilation. Recent evidence from a large, well conducted study by WHO confirms the association between female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome. However, the associations are of modest strength: for women with WHO type III mutilations (the most severe) there was a relative risk of 1.3 for both caesarean section and infant resuscitation, and 1.6 for stillbirth or early neonatal death, and there was no increased risk for the 32% of women who had WHO type I mutilation. These findings place female genital mutilation somewhere behind maternal smoking as a risk factor in pregnancy.
But to attack female genital mutilation on the grounds of the associated risks implies that it is an unacceptable practice because it is medically dangerous. There is a risky corollary to this: if all female genital mutilation could be made as safe as WHO type I, would it then be all right?
European and American writers often assume that female genital mutilation is forced on unwilling young girls. This is at odds with the high social value placed on it in societies that practise it. As a symbol of entry into adulthood and acceptance into society as a woman or man, genital mutilation in both sexes may have pivotal cultural significance. The young Pokot woman in the photograph was pictured on the occasion of her proud ceremonial walk around the village, marking the end of her period of convalescence after the ceremony and her first appearance as an adult. It reminds us that, if we are to change the practice of genital mutilation, we may be unwise to attack the underlying cultural significance and should concentrate on the form of the initiation ritual. There are encouraging signs that the cultures which practise female genital mutilation are responding to the concerns about the health consequences while trying to maintain their cultural values.
The high moral tone with which those in richer countries criticise female genital mutilation would be more credible if we in the rich North had not practised it and did not continue to practise it. We have conveniently forgotten that female “circumcision” was practised by the European and American medical professions in the 19th century as a cure for a wide variety of conditions including insomnia, sterility, unhappy marriage, and psychological disorders. It was advocated by no less a figure than the father of gynaecology, J Marion Sima. Jonathan Hutchinson, then president of the Royal College of Surgeons, enthusiastically advocated circumcision and “other measures more radical than circumcision” to prevent the adverse mental effects of masturbation as “a true kindness to many patients of both sexes.” The last known medical female circumcision in the richer world took place in Kentucky in 1953, on a girl aged 12. Our own sexually repressive use of female genital mutilation may be at the root of our misunderstanding of its role in other cultures.
The practice of female genital mutilation is on the increase nowhere in the world except in our so called developed societies. “Designer laser vaginoplasty” and “laser vaginal rejuvenation” are growth areas in plastic surgery, representing the latest chapter in the surgical victimisation of women in our culture. The procedures offered include vaginal tightening and vulval remodelling to make the vulva appear more childlike. In the words of one of the many clinics offering these services on the internet: “Many people have asked us for an example of the aesthetically pleasing vulva. We went to our patients for the answer and they said the playmates of Playboy.” In other words, women are being mutilated to fit male masturbation fantasies, in what Faith Wilding calls “the full-scale consumer spectacle of the cyborg porn babe.” This burgeoning industry is able to operate without the slightest attention being paid to it by medical researchers. There is not a single reference to laser vaginoplasty on PubMed.
The WHO definition of female genital mutilation is “all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious, or other non-therapeutic reasons.” It is Western medicine which, by a process of disease mongering, is driving the advance of female genital mutilation by promoting the fear in women that what is natural biological variation is a defect, a problem requiring the knife.
Ronán M Conroy, senior lecturer
Department of Epidemiology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland
38 comments ↓
(BTW it’s also practiced among some Australian Aboriginal tribes).
Anyway, there is a really excellent article in the book “Why Men Barbeque” that really changed my attitudes towards female genital cutting forever. Along similar lines to the above quote but more fleshed out in quoting how the medical evidence for anti-cutting is largely absent, and the positive role it plays in some cultures akin to male genital circumcision in others.
The important distinction is whether people are adult and choose to be mutilated themselves or whether they choose to mutilate their children.
“the self-appointed protectors of black women who are largely white middle-class feministas with bright red-rimmed glasses, spiky hair and lips pursed tight with moral outrage and lipstick.”
