Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Female genital mutilation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
A quibble. Menstrual fluid is not 'blood', and the article should be edited to reflect this fact. ---
Reply from Kasreyn to FreddieResearch
- Responded by email - freddieresearch
Well, this seems to be devouring great hunks of the talk page, so I think perhaps if we continue this discussion much further we might do so by email rather than take over the entire talk page.
Frankly, your reply both impressed and saddened me. I wasn't expecting one in the first place, much less a reasoned and polite one. Internet arguments tend to grow contentious quickly. But your nearly amoral take on the situation disturbs me greatly. I'm certainly not a fan of the "morality police" here in my own country (U.S.A.), and I grow tired of hypocritical public scolds who think they know better and have a god-given right to order others' lives. But surely there is such a thing as taking this hands-off attitude too far?
I will try to take this point by point, but it's been quite a while since I've engaged this deeply in a debate, so I may be rusty. Firstly, if you consider only "bare physical facts", it's impossible to call anyone a victim of anything. I understand that different cultures have different norms of behavior. I grew up in an exceedingly racist nearly all-white midwestern town where telling hate-filled jokes about black people was seen as a male bonding activity. I've also spent time in parts of New York City where telling such a joke would probably be de facto death sentence.
I'm a bit confused with where you direct your argument next. Admittedly, I have read few first hand accounts of the attitudes of FGC victims/initiates, though the few I have read universally execrated the practise, it could be argued that media bias was in play. I would be very interested in seeing your evidence for the claim that they are eager (we'll let "willing" slide, since I continue to consider them below the age of consent). I would also expect that their eagerness would be diminished if they were adequately informed of the pain and the loss of orgasmic capability; therefore my initial hypothesis is that they are not so informed. If this is true, then even if there is consent, it is not truly informed consent. If instead they are fully informed of the drawbacks of the procedure, I have to express my utter disbelief in their eagerness.
Your sentence about medical analyses disputing the efficacy of medical research is so ambiguous I can't tell what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say new studies have given credence to the idea that circumcision has medical value, or are you trying to say new studies have bolstered the widespread western medical view that circumcision has no medical necessity?
You might just as well say that the desperate poverty of these people is a "choice", if you're going to claim that accepting FGM (FGC, whatever we call it, doesn't matter) is a "choice". In my opinion neither of them are choices because no other viable options are offered. A great deal of social coercion is leveled at young females in order to induce them to submit to the ritual.
"When this norm escapes its cultural context and is used as a neutral meta-medical truth, it becomes a vehical for neocolonial domination." I will admit that medical colonialism is a "thin end of the wedge" for other forms of colonialism and dominance. But I have a hard time seeing how the medical bodies involved could behave other than they have. The charter of the World Health Organization is to bring the highest quality health care to the people of the world, not the highest quality culture care.
It seems odd to me for you to decry a culture war on this issue rather than others. You probably understand even better than I that cultures often conflict and that some traditions may be adopted, others discarded. This activity has happened for far worse motivations than the outright do-goodism inspiring the anti-FGM activists. Cultures have been enslaved or eradicated for gold and land, or out of racism and intolerance. But most importantly, cultures do not exist in a vacuum. Especially today, the world is growing ever more interconnected. If this trend continues, I expect world culture will become more homogenous in tone. I can appreciate the problems with this, particularly a loss of diversity and uniqueness. At the same time, I continue to hope for the eradication of barbarism, poverty, and hatred. The thing is, whether you or I want it or not, this trend seems unstoppable. I think it behooves our species to prepare for the future rather than to waste energy futilely resisting it.
I'm also curious about your deletion of the section beginning "Another factor which provides resistance to efforts to eliminate", from this: [1]. (I should probably admit that I wrote that section, so I'm biased.) Whether you believe FGC/FGM is culturally appropriate or not, or whether you believe anti-FGM crudaders are close-minded cultural hegemoniacs or not, the fact remains that self-image plays a large role in the acceptance or denial of victim status. Perhaps you felt the tone of the paragraph displayed my bias too much. (To be honest, I never expected to meet a defender of FGM who could speak English, it's so universally reviled where I'm from.) In any case, the task before anti-FGM activists remains the same: to convince circumcised women of having been victimized by barbarism. Without that step, there will be self-image based resistance to the concept of discarding the tradition. You see that resistance as cultural solidarity; I see it as ignorance. But the fact remains. I'm willing to rewrite the paragraph to a more unbiased perspective, but I do think it belongs in the article.
By the pervasiveness of "compulsory this and that" in the west, are you referring to such things as the rule of law? Ie., if you kill your neighbor you go to jail? Those don't disturb me, since I see them as a democratic process; if I don't like them, I can find a nation where the law is different, and move. Furthermore, culture change is a democratic process as well. The people of Africa will discard FGC when they're good and ready to (or, conceivably, never). Using the same metaphor, one should see anti-FGM groups as lobbyists. Every lobbyist plays a bait and switch game. I give you x dollars for your campaign chest, you tack on my pork amendment. We help you build a village medical center and dispense medication, you stop infibulating your daughters. I fail to see why this ordinary process becomes despicable when exported to another country. If the Sudanese don't want us in their country, they have the means available to show it. (However, they probably don't have the means to eject us by force.) They seem to appreciate some aspects of the humanitarian aid. Where I come from, receiving a gift and then complaining about aspects of it is called looking a gift horse in the mouth, and it's considered petulant and childish. The proper thing to do is politely refuse all of a gift if a portion of it is distasteful.
As for my circumcision (happily, it is becoming less routine in America), I've always been divided. In principal, I believe I was irrevocably altered without my consent, which I abhor. Personally, having no conscious memory prior to the procedure, I have no frame of reference to discern whether I've gained or lost quality of life. There seem to be plenty of voices on both sides of THAT argument, from men who were circumcised as adults. For instance, I don't blame my parents or the unknown person who circumcised me. I see them as being ignorant of the wrongness of the act. But the society that continues to perpetrate the act, while expressing its horror over FGM "over there" in "Darkest Africa", incenses me.
You claim that those who oppose FGM are operating on an "anatomy as destiny" mindset. I would like to point out that practitioners of it do so as well. They believe in anatomy as cultural destiny: They have control of a person's body while they are young and helpless (which I mean as either helpless physically or, through ignorance and youth and dependance, helpless mentally). And while they have that control, they use it to stamp a cultural identifier permanently into that person's body, beyond their personal choice in many cases, and usually without the possibility of reversal. To me, this is the fundamental horror of the practise. The loss of real bodily functions forever, such as female clitoral orgasms, are terrible, but that doesn't occur in all cases of FGC, but cultural shackling *does* occur in all cases.
How can you consider any culture a positive thing if membership is not voluntary? A Jewish boy circumcised as an infant may leave his community, he may travel to Jamaica and grow dreadlocks and become Rastafarian, but for the rest of his life, an unwanted Jewish identity has been etched into his genitals. To my mind, forcing cultural identification on a person is no better than stitching the Star of David on their sleeve and ghettoizing them. To be valid, in my opinion, participation in a culture group must be voluntary. If a culture feels the need to alter the bodies of children to maintain its population, the question is, what aspects of that culture are so bad that it fears its numbers dwindling? Probably, before FGM can be ended, progress must be made at assuaging those problems; then perhaps the people in those cultures would not feel the need to enforce solidarity on their childrens' bodies.
Working to ease the poverty in those areas would therefore go hand in glove with reducing the cultural imperative that drives practises like FGC, scarification, ritaul tattooing, etc., etc. So I agree with you that reclaiming the economic fate of, for instance Sudan, from its oppressors is a major goal. But I feel that western "lobbyists" deserve their chance to convince practitioners of FGM to abandon the practise. If their standard of living improves and they still refuse to end the practise, then it would probably be the right time for us western meddlers to call it quits. Because I believe that in time, given prosperity and a good standard of living, such practises will become maladaptive, will atrophy from lack of need.
I appreciate your modifications, and your acting in good faith to the spirit of neutrality in this debate. I'm hoping that my paragraph about self-image can make a reappearance, perhaps in a less biased format. Thanks for discussing this calmly with me, despite the fact that I jumped down your throat initially. Let's take this to email to save the length of this discussion page (unless you really consider it worthy of archiving at wikipedia); I can be reached at my wikipedia username, all lower case, at verizon dot net. Cheers, -Kasreyn
To Kasreyn from FreddieResearch
regarding "victims".
Victim carries an obvious telelogical assumption that cannot be assumed from bare physical facts, rather it must be derived contextually. "Transcultural behavioral norm" and "victim" are here regarded as logical fallacies. The smallest level of empiricism in cross-cultural behavioral studies ought to reveal that culture groups have their own behavioral norms and ethical imperatives. Moreover, most research into the FGC ritual shows that initiate girls are very willing, in fact eager, to participate in the rite (of course this excludes rituals conducted on the very young as I will adress below). I believe this evidence, coupled with the medical analyses that dispute the efficacy of current medical research illuminate a structural bias in FGC discourse. It is not concerned with "informed consent" b/c the raw research disputes it nor is it concerned with any sort of pathological mutilatory behavior, but satisfying western sensibilities based on a teleological "anatomy-as-destiny" (see Margaret Lock) body moral norm. When this norm escapes its cultural context and is used as a neutral meta-medical truth, it becomes a vehical for neocolonial domination. It becomes a call for natives to abandon their "barbarism" and come to accept "modernization" (of course this is a euphemism for Westernization when used in this context). About the IMF/World Bank issue, this was taken from an analysis of Sudanese feminists' views, it is your prerogative if you desire to remove it. However my commentary on universalizing "normal" psychology ought not be considered un-empirical or one-sided as it carries a hefty research base with a conscious attempt to escape moral biases which are of course culturally bound. My comment on Sudanese feminist views came from Abusharaf, Rogaia Mustafa. Revisiting Feminist Discourses on Infibulation: Responses from Sudanese Feminists. Female “Circumcision” in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change. Eds. Shell-Duncan and Hernlund. Lynne Rienner Publishers: Boulder, 2000. 151-166.