Any actual examples?
It could be argued though, Atilla, that the pressure to conform to a certain beauty ideal robs that woman of agency in her decision. The difference is merely in who is doing the enforcement.
Atilla,
As the article implies there are several levels of consent, even amongst adults. But your point is valid enough. How much consent does an eighteen year old have whose idea of beauty has been manipulated for the large part of her life?
I wonder what your views are abut male circumcision which also occurs in childhood? Do parents have the right to do anything to their children, or does the state or even concerned members of the public have right of veto?
As for your last point
Yes I have several examples in mind, I am sure that a quick internet search will help you, its a cause celebre at the moment.
I just read your comment Umm Yasmine and I was reminded of how til quite recemtly in the western world women giving birth in hospital were routinely shaved and given episiotomies, whether they needed it or not. I may seek out that book, actually..
I think that a distinction can (or must) be made between adult sane women who, without any kind of coercion, voluntarily decide to mutilate themselves in this way, and people who do it to children. The latter should be prevented, but the case of an adult woman doing such a thing is altogether more complex. If society is going to tolerate breast enhancements and the more extreme forms of body piercing, then I wonder how they can possibly and objectively argue against the sorts of things described in the above piece. As long as the woman subjecting herself to these grotesque procedures is an adult, sane and does so without coercion then I suppose we just have to tolerate it but they should not expect the state or anyone else to mitigate against the consequences of the actions, such as by providing free health care to reverse the procedures (if indeed they can be reversed).
Amir,
As if having wanting to have widespread plastic surgery to a normal body was not itself a sign of being insane to begin with.
Being an adult of itself is only the baseline for being deemed worthy of giving informed consent
Yes, but my point was that I am unaware of any objective test that can be constructed to discriminate between “designer laser vaginoplasty” and having surgical steel put through your face. Ergo, if society is going to allow the latter, then it has to allow the former.
This is one of the more interesting parts of his piece. The idea of surgical procedures being mass-marketed and justified with confected conditions such as the supposed ‘problem’ of not resembling a Playboy model is fascinating. I wonder why this has happened or whether it has always been the case that some medicines or surgical procedures would “cross over” from being treatments for specific physiological conditions to being faddish and entirely elective treatments for imagined social and cultural pathologies?
it reminds me of a joke I once heard:
Question: how do you hide $50 from a plastic surgeon ?
Answer: you can’t.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that the Holy Koran is quite clear on this - the human body was created in the desired shape; therefore removing or changing parts of it for reasons other than survival is wrong.
Yes. That’s correct, Andrew. It is described as one of the tricks of Satan:
Plastic surgery is permitted to correct a congenital or other defect such as a hare-lip or scars resulting from injury or surgery. However, it is not allowed in cases where it’s not being used to help a person overcome some physical or psychological hardship such as in the case of some of the procedures described above.
One of the other proofs for this is the Prophetic prohibition of filing the teeth. This was the practice of the early Arab women to make themselves appear prettier and more youthful. Imam Nawawi, one of the great scholars of Islam, discussed this prohibition and concluded that it meant that such modifications in pursuit of beauty was forbidden because it was both an affront to the Creator and a form of deception. However, he made an exception for cases where it was being done for some genuine medical or dental reason.
Well, Baybers, I googled “the self-appointed protectors of black women who are largely white middle-class feministas with bright red-rimmed glasses, spiky hair and lips pursed tight with moral outrage and lipstick.”and your post was all that came up, so I think there are fewer examples than you think.
“How much consent does an eighteen year old have whose idea of beauty has been manipulated for the large part of her life?”
Equally, how much consent does an eighteen year old have whose idea of truth has been manipulated for the large part of her life?
“Being an adult of itself is only the baseline for being deemed worthy of giving informed consent ”
And who is worthy of assesssing who is worthy of giving informed consent?
My own view is that the same should apply to male genital mutilation; if adults choose to do it to themselves, it’s up to them, but they have no right to impose it for nonmedical reasons.
By the way, Amir, given that male circumcision is only mention ed in the hadith, so how is it justified given the quranic injunction you cite?
The hadith explains the Qu’ran. The two are not competing texts or views of Islamic law. The Prophet explicitly ordered male circumcision and described it as being one of the five things that are from the ‘fitrah’ (meaning the natural state of humans).
Incidentally, what you describe as “male genital mutilation” has been found in several studies to reduce the risk of HIV by 50 to 60% and is believed to carry a variety of other health benefits. See here for a reference to a UNAIDS and WHO study on the subject. So, even removing the religious aspect from the debate, there are still positive medical benefits to the procedure which are not present in the case of FGM. Given the body of research on the subject, it could be argued that both vaccinations and male circumcision offer identifiable health benefits and therefore both should be allowed even though both involve what can be, at times, painful procedures for children.
Atilla,
I think that if you put feminist and FGM into google, it will provide you with all the links that you believe do not exist. One gets the impression that you are not really debating in good faith, if you claim not to know of this.
Your second point about opposition to “male genital mutilation” as you refer to it, has a disturbing pedigree:
Adolf Hitler, from “Hitler speaks” and “Mein Kampf”
In this piece, a self confessed Plastic surgery “junkie” demonstrates how tenuous “free choice can be
The important point here, Amir, is that the hadith do seem to contradict the quran. As for the virtues of circumcision in preventing the spread of STDs there is a big difference between medically supervised circumcision in a sterile environment and the more traditional ways of chopping bits off people. There’s a certain irony too in that you argue for it on the basis that circumcised men ought theoretically to be less liable to STDs, when there are such strong injunctions to chastity in the quran, and the penalties set there for being unchaste are so lethal.
Baybers: I tried FGM and feminism in google. I found no evidence that the opponents of FGM are only or mainly ”white middle-class feministas bright red-rimmed glasses, spiky hair and lips pursed tight with moral outrage and lipstick”. They may have some of these attributes individually, however.
As for ”debating in good faith”, I have no faith, good or bad. However, I have noticed that the first resort of many dishonest debaters is to accuse their opponents of dishonesty. I don’t know whether this is an example of their own dishonesty or the psychological phenomenon of projection. The fact that Hitler considered both conscience and circumcision ”Jewish inventions” may be an example of his stupidity, his ignorance or his prejudices. However, the fact that you bring it into a debate which assumes that it isn’t a ”Jewish invention” is the best example of Godwin’s Law I have seen for a long time.
I’m not sure why you do not embrace the pedigree of your prejudice. If it makes you uncomfortable to have your views so closely resemble that of the the Fuhrer, then thats purely a problem of your own making.
As for your absurd search on the internet, that is merely an example of your arguing in bad faith, a symptom of being a troll. But if I do have to engage with it on a “concrete thinking” level, then it is obvious that you would have to attend an feminist FGM event event in person rather than read about it on the internet.
And finally we reach the height of the absurdity of your argument, without any understanding of Fusha Arabic, Quranic exegesis or Hadith science you seek to comment on both. If I give you an answer it will be in Fusha Arabic, obviously since you seek to give commentary on Quran, I’m sure you will be able to understand it.
Now lets get to the traditional vs medical circumcision argument. What evidence do you have that medically supervised circumcision is any better than traditional forms. We have had 1427 years of traditional circs and reached a population of 1.2 billion, Thats a enormous cohort study right there, what then is your evidence that medical circs are better ?
Atilla you are a troll and it is a waste of everyones time to debate with you.
No, it doesn’t ‘contradict’ the Qu’ran. The Qu’ran is not the only source of Islamic law. The second source is the sunnah, or sacred traditions of the Prophet, and there are numerous hadith mentioning the practice as part of attaining cleanliness or what is known in Arabic as fitra. There has been no dispute for 1,400 years about the legitimacy of the practice. One could only reach the conclusion that there was a ‘contradiction’ if one doesn’t understand the relationship between Qu’ran and Sunnah or understand the basis on which Islamic law (fiqh) is derived.