As for the primacy of "involuntary" in this moral discussion, I would ask that you consider the pervasiveness of "compulsory"-this-and-that in Western cultures. Perhaps you disagree but I do not, or have I ever, considered my human rights violated by my own circumcision here in the US. Medical necessity must not become a covert morality if it is to be considered seriously. If you are interested, I would appreciate your criticisms on a paper I am composing for delivery at the Human Rights in a Globalizing Era? conference in Windsor Canada this summer. If you have time to read it (it is written for non-anthropologists so shouldn't be very esoteric, my artist girlfriend has the final say on appropriate language in it :) ) then please email me at freddieresearch@yahoo.com and I'll send it to you.
I will submit a modified Human Rights and Female Circumcision section for your approval, modify it at your leisure, i will not engage in an erasing battle.
5/5/05 5:34 pm CT: Ok, the article is modified, hack away.
Oh, shoot, i didn't address fully the consent issue. First of all, keep in mind that both black and "arab" african groups usually become adults around the age of 12. Now about infancts and toddlers. Baptismal and initiatory cuttings mark one inextricably as a member of a specific group, a social body in a local body-politic/body phenomenology. Moreover, their very unique aesthetic quality greatly increases the likelihood that the modified individual will couple with one of their own, as beauty standards are, of course, culturally determined. Body modification rituals are very effective tools for cultural survival. Thus in spaces of increasing uncertainty brought on by post and neo-colonial activities of western and quisling powers, one sees the age at which these operations are performed drop rapidly. Most baptismal circumcisions used to be rites of passage that conducted a child into adulthood. Economic and political/cultural pressures have made a baptismal method more desirable. Children are now being educated at a very young age in missionary schools (this is nothing new) or being forced into neighboring areas for labor. FGC and MGC claim a person as a member of a particular ethos and thus embody within them roots. This primacy on roots is a little foreign to folks in the US but for cultures under threat of domination it is a necessity for survival. The extent to which this impartment of roots and identity is "voluntary" doesn't even enter into it. Do you think these people are voluntarily living in dire poverty, a poverty designed by foreign and quisling powers beyond their control? Poverty actually is a human rights violation (article 25 of the Universal Declaration) but the US denies it.
FGC in human rights is a distraction from actual human rights violations perpetuated by foreign superpowers and their african shills. Sort of like gay marriage and abortion in US elections, it just distracts from the "real" issues. If the academic community and international policy makers (not to mention the WHO) continue to fuel this smokescreen, then they can only be considered complicit in the massive attack on humanity being waged by the 1st upon the 3rd world. 114 million women TOTAL are said to have been affected by FGC in Africa, while 32,000 children in Africa die EVERY DAY from hunger and easily preventable diseases. If you HAD to pick only one of these to lable a human rights violation, would you even have to think about it?
Instead of wondering whether or not FGC is a human rights violation, start wondering why it is you feel compelled to even ask that question.
Re: Recent Changes by FreddieResearch
In the hopes of avoiding a pointless back-and-forth erase-each-others'-viewpoints war, sir, to wit:
- Often activists working for the practice's elimination offer a universalizing psychological rational. Working from an axiom of a "normal" psyche, they commonly assume that female genital cutting rituals represent deviance from a transcultural behavioral norm. Of course, these rituals are seen in these cases as violent disfigurment, likened to child abuse and rape. They seek to bring practicioners and "victims" of such "barbarism" to reason by convincing them that the practice was indeed a wrong-doing. This attitude is an echo of the colonial and missionary campaigns agaist the practice in the first half of the 20th century.
Is it your intention, sir, to be an apologist for the involuntary genital alteration (most would call it mutilation), and in some cases amputation, of children? Do you believe children are giving informed consent to this? Because I fail to see any other rationale for your recent changes than FGM apologism in its baldest form. In short: You like to use twenty-dollar phrases like "transcultural behavioral norms" to cover up the fact that you're saying genital mutilation of unwilling minors is okay in some cultures. Every time you put "victims" in quote marks, your bias becomes clear. Here's a "transcultural behavioral norm" for you - not forcing permanent bodily changes on those who are incapable of giving informed consent. Pretending you're taking the part of Sudanese women against meddlesome foreign feminists and their "assumption of male dominance". (Seriously - where the f*ck do you get THAT?) It's a just a smokescreen.
In short, I cry foul. This is an attempt to hijack this article to a single person's point of view, and furthermore to give them a pulpit to trot out their WorldBank/IMF hobbyhorse, which has no place in the article.
FreddieResearch, I hope you will do us both the favor of responding promptly. As I said before, I do hate deletion wars, and perhaps we can reach some compromise. -Kasreyn
---
Umm, I was wondering: I'm not an expert on this subject, but it does seem to me that there's a lot of writing out there that describes a little more carefully and without so much delving into the controversy why one would want to have his/her daughter circumcized. I guess I wonder if the current page really represents the reasons that people cut up women, which are complex, and cannot be reduced to "they believe that Islam supports the practice." This is the explanation offered on the page, and it doesn't explain why non Muslims cut their daughters, for instance, nor does it help me to understand why.
In Egypt, afaik, mothers have their daughters infibulated because they believe that it will make their daughters more desired by men. Because of limited economic opportunities for poor women, these mothers may see that marrying well is of utmost importance. They believe that a woman who is infibulated is more socially acceptable to a capable breadwinner.
Overall, I think the page could be a little bit one-sided. It doesn't speak to the reasons that people value the practice. It doesn't express understanding of their worldview.
Is there a way to describe the debate about FGM in such a way that it explains better why people have this done? In the countries where it is practiced, there is significant discussion about whether women should be "circumcized" or not. The worldview of people living in such places should be valued here.In certain places, it is accepted that women should be smooth between the legs and should be very tight when first penetrated, much as some US people believe that women should work out, starve themselves, and shave their legs.
Maybe focusing less on the debate, and more on the reasons that people in various different contexts do it would be useful. Talk about culture.
I didn't read the one on male circumcision, but I'd say that it would be incomplete if you said "people who have their babies circumcized are motivated by their interpretation of Jewish and Christian religious teachings." My parents are athiests, and I'm cut. It's just pretty much naturalized in US culture that a penis doesn't have a foreskin, hmm?
Just so you know, I'm an anthropology-oriented student, a westerner, and I like my girlfriend's parts intact, thank you very much. But I think it's important to see fgm practitioners as subjects instead of objects-- kapish?
Redirect from FGM
Can someone explain the re-direct from FGM? Although I have issues with the term FGM, it is more accurate than "circumcision" and at this point I think a more commonly-used term Slrubenstein
- As expressed in the article, the term "female genital mutiliation" is more commonly used in political and social circles (particularly liberal ones, or feminist ones.) However, the factual and medical term for the process is "female circumcision," and thus is the one most applicable for an encyclopedic entry, in an attempt to maintain NPOV. Thanks for the note! -EB-
- That seems moer or less OK, on condition that it is added that, contrary to male circumcision, the term 'female circumcision' covers a wide range of different interventions, going from something relatively modest (Type I circumcision), over a few intermediate types, towards a massive and rutal intervention that consists of removing entirely both the cltoris and external vulva. Most often the latter type causes severe medical complications and an important loss of physical functions.
Another important difference between male and female circumcision is the age, a few weeks for boys (or a surgical operation under anestesia), versus pre-puberty age for girls (causing severe pain and suffering).
- In many countries circumcision is performed without anasthetics on pre-puberty males as well. There's no real difference except that there aren't drones of mutilated women and female docters in denial defending the practice in western countries.
Why Circumcision and not Mutilation?
Do you have an authoritative medical reference for this? It just seems odd that (1) a nonsurgical procedure (the symbolic one mentioned at top of page) or (2) the sewing together of the labia majora would either be called circumcision.
Miriam Websters online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm) gives:
Main Entry: cir·cum·cise
Pronunciation: 's&r-k&m-"sIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -cised; -cis·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin
circumcisus, past participle of
circumcidere, from circum- + caedere to
cut
Date: 13th century
: to cut off the prepuce of (a male) or the
clitoris of (a female)
So, to cut, basically. Cut off clitoris gets this label, therefore, as does cut off foreskin. But to sew? Sounds more like mutilation (a well-known term for these things).
Besides, medical definitions have no greater priority in an encyclopedia than do cultural definitions. I think we might want to create two pages that interlink:
Female circumcision
Female genital mutilation.
Both belong here, don't you think? Maybe not, but makes sense to me right now.
Arthur Jan 15, 2003 20:02 UTC
FGM and MGM
One of the reasons that the term FGM came into vogue about 20 or 30 years ago is that the newer term was thought to more accuractly refleft the barbarity of the operation and assist in attempts to exterminate it by contrasting it with male circumcision which, at the time "FGM" became popular, was generally regarded as a trivial or even beneficial procedure. The move to FGM in itself, however, is problematic insofar as it, in turn, trivialises mutilation of the male organ - mere "circucision" as oposed to "mutilation". This is why many people in the field now write "male genital mutilation" or MGM. Tannin
More on MGM
I agree with Tannin's views. I'm disappointed that male genital mutilation is so easily dismissed (as are many abuses of males). Still, I would like to see female genital mutilation (in my opinion, so much nastier than male circumcision) be given a clear category in this encyclopedia.