You are missing my point. I mentioned the health reasons to show that, contrary to what you were suggesting above, there is a fundamental difference between FGM and male circumcision because the parents who carry out circumcision on their child are carrying out a procedure which is believed to carry numerous health benefits (of which the reduction in transmission rates for HIV is just one example); whereas the parents who remove the clitoris of their daughter are carrying out an act that is devoid of any health benefit whatsoever. In that sense, it could be argued that the practice of male circumcision is morally equivalent to vaccination in that it is a decision taken by the parent that results in some pain being inflicted on the child and carries some risks but is ultimately for the benefit of the child.
its strange when conservative muslims use feminist arguments to further their own agenda. the problem of the normalisation of cosmetic surgery in western society- a self-imposed mutilation prevalent in our hyper image conscious society has been well-documented by feminists. the islamic republic’s “Teheran” is also the nose-job capital of the world.
the potential of ‘imperialist’/neo-con collaboration by criticising indigenous cultures and customs under a western feminist liberal rights agenda is also an established point in the left leaning feminist critique.
germaine greer- one of those “shrieking purse lipped harridans” you no doubt mean in your piece has understood this and came under heavy fire for defending FGM as a cultural practice. she said it was hypocritical to condemn it when “women in london went to Oxford? st go to get themselves cut up everyday.”
the thing with western liberals is they have the ability to constructively critique their own society/paradigms.
we can critique western society for its flaws but at the same time the problems in islamic societies are so much more basic- voting rights, basic human rights, whether or not they are genuinely based on religion is debateable but religious justifications are used for some of these abuses.
the reality is young girls are having severe human rights abuses perpetrated on them to control and inhibit their sexuality. it is linked to patriarchy and tribal mentalities and in some cases laced with religious justification.
conscious men and women- western, eastern, muslim or not need to sensitively address this without politicising it or using it as a ground for ideological point scoring.
also the portrayal “white western feminist” is unfair. “white western women” are one of the only class of people in the world who have genuinely revolutionised their world through non-violent means- they are an inspiration.
some of these women genuinely seek solidarity with eastern/muslim women and support self-determination not arrogant imposition.
Sarah,
Thank you for a very thoughtful post.
I was being a little bit naughty in my caricature of western feminists, but it was to elicit a response of outrage, such as yours and for you to realize how we feel when were are portrayed by feminists as woman hating bearded buffoons. It is an unflattering caricature, and those can hurt. I apologize unreservedly.
You maybe surprised to find some similarities between feminists critiques of the objectification of women have resonance with conservative Muslims. I did read Greer’s critique of western feminism obsession with FGM, and I was going to put it up, but I thought I would stick to the BMJ
I agree with almost entirely everything that you have written. The rights of women in the Muslim world are under threat of the backward patriarchy that comes with poverty, with illiteracy and without freedom or democracy. I do not think that Islam is a necessary part in this oppression, although the mechanics of oppression may be gilded with Islamic embroidery such as ” Sharia” courts. The oppression itself is the same throughout the underdeveloped world, Muslim and non Muslim.
The part where I disagree is the last bit where you got a bit enthusiastic with:
Mary Wollstonecraft’s “vindication of the rights of women” is a superb book, but its application was to a society where women had no juridical autonomy and were treated as chattel. It has no resonance for Muslim women who have enjoyed juridical autonomy for 1400 years. the oppression of Muslim women is a condition of modernity and not of the classic al Islamic period.
So the assertion that white women are the only ones who have changed their world in such a manner is one which I would most humbly and respectfully find some issue with.
BTW if you have a passing familiarity with the Persian Proboscis then you would understand the demand for nose jobs in Tehran
Baybers, my boy, you really shouid read what I wtite before replying. I don’t think the jews invented circumcision or the conscience as Hitler (whose opinions you seem worryingly well-acquainted with) allegedly said.