Anyone agree? Arthur Jan 15, 2003 04:54 UTC
- I agree, but only subject to the priviso that males and females be treated equally - i.e., "Male Circumcision" and "Female Circumcision" or "MGM" and "FGM". The assertion that female GM is nastier than male GM cannot be made broadly. There are forms of FGM which are very common (especially in SE Asia) that are undoubtedly milder than the normal extent of MGM, and there are (better publicised) forms that are undoubtedly much more severe, with a whole range of variations in between. FGM, in other words, can be much nastier, but can equally be as mild or substantially milder than male circumcision: FGM has a much greater variability. Both operations, however, remove sexual tissue from non-consenting minors, and both should be treated equally. Tannin
- I strongly disagree:
- Both male and female circumcision are terrible. I see feminists trying to get special dispensation by comparing the most extreme forms of female circumcision against the most benign forms of male circumcision. I shall give examples:
- Asiatic eunuchs have a straw shoved up the urethra and the then the castrator ties a ligature around the base of the penis and testicles so tightly that the penis and testicles turn black. Then the castrator cuts of the penis and testicles. The reason for the straw is to hold open the urethra.
- Male circumcision varies from forms which remove only the part of the præpuce extending past the glans or dorsal slits. Then one finds complete præpucectomy. Then one finds præpucectomy with frænectomy. Then one finds præpucectomy with frænectomy and subincision. Finally, one finds penectomy.
- Female circumcision varies from minor cuts on the genitals to infibulation.
- The range of FGM and MGM mostly overlap and it is hard to tell which on average is better or worse or which destructive extreme is more destructive or which benign extreme is more benign.
- The facts are that the culture with FGM are a subset of cultures with MGM, and the percentage of girls falling victim to FGM in these cultures is lower than the percentage of boys falling victim to MGM.
- If we wish to eliminate FGM, we should eliminate MGM. If we stop FGM without eliminating MGM, FGM will just reappear on the justification that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we eliminate MGM, FGM will follow because what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
- I do not see any reason we should have two articles for sexual genital mutilation. I believe that we should have just one article covering sexual genital mutilation both males and females. The International Coalition for Genital Integrity does not distinguish between sexual genital mutilation of either boys or girls of intersexuals. You can read the article about Genital Integrity.
- Ŭalabio 04:33, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree too. The differences in terms of the age when circumcisionis applied (a few weeks for boys, pre-puberty age for girls), the social context (reduing sexual desire for women and thus enforcing her inferior status), as well as the wide gamut of physical scope for FGM versus only the mild uncision for male, make it completely irresponsible to put these on the same footing. It would be the same of setting physical torture, resulting in invalidity, on the same footing as just as single slap on the face. Regards, --Rudi Dierick 23:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is mutilation
"medical definitions have no greater priority in an encyclopedia than do cultural definitions"? That's not right at all. I agree that it really is mutilation, but the medical definition could be used as it's a medical procedure dealing with the human body. Besides, our culture loves britney spears, do we really want those people creating medical terms?
- Don't forget that no matter how barbaric it is, or how many medical associations revile it, it is still a surgical procedure requiring some skill to perform, and therefore it's valid for there to be jargon for the procedure.
- At the same time, performing medically unneccessary surgery on a person without their consent is about as close to a definition of mutilation as I can imagine. Doing it to a child's genitals amounts to no more or less than violent sexual abuse of a child. (I speak as a circumcised male).
- The only language I would like to see altered is that of calling a circumcised man "cut"; it seems to trivialize the situation. I see it as an attempt by circumcised men to rationalize. ("nothing major happened to me, I was not harmed, I just had a little cut!")
It should be FGM
My point was that medicine has no special knowledge of this stuff and that genital mutilation is not primarily a medical issue. Genital mutilation has a clear and recognized (though evolving) meaning as a cultural phenomenon (actually as several cultural phenomena). Few M.D.s know anything about anthropology, sociology, psychology and the like--nor how genital mutilation evolved culturally nor what kind of psychological or cultural effects it might have. Let M.D.s define emphysema. M.D.s have amongst the most narrow of educations and have no expertise whatsoever on other stuff. Want the AMA (American Medical Association) to define marriage or punk rock? I still think this should be moved back to Female genital mutilation (or to a general genital mutilation page that discusses both male and female.
Funny
not to sound too insensitive, but the whole idea is kinda funny apart from the sadistic butchering. I see a group of men 4000 years ago talking about their wives complaining that they had no idea what they should do to her clit[oris], and they were all like, i have no idea what to do with it either. [have sex with] it? Let's just chop it off so we don't gotta worry about it anymore.
Let's be open
What I find bizarre is how we're moving toward usng both the terms FGM and MGM. That's fine. Let's be open that this is a permanent medical procedure that is performed upon infants without consent. Yet at the same time, adult mutilation (genital and otherwise) is a rapidly growing trend. In fact, people got VERY huffy at me when I suggested on the talk page for body piercing / modification that it was in fact mutilation. -- Tarquin 13:34 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
- Have a look at this page http://www.geocities.com/hoodectomy/hoodectomy.html
- Ericd
- I'd rather not, I'm about to have lunch -- Tarquin
Map source?
Where does the map come from ? Is it up to date ? It show 50-75 % in Burkina Faso where FGM where forbidden around 1986. Ericd
- Click on the map; the description page includes a link to the apparent source, which itself is very vague about the data. --Brion 00:52 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
There is an errata at : http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm#a3 Is it the same map ? Ericd
Other source : http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/stats.html Ericd
FGM more appropriate
and, for now, my last comment about redirecting this back to "Female Genital Mutilation", I just did two searches at the altavista search engine. The number of hits?
- female circumcision--13,954
- female genital mutilation--24,180
Is it not clear which term has the greatest recognition?
Is it the same ? IMHO clitoridectomy or infibulation is obviously mutilation. But excision ? effects on sexual arousal are highly debatable.
What if you call male circumcision "male genital mutilation" ? Ericd
- Hi Ericd!
- my major point (see my rudely italicized argument above) is that medicine is the most ignorant of disciplines when it comes to all of this. And so, I prefer to talk in real terms rather than medical terms. Male circumcision (a medical term) is really nothing other than Male Genital Mutilation (I'm circumcised myself, and it looks normal to me and [according to polls] to most women in the USA, but it's mutilation nevertheless and serves no useful medical function). Who cares what M.D.s think about cultural phenomena? (Don't get me wrong. If I have a health problem, I want an M.D. and nothing but an M.D.--I want a fully trained traditional medicine medical doctor, not some bogus pseudoscience "health practioner".) Excision is unarguably mutilation--in one person's opinion
Terminology Parity
Someone above just wrote: Excision is unarguably "mutilation" --in one person's opinion. Actually this is quite wrong. Excision (of the foreskin or any other part) is mutilation by definition. The Oxford, for example, defines "mutilate" as "to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or organ of the body." Excision is unarguably "mutilation": no qualifier is required.
Male and female circumsision, or FGM and MGM. I'm not going to argue for either pair of alternatives, but they must be properly equivalent. Tannin
- I think it's stupid to demand this kind of parity. It's certainly true that there are varieties of FGM that are as mild as male circumcision, but it is not true that there are varieties of male circumcision as extreme as FGM can be. We wouldn't call chopping off the head of a man's penis "circumcision", so it's ridiculous and insulting to use that term for an equivalent operation on a woman. - Montréalais
- There are variants of FGM - quite possibly amongst the most common ones of all, given the population of SE Asia - that are much milder than male circumcision, Montrealais. Circumcision removes between 30% and 50% of a male's erogenous tissue. Regarding that as trivial is a gross perversion of common sense, and using a different, milder, term to sanitise equivalent acts simply because the victim of one happens to belong to a different sex is absurd, offensive, and highly POV. Tannin
- That would be more cogent if it responded to any position I had claimed to hold. I never said that male circumcision wasn't severe, because I don't believe it's not. What I said was that FGM can be much more severe. - Montréalais
- Or much less severe. Tannin
FGM covered under Blue Cross/Blue Sheild
Hi-- Can someone provide a citation for this line in the article: "clitoridectomy was covered by Bllue Cross/Blue Shield until 1974"? Thanks. --Marty Klein, Ph.D Klein@SexEd.org
I remember to have read some old medical book citation recommending clitoridectomy. I'll try to verify. Ericd 22:37 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have a source and serious one : http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.htm Ericd 22:41 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
That's a good source; however it doesn't cover the material in question. Nowhere in this source is the U.S. (let alone Blue Cross/Blue Shield) mentioned; it says there were debates about efficacy against masturbation (in Britain) but never says the operation was actually carried out for this purpose. - Hephaestos 07:30 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Let's quote amnesty.org : "Ideas about the health benefits of FGM are not unique to Africa. In 19th Century England, there were debates as to whether clitoridectomy could cure women of "illnesses" such as hysteria and "excessive" masturbation. Clitoridectomy continued to be practised for these reasons until well into this century in the USA." Ericd 07:59 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Well you're right. Thank you. - Hephaestos 08:15 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I've found another one for Blue Cross : http://www.boystoo.com/insurance.htm
Ericd 08:22 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Cliterodectomy
I am confused. Is "cliterodectomy" the removal of the clitoral hood only, as implied in its first mention in this article, or the removal of "part of all of the clitoris," as stated in the "Type II" section? - Nahum 08:38 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Oops. One is with an e and the other with an o. Sorry :) Nahum 08:41 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Controversial claim
I dispute the accuracy of the recent addition:
- Interestingly, the operation is most often carried out by woman practitioners. Thus it has been attributed by some authors to a deep-rooted fear of elder women that the more attractive younger women might seduce away their husbands and thus leave them without support.
From my research, I haven't uncovered any such argument or "fear." While I have found that it is often carried out by women (often "gypsies"), I haven't found any evidence that older women are afraid that the younger "intact" women will lure aware their spouses. This claim is even more dubious since it is usually the men who want the procedure carried out, horrific as it is. If the older women were trying to keep their husbands, it seems they'd have more luck by not performing the procedure on the younger women. If other agree that this claim is dubious, I'll remove it in the next few days. Please post your views. —Frecklefoot 15:33, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Without some support, I say remove it and leave it in the Talk page. If there is a credible, specific author promoting this theory who can be identified, it can stay, though if there's dispute this should be added too. Dachshund 05:13, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
United States
- It was also practiced in the United States to prevent masturbation until well into the twentieth century.