“As for your absurd search on the internet, that is merely an example of your arguing in bad faith, a symptom of being a troll.” Not at all. You made an absurd allegation, that “the self-appointed protectors of black women who are largely white middle-class feministas with bright red-rimmed glasses, spiky hair and lips pursed tight with moral outrage and lipstick” disapprove of FGM for ulterior motives. I merely demonstrated the absurdity of your claims. If you don’t like people pointing out your absurdities, don’t be absurd.
In fact it is a mistake to wonder why people hold an opinion or to attribute any motives, good or bad, to their opinions. Whatever their motives, it is the opinion that has to be dealt with and the opinion doesn’t gain or lose force because of its source.
I didn’t comment on ‘Fusha Arabic, Quranic exegesis or Hadith science’. I asked a question about a pretty plain statement in the quran and why it was modified in practise to permit male genital mutilation. I don’t find the answers very convincing, but, if it weren’t for the pain inflicted and the consequent illnesses and infections that sometimes result, I’d merely regard that as another islamic eccentricity.
‘What evidence do you have that medically supervised circumcision is any better than traditional forms. We have had 1427 years of traditional circs and reached a population of 1.2 billion, Thats a enormous cohort study right there, what then is your evidence that medical circs are better ?’
As a ‘cohort study’ it’s also excellent evidence against polio vaccination, antibiotics and just about any medical innovation since the prophet’s day. Male circumcision in children still has a pretty high rate of infections, though not as high as with girls, if carried out in traditional ways with traditional tools and traditional aftercare..
Amir,
Well, i obviously don’t ‘ understand the relationship between Qu’ran and Sunnah ‘. The quran’s statement looks pretty plain. I agree that there is a difference between FGM and MGM in that there are possible medical benefits from and less harm done by the latter ; I don’t think that those medical benefits inspired the originators of the practises though or most of the people who follow them and- returning to our original point- there is a difference between an adult who chooses to mutilate themselves and someone who does this to their children.
I should have made it plain earlier that it is not just genital mutilation i object to but all imposed childhood mutilation, including cicatrices and other practises.
I think that the crux of the matter is what level of risk should we allow parents to take on behalf of their children for procedures that are not medically required ? ( ear piercing, male circumcision etc
I think that we must allow parents the right to choose on behalf of their children and that the govt must not intervene, except in life threatening situations such as blood transfusions.
Hitler and the nazis did use jewish religious ceremonies to villify them such as circumcision and the ritual slaughter of meat. Its nasty to pick on people because of their religious ceremonies. Atilla, your argument is very much like what Austrians did to my grandparents in the 1930s
The who phrase “mutilation” is loaded with meaning and you should avoid it.
The word ‘mutilation’ may be loaded with meaning. Unfortunately, it’s also accurate. If it’s ‘nasty to pick on people because of religious ceremonies’, are we to accept - say- human sacrifice? That’s the extreme end of the continuum, but it is on the same continuum and not a discrete jump. It isn’t a matter of what risks parents may take on behalf of their children but what parents do to their children. Their motives are undoubtedly for the best, but their actions cause pain and sometimes permanent disfigurement and even death.
Thanks for a interesting post, I agree with most of the comments , but not with Atilla, who sounds like a anti-semite jew-hater by keeping on talking about this and that in a weedling little way.
Muslims might not see Atilla, but we have had a lot of experience with people who always find something to complain about us abusing chlidren or “mutilating boys”.
So a jew who circumcises his son is like performing human sacrifice? You are a horrible piece of work Atilla, and I think you are a white supremiscist.
Ah well, nobody’s perfect.
It’s not that big a difference between chopping bits off your child’s genitals and chopping bits off your child’s throat, and the underlying psychology- ‘ It’s my child so I can do what I want with it.’ isn’t very pleasant. As i said, it isn’t just judaism and islam but every belief system which favours mutilating children for the supposed glory of god and the supposed benefit of the children’s souls that I dislike.
i just wonder, and i don’t want offend anyone, but don’t you guys sometimes ask yourselves, why did Allah put the clitoris there in the first place? was it a design flaw?
also, the clitoris is not anatomically equivalent to the foreskin; it is more equivalent to the penis itself. cutting off the clitoris is not comparable to snipping off excess skin over the end of the penis. and even if you want to justify the practice by talking about the small proportion of Western women who are so insecure they undergo plastic surgery to tighten their vaginas, i’m sure you’d find 100% of those women would have opted to keep their clitoris.