This sentence, cut from the intro paragraph, is not supported anywhere in the body of the article. Our readers would surely love to know more about this, especially considering that now the West condemns Arabs in Northern Africa for doing it.
Please provide a link or other evidence for "practiced in the US well into the 20th century". (I know female masturbation was discouraged, the question is whether girls actually had their clits cut off.) --Uncle Ed 22:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Oh, there is no dispute about that, Ed. It wasn't common, but it was undoubtedly practiced by the medical profession. This is well-known. Tannin
- I'm not so sure about the "to prevent masturbation" part. (I am generally not all that well versed in the topic). But I found the links at the bottowm of this page to be fascinating. A paper entitled "Female Circumcision: Indications and a New Technique" from 1959 is presented, and one from 1915 titled "Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform It". I will re-add the sentece, but without the masturbation motivation bit. I'll also ask Anthere for her comments as she seems knowledgeable about the subject. (google is your friend). --snoyes 22:38, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I've already restored it, the evidence (including for the motivation) is in the linked article, maybe it should be merged into masturbation.—Eloquence
- Don't mix excision and female circumcision, they are very different. Excision was not an accepted medical practice in the US or Britain. User:Damas
Western Civilization???
It's not easy to count the places where FGM is forbidden(no, it's not Western Civilization, it's more like 90% of the world): North and South America, Europe (all of it, last time I've checked, including Russia and former soviet republics), China, India, Japan and the list might continue. But we have a short list of the places that practice it: Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Yemen. User:Damas
- It's forbidden in Burkina Faso. This doesn't mean it isn't practiced, there were even case in France.
- Ericd 22:50, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Oh yes indeed, occuring among some political asylum seekers and immigrants, and as soon asthe French authorities found out, they acted swiftly, and punished accomplices with prison sentences of many months. --Rudi Dierick 00:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Tori Amos
This page claims that Tori Amos's song "Cornflake Girl" deals with FGM. Is there some evidence for this? It certainly isn't explicitly mentioned in the lyrics, and I personally don't understand the sous-entendu referred to here. - Montréalais 06:22, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This wasn't obvious to me too. Then I asked Google and found : http://www.white-man-killer.com/tori-amos/about.html Ericd 23:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Again on terminology
I'm certainly not the first one to voice my concerns over the name of this entry, but it bears repeating. The practice of male circumcision is by all standards incomparable to what passes for "female circumcision". It is stigmatising and insulting to cultures that practice male circumcision; there are very few medical and/or sociological parallels between the two practices. Can anyone suggest a third - non-PC and non-stigmatising - term for this phenomenon? If not, what are the real reasons for not moving this page to female genital mutilation? JFW | T@lk 22:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- MGM and FGM are simmilar practices with several both medical, historical and sociological parallels between them. // Liftarn
- The simple reason, JFW, is that it would get reverted instantly. It is entirely unacceptable to call the removal of genital flesh "circumcision" as it applies to one sex, but "mutilation" as it applies to the other. By all means, move this to female genital mutilation - but only, repeat only if you do the same with the male entry. Your claim that "the practice of male circumcision is by all standards incomparable to what passes for female circumcision" is nonsense. Oh sure, there are forms of FGM that remove more sexually sensitive tissue than the common forms of MGM, but there are also forms which remove a good deal less (these are particularly common in South-east Asia). Tannin
Dear //Liftarn and Tannin—
I appreciate that some people prefer to refer to male circumcision as MGM. Most people, including professionals in the field, however, call it "circumcision", nothing more or less.
As for FGM, most people, especially professionals (doctors, psychotherapists, sociologists, community care workers, development workers) who deal with the women involved, call it FGM, although the parlance in the media is "female circumcision".
As for the similarities: (1) Both are surgical interventions of the genitals that are practiced as an initiation rite more than for medical reasons; (2) A proportion of the "circumcised" is unhappy about what was done to him/her and experiences sexual dysphoria, obstetric complications and post-traumatic stress disorder.
As for the differences: (1) The "proportion in (2) above is overwhelmingly larger in female circumcision; (2) There is ample evidence that male circumcision has a very low complication rate and a very low rate of sexual dysphoria and PTSS; (3) The international community condemns female circumcision while no such thing has been done concerning its male "counterpart".
//Liftarn, could you please cite me serious studies from peer-reviewed professional journals concerning medical similarities between the two? JFW | T@lk 10:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
PS Tannin—I didn't know female circumcision was also practiced in SE Asia! About Iraq I've heard second-hand from a doctor who worked there. Perhaps there is room for a Talmudic logical split: some practices (e.g. Sudan) are FGM, and some are so mild they are quite similar to male circumcision and warrant being called "female circumcision". Just a thought....
- This article brings me in some readings and reflexions that I will try to sum up.
- First of it I think than there’s a strong parallels between male & female circumcision, for what I know, many African cultures practice both and gave the same justification for both.
- At first I wanted to move all the article to FGM. I was conviced like you that Female circumcision was incomparable with male circumcision.
- Futher readings bring me to thing that hoodectomy is no more than female counterpart of male circumcision. I had also the surprise to discover that some women undergo hoodectomy for aesthetic reasons or for better sexual arousal. Living in a society were body modification (plastic surgery, piercing) is more and more common and where male circumcision can be practiced as ritual on childrens, I tend to think now that hoodectomy in itself is no more condemnable than male circumcision.
- It hadn’t of course changed my POV on other types of female circumcision that are still IMO strongly condemnable.
- Another aspect is that the practice of hoodectomy is a serious health problem. As it is practised in unhygienic conditions in many third world countries complication are frequents. In most of this countries male circumcision is also practised and complications are also frequent, but as the male body is not the female body when things turn bad they tend to go worse for women.
- For what I know best some African countries have strong policies about FGM. In some countries female circumcision is illegal but goes on in clandestiny, in other countries female circumcision is medicalized and restrictited to hoodectomy, this generally condemned in Wester opinion, but it seems to me that it’s similar to way we deal with male circumcision in Western countries.
- Ericd 11:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Eric, I'm not sure what your stance is on the circumcision/FGM debate? Could you state your views? Or was this a seperate comment? JFW | T@lk 15:21, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I fixed several typos this should be clearer now I am for keeping the Female circumcision tittle for this article, this doesn't exclude to make the FGM article something more than a redirect.
- Ericd 15:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"It has only rarely been performed in the English-speaking nations."
So this is a language issue? I don't know the facts, but I'm sure it should be possible to describe the affected regions more accurately...
- I'd suggest perhaps first world or industrialized nations, as that's what the author seems to mean. I'm sure that countries like Germany and Japan don't have a particular problem with this, even though they're not English-speaking. However, I'm not going to change it just now, I'll leave it up to debate.
- --Tyler 08:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Are Ghana or Nigeria English-speaking nations ?
- Ericd 11:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Nigeria's official language is English, and almost everyone I met there can speak and understand it. Of course, people speak many other languages besides; the street pidgin is often contemptously referred to as "broken English," though that hasn't stopped a single soul from using it. :-) --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 01:18, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Well, let me join the "I think the name should be changed" camp. I think calling this variety of procedures of varying severity "female circumcision" is unspecific and no doubt offensive to some. Why should these procedures need to be equated to a more recognizable male procedure? No one thinks that tubal ligations and vasectomies should share a common name. Arguably they have more in common than "female" and "male" circumcision. At the same time, I think that FGM is inflammatory in a rather unproductive way, and I can understand why it causes much controversy. A term I have seen used is Female Genital Surgeries. This term has the unbiased language that wikipedia craves, and is more of an umbrella term for the actual range of surgeries that are discussed under the various terms above, from ceremonial bleeding to infibulation. I don't know how to go about changing an article title, and would not to presume to in this case, but what do others think? - The lesbian 05:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly prefer FGM and MGM. Surgery is a positive thing and has positive imagery associated with it: you go to a hospital to get surgery, and afterwards you get better! How happy an image. This would tend to lead to three misconceptions about FGM: 1.) that it is a valid medical procedure which helps the patient (rather, it is destructive and there is no medical indication in 99%+ cases); 2.) that it occurs in a hospital (routinely it does not, and conditions are not sterile); and 3.) that it is performed by trained physicians (try an untutored witch-woman with a rusty razor blade instead). I fail to see why such a cruel practise deserves the euphemization of the terrified-to-offend intelligentsia. If you check a thesaurus for synonyms of "mutilation", you will not find "surgery" among them, though you will find many words even uglier than "mutilation" - though less accurate. FGM/MGM are scientifically accurate and as such I vote for their use in Wikipedia. -Kasreyn
- Of course I do not mean to downplay the horror of these procedures. I come from a place where I cannot fathom why someone would do such a thing or want such a thing done to them. However, the fact is that there are those who can. I certainly think that such practices should be ended as the cruelties that I see them to be, but using a term like 'mutilation' creates alienation rather than dialogue, IMO. Now, as for the word "surgery." Not always a positive thing, in my mind anyway. The forced sterilization of Native American, African American, and Latina women was considered surgery, no question, and yet it was not positive or necessary. At the risk of sounding anti-science, medicine's approach to women has often been that there is something inherently wrong them that needs "fixing." I feel that your use of the term "untutored witch-woman" is uncalled for, though I respect the passion I assumed inspired it. While the majority of women and girls involved in this practice do not see a doctor, some do. There are a wide variety of contexts in which these various procedures are performed, some of which fit even a narrow definition of "surgery." It is my opinion that people reading this page will already have some knowledge (though it may not be based in statistics or data) of what it is that is being discussed. Most readers will have the preconception that this is a cruel and unnecessary practice. I do not feel that "mutilation" fits with the Wikipedia ideal of unbiased discussion, even (and especially) of such a controversial topic. But hey, we both agree that "circumcision" isn't the best word, right? •The lesbian 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for your response, and thanks for remaining civil even though my terminology upset you. (Sorry) I personally would prefer circumcision over surgery as a term. If I could boil it down to a more concise explanation, I feel surgery has far-reaching and deep-seated connotations of "positive", "necessary", and "medical", all of which are false in the vast majority of female circumcisions performed. I certainly understand there are some females who desire to have this ritual performed, for a variety of reasons, but I have a hard time imagining they could constitute even 1% of total cases. As you said, the typical superstitious, chauvinistic view of females is that there is something "wrong" with them that must be "fixed". If you start calling this "surgery" you will play directly into the hands of those defending the custom. They will say, "Why are you so upset? This is surgery! We're FIXING people!" Even today in America, male infant circumcision is seen as positive surgery, which makes anyone protesting it (such as myself) look as anti-medicine as the Christian Scientists. You might also look up "frames" as used in psychology, here on wikipedia; calling this cruel primitive holdover surgery will reframe the debate from a human rights issue to a medical choice issue, which is a less accurate description. Cheers, -Kasreyn
- Oh please, there is no need to thank me for not being a jerk. I would much rather discuss than get huffy. That said, I'm not yet convinced and I'm not giving it up. Ok, to further problematize "surgery" as inherently connected to the positive terms you suggest, what about plastic surgery? I think that breast augmentation (in most cases) is a form of mutilation, and yet this is something that women in our culture "choose" to do. Though I too find it hard to believe, without any solid evidence, I don't think it's fair to claim any sort of statistic for how many girls/women actually want this done to them. I doubt it is a majority, or even close, but I have no real data to back that up, other than my assumptions of what I would want for myself. That said, think about what the term "mutilation" would make a woman who had been forced into this surgery feel, or one who had wanted it but later came to regret it. I certainly am not trying to play into the hands of those who forcibly damage children, but to be considerate of the feelings of those who have been so abused. Similar to how discourse has changed from "rape victim" to "rape survivor," I think that a less horrifying term may be more appropriate. For the most part, people are at least familiar with these surgeries, and more often than not have very strong opinions about how terrible they are. Alright, whatchya got?? •The lesbian 05:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I really only have one more point, which is that a rape victim *knows* what happened to her. Personally, I think infant circumcision/mutilation victims mostly don't see themselves as victims. Until that changes - until they get shocked and horrified a bit - there won't be the political will to do away with the practise. If we can't find the courage to tell them they were damaged and victimized, and if they lack the courage to accept that, they won't protest when it's done to the next generation. Sometimes a horrifying term is the best one, when atrocity is going unnoticed in the name of custom. Just my $0.02, and been nice talkin with ya. -Kasreyn
- Oh please, there is no need to thank me for not being a jerk. I would much rather discuss than get huffy. That said, I'm not yet convinced and I'm not giving it up. Ok, to further problematize "surgery" as inherently connected to the positive terms you suggest, what about plastic surgery? I think that breast augmentation (in most cases) is a form of mutilation, and yet this is something that women in our culture "choose" to do. Though I too find it hard to believe, without any solid evidence, I don't think it's fair to claim any sort of statistic for how many girls/women actually want this done to them. I doubt it is a majority, or even close, but I have no real data to back that up, other than my assumptions of what I would want for myself. That said, think about what the term "mutilation" would make a woman who had been forced into this surgery feel, or one who had wanted it but later came to regret it. I certainly am not trying to play into the hands of those who forcibly damage children, but to be considerate of the feelings of those who have been so abused. Similar to how discourse has changed from "rape victim" to "rape survivor," I think that a less horrifying term may be more appropriate. For the most part, people are at least familiar with these surgeries, and more often than not have very strong opinions about how terrible they are. Alright, whatchya got?? •The lesbian 05:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for your response, and thanks for remaining civil even though my terminology upset you. (Sorry) I personally would prefer circumcision over surgery as a term. If I could boil it down to a more concise explanation, I feel surgery has far-reaching and deep-seated connotations of "positive", "necessary", and "medical", all of which are false in the vast majority of female circumcisions performed. I certainly understand there are some females who desire to have this ritual performed, for a variety of reasons, but I have a hard time imagining they could constitute even 1% of total cases. As you said, the typical superstitious, chauvinistic view of females is that there is something "wrong" with them that must be "fixed". If you start calling this "surgery" you will play directly into the hands of those defending the custom. They will say, "Why are you so upset? This is surgery! We're FIXING people!" Even today in America, male infant circumcision is seen as positive surgery, which makes anyone protesting it (such as myself) look as anti-medicine as the Christian Scientists. You might also look up "frames" as used in psychology, here on wikipedia; calling this cruel primitive holdover surgery will reframe the debate from a human rights issue to a medical choice issue, which is a less accurate description. Cheers, -Kasreyn
- Of course I do not mean to downplay the horror of these procedures. I come from a place where I cannot fathom why someone would do such a thing or want such a thing done to them. However, the fact is that there are those who can. I certainly think that such practices should be ended as the cruelties that I see them to be, but using a term like 'mutilation' creates alienation rather than dialogue, IMO. Now, as for the word "surgery." Not always a positive thing, in my mind anyway. The forced sterilization of Native American, African American, and Latina women was considered surgery, no question, and yet it was not positive or necessary. At the risk of sounding anti-science, medicine's approach to women has often been that there is something inherently wrong them that needs "fixing." I feel that your use of the term "untutored witch-woman" is uncalled for, though I respect the passion I assumed inspired it. While the majority of women and girls involved in this practice do not see a doctor, some do. There are a wide variety of contexts in which these various procedures are performed, some of which fit even a narrow definition of "surgery." It is my opinion that people reading this page will already have some knowledge (though it may not be based in statistics or data) of what it is that is being discussed. Most readers will have the preconception that this is a cruel and unnecessary practice. I do not feel that "mutilation" fits with the Wikipedia ideal of unbiased discussion, even (and especially) of such a controversial topic. But hey, we both agree that "circumcision" isn't the best word, right? •The lesbian 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Male Genital Mutilation
The page Female genital mutilation redirects to Female circumcision so I tried to create a redirect from Male Genital Mutilation to Male circumcision, and within a few seconds it had been put on the Redirects for deletion page. I agree that some forms of FGM are far worse than the standard male circumcision and I don't want to play down the severity of that. Although I think that MGM can include mutilation other than circumcision or very barbaric forms of circumcision aswell (eg. skinstripping and subincision see [2] and #More on MGM) although I'm not sure how widespread this is. However, it seems that many people consider even the mildest form of FGM as mutilation eg. the US Department of State who say that "Type I is the excision (removal) of the clitoral hood with or without removal of all or part of the clitoris" [3]. It seems strange that the US government is taking such an interest in FGM in other countries but seems to be blind to the Genital Mutilation of boys taking place on its own doorstep.--Cap 00:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ¿Why not just merge FGM, MGM, Female Circumcision, Male Circumcision, and Circumcision into one article? It is all the same thing. Just read my comment at #More on MGM on this page.
- Ŭalabio 04:46, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
There is a page called Genital modification and mutilation --Cap 04:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ¡Good! We can merge and redirect MGM, FGM, Male Circumcision, Female Circumcision, and Circumcision into Genital Modification And Mutilation.
- Ŭalabio 05:53, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
- Male circumcision, Female circumcision, and Genital modification and mutilation should all remain separate articles. -- DanBlackham 06:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ¿Why not redirect and merge? These are all of the same thing.
- Ŭalabio 07:31, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
- No, they are not. Ŭalabio, I am rather displeased that after all this time, you still fail to acknowledge this — I thought that you might be more open to reason than Robert Brookes. Don't you remember my comment at Talk:Violence a few days ago? To quote myself:
Your opponents don't lump male and female circumcision in the same box, so take care to treat them separately.
- I'm not pro- or anti-circumcision, but even I know that "MGM" and "FGM" are two different animals. You may not like the fact that most other people see things differently than you do, but that changes nothing.
Can you see the POV that a redirect of Male circumcision and/or Female circumcision to Genital modification and mutilation would add? Given the recent arguments over the circumcision wars and the non-negotiable nature of the neutral point of view policy, the only reason I can figure that you're even bothering to propose this is to start another pointless argument. --Ardonik.talk() 11:38, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC) - Even if this would be done, resulting article would be so large that it would have to be split into subarticles, which have to be named somehow. So we're back on the square one. Nikola 13:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Ŭalabio 07:31, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
- ¿How are they different animals? Let us compare withtext copied from elsewhere on the page:
Both male and female circumcision are terrible. I see feminists trying to get special dispensation by comparing the most extreme forms of female circumcision against the most benign forms of male circumcision. I shall give examples:
Asiatic eunuchs have a straw shoved up the urethra and the then a the castrator ties a ligature around the base of the penis and testicles so tightly that the penis and testicles turn black. Then the castrator cuts of the penis and testicles. The reason for the straw is to hold open the urethra.
Male circumcision varies from forms which remove only the part of the præpuce extending past the glans or dorsal slits. Then one finds complete præpucectomy. Then one finds præpucectomy with frænectomy. Then one finds præpucectomy with frænectomy and subincision. Finally, one finds penectomy.
Female circumcision varies from minor cuts on the genitals to infibulation.
The range of FGM and MGM mostly overlap and it is hard to tell which on average is better or worse or which destructive extreme is more destructive or which benign extreme is more benign.
The facts are that the culture with FGM are a subset of cultures with MGM, and the percentage of girls falling victim to FGM in these cultures is lower than the percentage of boys falling victim to MGM.