Gianna,
Thanks for your comments. Nobody here has justified female genital mutilation. I think all of us are in absolute agreement with you. The article from the medical journal wasn’t posted to justfy FGM but simply to make the broader point this type of surgery for what its proponents might argue are aesthetic or cultural reasons (keep in mind that not all FGM involves the removal of the clitoris) is also quite common in the West.
I agree with Amir, perhaps the point has not been made clearly enough:
Most Muslims do not support FGM, nor is it a part of Islamic observance and we would not advocate it in any way shape or form.
FGM is a cultural practice common in Africa amongst people with a wide variety of religions
Thing is both are wrong.
FGM in the sub-Sahara is also practised by Christian women. It is a CULTURAL thing, not Muslim. And women do it because they get paid $5.00 for each little girl. It is very cruel and is not of the young girl’s choosing but of her mother’s. Her mother is usually educated to believe that she will grow a penis, so it has to be removed.
In the West, again it is about money. It is plastic surgery gone mad and bad. Men aren’t really bothered what a female vagina looks like, they like them all, don’t they? It’s just a pathetic Western way of these surgeons to earn so more lucrative money.
Both of these forms of FGM should be banned. Both are exploiting women’s fears, that of her body. G-d designed her body as beautiful, therefore leave it alone. G-d designed man’s body the same, but he was to have circumcision, that of the foreskin. Women do not have foreskin.
Mesianic Muslimah: Male circumcision is every bit as cultural as female. the fact that some of the cultures that do it are religious cultures and say they do it for religious reasons makes no difference.
If belief that god designed man’s body so that bits could be chopped off is a justifiable reason for chopping them off, then belief that god designed woman’s body so that bits could be chopped off is a justifiable reason for chopping them off too.
By your logic, people who don’t believe that god designed man’s body so that bits could be chopped off shouldn’t be allowed to circumcise their sons. On that, at least, we agree. What adults choose to do to their own bodies is a matter between them and their god, if they have a god, and no concern of anyone else’s, no matter how stupid, wicked or blasphemous we think it.
FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION
Report on Consultations Held in Ottawa and Montreal
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps.....95-8a.html
This is a good report on FGM compiled after consulting members of communities in which it is commonly practiced.
It does say there is no Islamic justification for it, nor in the Bible or Torah and it still occurs because of ignorance, culture and tradition.
As people are becoming better educated about the health risks, that it is an illegal offence in Canada and also that the Quran/Bible and Torah do not sanction it, it is dying out.
It says sensationalising FGM in the media hinders efforts to educate people about the issues surrounding it and stresses the need to be culturally sensitive.
The people consulted object to the way FGM is portrayed in the West as child abuse and reject the word ‘mutilation’ as being too loaded. Some are surprised it is illegal in Canada.
Attilla,
Just curious. Are you a butcher as profession?
On the contrary, Gess. I disapprove of peple hacking bits off other people against their will, especially children.
No gess, he is a a self confessed anti-semite and Muslim hater He is also a troll.
Ignore him and he will eventually realize that he is not welcome here.
So what are we doing to raise awareness on this issue? No matter who is right or wrong in this debate something needs to be done to educate people on the dangers of FGM. People can and should be able to choose for themselves and for their children what they think is best, but they should also know the consequences of their choices. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with helping each other for the betterment of mankind.
Africagirl,
I agree with you that we need to raise awareness on FGM, but I don’t agree with that parrents should choose to circumcise their little girl. The child can not defend herself, and for this reason we need a legislative action to involve and to protect the child.
Leave a Comment