If we wish to eliminate FGM, we should eliminate MGM. If we stop FGM without eliminating MGM, FGM will just reappear on the justification that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we eliminate MGM, FGM will follow because what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I do not see any reason we should have two articles for sexual genital mutilation. I believe that we should have just one article covering sexual genital mutilation both males and females. The International Coalition for Genital Integrity does not distinguish between sexual genital mutilation of either boys or girls of intersexuals. You can read the article about Genital Integrity.
- They seem very comparable to me.
- Ŭalabio 18:35, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
- In the Western world, male circumcision is, for the most part, looked on apathetically, while female circumcision is looked on disdainfully. You already knew that.
Yeah, Ualabio, I know you don't like it. Male circumcision horrifies you. I don't care. It doesn't horrify me; I am not leaning one way or another at the moment. I'll look at scientific literature on both sides of the debate before making an informed decision for my own infant son (if any :-)), and that's all there is to it. Your side is not looking very bright right now.
If you're not going to change your mind and start acknowledging the validity of your opponents' viewpoints, fine. As I said before, nobody's stopping you from starting your own website and promoting your heartfelt views over there. Of course, since you don't seem to want to know where your opponents are coming from, you'll never convince them that yours is the right view, and you'll always be just a lone voice pissing in the wind. If that makes you happy, more power to you, but you would do well to keep your POV out of the Wikipedia — you've been told that before, too. Pardon my language, but you know very damned well that an attempt to redirect Circumcision or even Female circumcision to Genital modification and mutilation will be reverted within minutes, so this line of argument is pointless. There are more creative ways to waste your energy than playing this game in every circumcision-related talk page; why don't you visit Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and start making useful contributions in a field unrelated to genitalia? --Ardonik.talk() 21:34, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- In the Western world, male circumcision is, for the most part, looked on apathetically, while female circumcision is looked on disdainfully. You already knew that.
- Well now, let us look at to circumcisions:
- A girl in Indonesia has the most distal part of the præpuce pricked with a needle, drawing a drop if blood. A boy in the United States of America has all of his præpuce and of his frænulum cut off along with much shaft skin (high and tight with no frænulum), and as an adult suffers from tight painful erections which are as tight as a drum with scrotum (¿Why does the United States of America have so much testicular cancer?) and groin drawn onto the penis (yes a hairy dick). ¿Which child has the worst deal?
- As I am married and have a son with a circumcized Indonesian woman, and have had sex with other circumcized Indonesian women, I can say that the circumcision does not appear to have had any effect on their sexual pleasure at all: certainly compared with the abundant evidence that the foreskin of the penis contains many nerve endings, and that it is also well-known that the deadening of the glans has a significant effect on circumcized men (e.g., they will take longer to reach orgasm), it is difficult to really argue that either is 'worse'. The problem of course being that female circumcision is taken to mean the removal of the clitoris, which is closer to male castration than anything else: the confusing grouping of different procedures does not help matters.
- While I would not choose or endorse either male or female prepuce removal (note: the clitoral hood and the foreskin are both the same body part, the prepuce, so essentially they are equivalent operations), if it wasn't so offensive to read the racist and absolutist comments of the people at this weblog at http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9593, I would find it amusing that in the USA the great majority of men have had their genitals damaged in a way that is at least the equal of the procedure they find so shocking in their ignorance. So said: 62.253.64.14
- May I raise some issues here.
- The first is that the whole "FGM" issue has become a major no-go area for rational and non-emotional debate. There is absolutely no point in attempting to separate the minor procedures from the mutilations of clitoridectomy (removal of the clitoris) and infibulation as the attitudes are set in stone and often based on the ignorance you find so shocking. It is interesting to note that in parts of Africa (where cultural importance is place on the ritual itself) there are attempts to replace the more "invasive" procedures with a "symbolic" pin-prick while retaining the structure of the ritual itself. Be that as it may it is obvious that all procedures from infibulation to a pin-prick are caught up in the wide sweep of the FGM net. Essentially what I am saying to you is that you are entering an area where angels fear to tread.
- As to comparisons with mc. Male circumcision (through the removal of the foreskin/prepuce) equates to "hoodectomy" or "clitoridotomy" (the surgical removal of the clitoral hood/prepuce only). But I am not sure as to why you feel the need to denigrate the male procedure in arguments to justify the other? This sounds alot like something out of the parable of Solomon's Baby (remember it?) Sort of if I can't get my way then neither should they?
- You speak of nerves in the prepuce. Of course there are nerves there. In fact the ones they refer to all the time are of the Meissner corpuscle type (note that the glans penis and the glans clitoris and nipple contain Vater-Pacini corpuscles). In other words "light touch receptors" as found in the lips are the main in the foreskin. Now if you were to rub your fingertips across your lips it is only the lightest touch which stimulates/tickles and as the pressure and intensity increases you may as well be rubbing the back of your hand. You can project this onto love making and will realise that this emphasis upon "nerves" in the foreskin is merely the exaggerated propaganda of the anti-circumcision fanatics. In other words it is not worthy of comment or introduction into such a debate.
- As to the supposed well-know "deadening of the glans" maybe it is recommended that you read this: EFFECTS OF CIRCUMCISION ON MALE PENILE SENSITIVITY. The moral of this story is then that one should be extremely circumspect before taking anything published on anti-circumcision web sites seriously. - Robert the Bruce 06:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't have any particular problem with male circumcision. I don't think it's one of the major evils of the world. I myself as a man am not circumcised, and neither will my son be. It's not particularly important to me whether or not male circumcision is bad or not: clearly there is ample evidence that circumcised men are able to perform e.g. as porn stars that demonstrates that although it might have some effect (some people suggest that circumcised men take longer to reach orgasm, something that might or might not be bad), it is not something that is a major attack on men. Although I'm not sure your comparison with the lips is necessary totally valid, as I can sit with an erection and stroke my lips all day long and get no sexual pleasure whatsoever, whereas stimulating my glans and foreskin will eventually lead to orgasm... So said: 62.253.64.14
- Both your glans and foreskin? We are talking Meissner corpuscles here. The same "nerves" that are in the foreskin as are in the lips. What the anatomical facts are is that they are light touch receptors and like the lips have no response to any but the lightest touch. Given the simple comparison with the lips the Meissner corpuscles have little or no part to play during coitus. If you factor in the glans then you must learn from Bleustein's study that there is no difference at all. - Robert the Bruce 16:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- This wasn't really my point however; rather, that in the case of the women of Indonesia and other places practising minor circumsion, the procedure is merely something that people do, and is really no more destructive than ear piercings that most Western liberals would not object to. When I told my mother that my wife was pregnant, she said 'if he's a boy, I guess you'll have him circumcised'; I pointed out that in Indonesia, girls are circumcised equally with boys, to which she responded with a shocked gasped 'What!', as if it was something as shocking as say, making my son a castrati. In fact it is my experience that the procedure, which in my wife's case involved removal of a small part of the bottom of the clitoral hood (not the whole prepuce), does not seem to have affected clitoral feeling at all, in that response to stimulation with either my tongue or a vibrator is exactly as you would expect, and the clitoris does not appear to have been desensitized at all. So said: 62.253.64.14
- And as Bleustein found neither does the glans of the circumcised man become desensitised at all. - Robert the Bruce 16:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't have any particular problem with male circumcision. I don't think it's one of the major evils of the world. I myself as a man am not circumcised, and neither will my son be. It's not particularly important to me whether or not male circumcision is bad or not: clearly there is ample evidence that circumcised men are able to perform e.g. as porn stars that demonstrates that although it might have some effect (some people suggest that circumcised men take longer to reach orgasm, something that might or might not be bad), it is not something that is a major attack on men. Although I'm not sure your comparison with the lips is necessary totally valid, as I can sit with an erection and stroke my lips all day long and get no sexual pleasure whatsoever, whereas stimulating my glans and foreskin will eventually lead to orgasm... So said: 62.253.64.14
- ¿Who said anything about merging and redirecting? I merely raised the question -- unlike the circumcisiophiliacs who just beg questions. This all has to do with the philosophy of the relationship of these articles. Basically it boils down to reification (¿What is a thing?). It seems obvious to me that all HGM (Human Genital Mutilations) belong in the same article.
- I currently work on an article about the microcontinent Avalonia. That link should hopefully turn blue before the weekend ends.
- This has been a nice pleasant conversation.
"I'll look at scientific literature on both sides of the debate before making an informed decision for my own infant son (if any :-))"
This is a no brainer:
When the greedy Ob/Gyn will ask for two hundred dollars for a medically unnecessary procedure, just say no.
Ŭalabio 22:52, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
- Appealing to raw emotion (such as calling talented obstetricians and gynecologists greedy and describing surgical procedures in gory detail above) is not a very effective way to argue for your cause. I can comprehend that you are disgusted by "MGM", but your goriest description is not about to make me share that disgust. You'd do well to try other tactics if you're serious about convincing outsiders to join your cause, but we're really disgressing from the topic at hand right now. --Ardonik.talk() 23:19, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
I think people's cultural upbringing distorts people's idea of a neutral point of view. Societies often tend to accept things that are traditional in their society and are horrified at what happens in other societies. If there had been no tradition of circumcision in the US for example, and someone suddenly came up with the idea today, most people would be horrified, but as it is already well established people don't question it. A similar analogy would be smoking. Many people accept the legality of smoking tobacco because it has long been part of Western culture, but many of these same people would probably be horrified if you suggested that cannabis be legalised, even though it is (arguably) less harmful. --Cap 21:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You may blame society for the fact that the anti-circumcision POV is not more widespread if that makes you happy. It doesn't change the fact that the Wikipedia is not the right vehicle to promote said POV. Get a website. --Ardonik.talk() 22:03, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
The point is that it seems to be ok for opponents of FGM to show a POV by redirecting Female genital mutilation to Female circumcision but when the same is done for Male Genital Mutilation to Circumcision then it is immediately criticised as POV. --Cap 22:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ¡Great Point!
- Ŭalabio 22:52, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
- I agree that that does promote a certain POV — that being the POV of the Western world itself, which only sees female circumcision as mutilation. Sure, it would be great if for once, we could buck the trend and do things "the right way" (your way!), treating MGM like the antiquated, barbaric monstrosity that it truly is! But alas, our society is not likely to change its views on the normalcy of male circumcision in the near future, so the FGM redirect cannot and will not have an MGM redirect for "contrast's sake."
- If you want to read my suggestion about what the intactivists can do to make their viewpoint heard around here, read what I wrote in Talk:Violence, just above the "Enough" section, and then tell me what you think of my advice. But the Wikipedia is an innocent bystander in your apparent crusade against the apathy of Western civilization. Stop ripping the NPOV from perfectly good articles; it is explicitly against our policy and it is winning you very few admirers (except Robert Brookes.) The Wikipedia is not a soapbox that you may grandstand your views from, however noble you consider them to be. --Ardonik.talk() 23:03, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- So NPOV = the view of the "Western World"? shouldn't we be using a NPOV which is truly neutral, not a reflection of the Western world's (or any other society's) view?
- To answer the first question, no, nor is User:Ardonik the Sole Arbiter of the Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy or the Official Spokesman of the Western World that you seem to consider him to be. To answer your second question, your proposed redirect isn't remotely close to "truly neutral," and this has been explained to you already. Come on, what on earth are you guys trying to accomplish here? I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know. A redirect of Circumcision to Genital modification and mutilation will be deemed POV and will not be acceptable. If you try it, someone besides me will revert it. That's reality. Deal with it.
I keep throwing you bones, having told you more than once what you can do to make the intactivist viewpoint heard and respected (knowing full well that that's the only reason several of you came to the Wikipedia to begin with) but you seem fixated on convincing me of the righteousness of this proposed redirect, the incorrectness of NPOV, and the injustice of a Western norm that does not agree with your biases.
Look, if you're serious about getting the word out on intactivism and you're willing to listen to my advice, I will try to help you; the focus of our edits will be on limiting the anti-circumcision POV to the Genital integrity article, and strengthening it in the process to something that we can all be proud of. But if you're not interested and you just want more petty arguments that generate more heat then light, then do carry on in my absence. I have articles to copyedit. (Expect to see me again if you get into any more revert wars.) --Ardonik.talk() 23:35, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
- To answer the first question, no, nor is User:Ardonik the Sole Arbiter of the Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy or the Official Spokesman of the Western World that you seem to consider him to be. To answer your second question, your proposed redirect isn't remotely close to "truly neutral," and this has been explained to you already. Come on, what on earth are you guys trying to accomplish here? I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know. A redirect of Circumcision to Genital modification and mutilation will be deemed POV and will not be acceptable. If you try it, someone besides me will revert it. That's reality. Deal with it.
- I thought NPOV must be present. That is non-negotiable, right? To say practically any redirect you dislike "will be deemed POV" can only be an effort to stifle or censor one view, is it not? You say The Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and yet you go on to say "the focus of our edits will be on limiting the anti-circumcision POV to the Genital integrity article". That's an interesting and obvious way to favor the pro-mutilation POV. Why don't you sequester the pro-mutilation folks, and maybe keep your opinion isolated to that special article? DanP 16:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- DanP, you're trolling. I won't get suckered into that game again; I've already had enough fun dealing with Robert Brookes' trolling on the flipside. (See his reincarnation at User talk:Friends of Robert.) When you're no longer interested in starting pointless arguments and you actually want to accomplish something meaningful here, you know where to reach me. --Ardonik.talk()* 17:04, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I thought NPOV must be present. That is non-negotiable, right? To say practically any redirect you dislike "will be deemed POV" can only be an effort to stifle or censor one view, is it not? You say The Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and yet you go on to say "the focus of our edits will be on limiting the anti-circumcision POV to the Genital integrity article". That's an interesting and obvious way to favor the pro-mutilation POV. Why don't you sequester the pro-mutilation folks, and maybe keep your opinion isolated to that special article? DanP 16:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Please do not accuse me of trolling. I was refering to your comments, not trying to start any new arguments. The Genital Integrity article is not a sandbox to keep folks in. It seems right to allow voices from both sides to be heard equally, that is all I am asking. DanP 18:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Small mistakes
I've noticed a few small mistakes but probably someone else should fix them as I don't have much knowledge on the subject.
- "The labia that are sewn together are not like a mocassin" - I guess that this should be "not unlike".
- "First sexual intercourse can always be extremely painful" - it either "can be" or "is always" but can't be "can always be".
Nikola 13:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Area of Practice
The article gave the impression that FGM is common in Arabian Peninsula. I searched the State Department site and found that that's not true. For example, the article originally mentioned Bahrain as a place where FGM is practice. However, according to the State Department: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27925.htm "Female genital mutilation (FGM) is not practiced in the country. There is no specific law that prohibits FGM."
I deleted Bahrain.
Regarding Saudi Arabia, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/index.cfm?docid=817 "is practiced among some foreign workers from East Africa and the Nile Valley. It is not always clear whether the procedure occurred in Saudi Arabia or the workers' home countries. There is no law specifically prohibiting FGM. "
Regarding Oman, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27935.htm "A few communities still practice female genital mutilation (FGM); however, experts believed that the number of such cases was small and declining annually. There is no law prohibiting FGM."
I edited the article to make it clear that FGM is mainly African tradition and remains only an African tradition. It's not a religious/Islamic tradition. In other countries in South Asia and the Middle East, even if it's practiced by some groups, it's very rare (far less than 1%). OneGuy 16:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It is indeed mainly occuring in Africa, but at the same time, as there are very larg areas of Africa where it is not practicsed at all, presenting it just as an African tradition, is a generalisation that is unjust towards all those other Africans, as well as inaccurate in that it tries to hide that in Africa, it is mostly practised by Muslim Africans, and also outside Africa, by Arabic groups. You just referred to one source for your omissions. However, when looking into reports of World Health Organisation, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty international, you will get a less black-and-wihite picture. There are just to many sources that indicate it is very common among several of the major Arabic nations (as Egypt, Sudan, and Yemen). Some of those reports even go that far as to describe that the type if FGM in Yemen differs ebtween the Arabic groups in Yemen, versus formerly Somali and Eritrean groups! In case you don't agree, just provide evidence that there are no sources of occurence among Arabic groups outside Africa. As far as I understood the encyclopedic method, one should try to rely on as much as possible reliable soures, and not just ne one. --Rudi Dierick 00:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- One of the source already included in this article explicitely mentions occurence in the Arabic pensinsula, and describes it not as a immigrant phenomena (as it did for occurence in Europa and America)! So, it really looks like your insistence that it is an African and not an Arabic tradition is not backed up by sufficiently clear evidence. Even worse, given statistic<prevalence, it should be clear that Egypt and Sudan as two of the very largest ARABIC countries are already enough to call it also an Arabic tradition! --Rudi Dierick 00:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Egypt and Sudan are also African countries. You have not provided proof that Catholic and Anglicans in Africa oppose FGM. Your claim is contradicted in say Nigeria that is not Coptic, and according to State Department on Nigeria:
- "It crosses the lines of various religious groups. It is found among Christians, Muslims and Animists alike."
- Also, this source clearly states that it's a cultural, not a religious practice:
- "FGM originated in Africa. It was, and remains, a cultural, not a religious practice." Do not try to insert falsehood that it's Islamic tradition. OneGuy 05:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You keep inserting your claim that Muslim and Coptic are only one who practice FGM, even after I gave proof from the state department site. Nigeria in not Coptic, but yet according to The State Department "It is found among Christians, Muslims and Animists alike."
Also, Kenya is Protestant 45%, Roman Catholic 33%, indigenous beliefs 10%, Muslim 10%, other 2%. And in Kenya it's "practiced by some Christians and .. by Ethiopian Jews, who now live in Israel."
The 1999 "study indicated that 38 percent of Kenya women between the ages of 15 and 19 and over half of women above the age of 35 had been subjected to one of these."
And Kenya is Protestant 45%, Roman Catholic 33%, indigenous beliefs 10%, Muslim 10%, other 2%. Do your math there. OneGuy 06:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Loaded
Can anyone from this page shed light on my query at Talk:Loaded (language)? VeryVerily 01:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On The Role Of Religion
(..and assorted grievances.)
Al-Taqiyya? It would be good to mention, at least, that there's a consensus among Islamic scholars that FGM is mandatory.
- No, consensus among Islamic scholars is that it's not mandatory OneGuy
- In fact, the practice is unheard of in most Muslim countries. - Mustafaa 11:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There's no consensus among Islamic scholars. You just have to look at the map to see that the practice is unknown in many Muslim countries. Ericd 18:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When I saw this page, I didn't know what to say, but I didn't know that female circumcision existed. Thanks, Wikipedia! Scott Gall 11:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Terminology
I have edited the introductory paragraph. It should be noted that circumcisions are often forms of genital modification and mutilation. However there are two important distinctions with regard to vocabulary:
- According laws, to FGM does include genital piercings when performed on minors, regardless whether any tissue is removed.
- According to medical and historical texts, female circumcision, when elected by an adult, or when tissue is removed for medical necessity, is not FGM by current legal or medical definitions.
The two terms are not interchangable unless you are refering only to specific cultures where the meaning happens to be identical. In the United States, they are technically different terms, since FGM is considered the broader subset which includes genital piercing. DanP 15:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
To POV title
Please stop moving this article to POV title Female genital mutilation OneGuy 00:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's OK to note the use of "FGM", but it's not NPOV to use it ourselves. --Node 06:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm rather partial to "female genital cutting" actually. It is used by both detractors and "supporters". -freddieresearch
Sudanese feminists criticize international feminists...
"Actual Sudanese feminists criticize international feminists, medical scholars, and NGOs attention to FGC and ask why these groups do not seem to be half as interested in the devastating poverty encouraged by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Sudan or the chaos and disease that bloom in its wake. These feminists do not like FGC but see it more as a symptom then a problem in-of-itself."
Though I'm not a fan of WB or IMF, this is probably a bit too POV. I'm very interested in seeing some backup for the claim about the "devastating poverty encouraged by the WB and the IMF". It would also be very interesting to use that for the respective articles. If it can be stated in a sufficiently NPOV way, that is. Guaka 00:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Whether he can back it up (which I doubt) or not, is irrelevant. This article is not the place for him to air his Worldbank/IMF rant. If he can't be bothered to reply to my comments in a day or so(see the top of this talk page), then I'm going to revert his edit. To me, it's just an article hijacking thinly veiled with pseudo-sociology. -Kasreyn
- I agree, added the SectNPOV template before coming here but I'm not surprised that it's here already. GreenReaper 10:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Quick note on IMF/WOrld Bank issue. IMF Structural Adjustment Programs are designed to help rich folks in a country (AKA the government) pay off their debt. To accomplish this, they freeze wages, cut almost all social spending, prohibit most industry and raise genral taxes. Of course the result is devastating. In fact the enforced privatization of medicine in africa is widely aknowledged to by a major contributer to the continuance of AIDS on the continent. Consequently, these policies open up the country and its inhabitants to foreign mass produced imports which can undercut indigenous manufactured goods. IMF SAPs inherently benefit the IMF, rich corrupt governments, and foreign investors and manufacturers (particularly in pharmecuticals and foodstuffs). The World Banks loan restructuring programs in many of the same countries (esp. Latin America) are done for the same overt and covert purposes. The World Bank's policies are more directed against education than the IMF's however, ensuring that the goverment under restructuring cuts funding to all but primary school (1st to 5th grade). This creates an endless supply of unskilled labor that benifits foreign manufacturers. In fact, a hopeless attempt at forming a South American Union was tried recently with the expressed desire to combat these policies. the World Bank and IMF tie in w/ FGC because FGC as a human rights violation not only distracts from the devastation caused by these policies but also justifies further devastating policies in the form of economic sanctions. -Freddieresearch
- I would further warn against automatically calling an easily provable institutional analysis a POV, though in the specific case that you are refering to I see your point. -Freddieresearch
"mutilation" and other questions
Whether or not the term "mutilation" is accurate in a strict sense, I hope that the page will continue to redirect. The use of the word mutilation has been very offensive to many African women and men. It has been used strategically by activists to shock people into action, but sometimes with disasterous effects. There are concerns about backlash which may undermine ongoing eradication attempts.
Wikipedia is becoming an important enough international resource that considerable care should be taken on these issues to not cause harm. Given that there is even some concern that the use of the term mutilation could be offensive enough to cause a backlash I hope that the Wikipedia page will continue to redirect away from female genital mutilation and to something else.
A lot of the issues of neutrality and of accuracy noted on the talk page could be addressed by dealing with specifics. Female circumcision is an umbrella term for a huge range of body modifications. While it would be a big project, delving into areas in detail can help shed light on questions like who performs the ceremonies? Why do people accept them? What are the health consequences? etc.
For instance, in Nigeria, where circumcision is comparatively mild, adult women experience both sexual desire and fufillment (an overview of an important study is available here, see also Chapter 4 in "Female 'Circumcision' in Africa, Culture, Controversy, and Change" edited by Bettina Shell-Duncan and Ylva Hernlund--reviewed here). Trying to explain why FGC exists and what it means in Nigeria is virtually irrelevant to what it means in Sudan, where the most common form is infibulation and remaining uncut will have severe socio-economic consequences for women (see Guenbaum, also reviewed with above).
I hope that these suggestions/resouces are helpful to this discussion. The attempt to be neutral is admirable; I've found virtually nothing on the web that can make such a claim about this subject. -- Carmen Nave
"In most of this countries male circumcision is also practised and complications are also frequent, but as the male body is not the female body when things turn bad they tend to go worse for women." I don't know what that means, but
Terms Clarification (Hopefully)
Sorry for being late to the party, but I just discovered wikipedia, so if this is repeat, I apologize. The term used most often by the actual development/health workers who deal with these issues in the field is FGC, or female genital cutting. We found this term to reflect the damage that is done by many of these procedures without stigmatizing the women who had undergone the procedures as being "broken" somehow. A quick search of any of the WHO or Population Council studies on the subject will explain in more depth why they have started using this term. -Mrobinson
- The WHO sources I've looked at have it listed as FGM and equate it with sexual violence. Heres one: http://www.who.int/docstore/frh-whd/FGM/infopack/English/fgm_infopack.htm ~FreddieResearch
Involuntary, Irreversible, Irresponsible and Unnecessary Surgery on Minors
This is the most pointless POV discussion I've ever seen. Nobody is saying that adult women (whatever that may be in their culture) should not be free to decide how to modify their body. The issue at hand is the involuntary nature of the procedure. Either involuntary in the sense that the recipient would choose not to receive the procedure, or that they are incapable of giving informed consent because of age or widespread lies about the supposed benefits of the prodcedure and lack of dangerous and deadly consequences.
It is clear that this is mutilation, it deprives the victim of an important part of their body. This causes what can only be described as sexual disfunction at best - death and murder at worst. Even if the procedure was voluntary which it clearly is not, it is dangerous as practiced and to ignore or refute this is to support a willfully irresponsible lack of regard for the safety of the recipient. Further, the open wounds that many form of FGM cause during sex and childbirth drastically increase the risk of STDs and death.
Saying that the "Western" world should not concern itself with issue while larger issues abound is ridiculous. It is a common logical phallacy that implies that anything other than the recommended action is causing much more serious harm though inaction. This can be summarized as 'With us or Against Us'. This is analogous to saying that suicide counselling and public fire departments cost lives because the resources they consume could go to prevent deaths in automobile accidents. This is simply incorrect.
As it stands, FGM/FGC/etc are the brutal mutilation of the unwilling. If it wasn't, it would be called Body Modification, which while distasteful to some is understood to be a right of the informed adult recipient.
Remove the 'disputed' tag - there's always a crackpot willing to complain about something - and link to articles on Cultural Brainwashing, the Stockholm/Patty Hearst Syndrome, and the phrase Misery Loves Company.
- RE "The issue at hand is the involuntary nature of the procedure."
It might be more accurate to claim that the overriding issue for detractors is the involuntary nature of the procedure. Involuntariness (is that a word?) is not an inherent wrong or human rights violation. For example, compulsory schooling is not an inherent wrong, nor are compulsory innoculations. I think what really strikes anti-fgm crusaders (like yourself I assume) is that it is, as you said, a combination of involuntariness, irreversibility and the assumption that because it is more cosmetic and "cultural" than it is medical, unnecessary and irresponsible.
there are several assumptions made on your part that are not wholly supported by the collecible data. First of all, a great many African girls do go through this procedure willingly and with full knowledge of its effects (the Masai (sp?) in Kenya come to mind). Secondly, if you care to read Carla Obermeyer's articles in the Medical Anthropology Quarterly, you will see that it has not been shown that this procedure increases the chances of contracting an STD (in fact some STDs showed a lower occurrance, though this has not been explained). There is not a high or even moderate death rate from FGM procedures (obviously because its practiced by like 114 million africans, correct me if thats incorrect). Those deaths that due occur are usually the result of poor training or poor facilities and materials, all of which could be corrected were the procedure regulated instead of illegal. Moreover most women who have been interviewed by sympathetic ethnographers or health officials say that they still feel sexual pleasure and many of those who have gone trough type III even claim to reach orgasm, a claim supported by Ellen Gruenbaum's research (and she's an anti-FGM advocate). The clitoris in the west has strong political connotations so its natural that we would give it so much moral import. this idea is not shared by many africans. Also, the practice is reversible. The US will actually fund the reversal of female circumcision (not male incidentally) if it is performed in the nations borders.
On the question of whether or not it is necessary, there is a strong tendency in the West to assume that if a modification of the body is not medical in origin, it is unnecessary. There is more to life then medicine, however. It is an easy argument to make that identity and belonging are just as necessary as bodily well being. These cuttings accomplish just that, they humanize the girl in the worldview of her particular cultural environment. They ascribe roots. Believe it or not (if you dont i'll find and send you a source text), roots actually help one's bodily health in postcolonial societies. More importantly however, they give one a place, an identity and a meaning. Cultural survival is a dramatic struggle in postcolonial societies and the methods for securing it are equally as dramatic. And since it is a ritual process, to ask "Why do you do this?" is a little short sighted. Ritual and mystery are damn near codependant, they need each other. You cannot assume it is unnecessary simply because it is unnecessary in the US or France or Spain or wherever.
And I'm sure you know that practicioners don't call these rituals "Female Genital Mutilation", that term is obviously politicised. ITs rather snobbish and ethnocentric of you to assume that 114 million african women have been brainwashed just because their body-moral norm disagees with yours. We're all brainwashed, thats what education does.
Finally, so-called FGM ought not be considered oppression outright. Some cases no doubt are human right violations but on the whole these practices do not fit neatly into this category. If it is done sympathetically with the purpose to humanize and empower (as it is, seeing how it is done by circumcised women in order to help non-circumcised women become fully woman) then it cannot be oppression. As Paulo Friere put it "An act is oppressive only when it prevents people from being more fully human". Most female circ. rituals facilitate humanity, to assume these people are ignorant, crazy, barbaric and brainwashed dehumanizes them is intellectual oppression. ~freddieresearch
Official Change in definition
As of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, this topic should be under the heading Female Genital Mutilation.
I propose it authored as has been recognized and defined by
the W.H.O. ,the U.N., and Amnesty International. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/