Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUN Sees Progress in Ending Female Genital Mutilation
UNITED NATIONS - After nearly 30 years of intense campaigning against female genital mutilation (FGM), the United Nations says that several countries, including Canada, Belgium, Spain and Italy, have passed legislation criminalising the practice, prevalent mostly among immigrant communities.
"There is a greater understanding of the practice as a violation of human rights, as well as its harmful health impacts," says a new U.N. report to be discussed at the upcoming two-week session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), scheduled to take place Feb. 25 through Mar. 7.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has estimated between 100 and 140 million girls and women have undergone some form of FGM in more than 28 countries, mostly in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
Every year, about 3.0 million girls and women are subjected to genital mutilation, the U.N. study says.
The 18-page report, titled "Ending Female Genital Mutilation", points out that the impact of targeted interventions to end FGM can only achieve their full potential in the context of enhanced overall efforts to achieve gender equality and empowerment of women.
"Religious leaders should be involved in community-wide campaigns to promote the understanding that FGM has no basis in religious beliefs," argues the report.
In Austria, according to the study, FGM is considered a form of physical assault to which a person cannot give consent. Similarly, Swedish legislation prohibits the practice regardless of the consent of the victim or her parents.
And according to German criminal code, the consent of the parents is considered as an abuse of parental custody. In Finland and the Netherlands, health care professionals have been obligated to report cases involving FGM.
Under Canadian law, forced FGM is considered gender-related persecution and grounds for refugee status. Although Austria and Spain do not list FGM explicitly as a ground for asylum, both countries recognise it in practice.
But in virtually all of these countries, FGM is practiced mostly among immigrant communities
Meanwhile, a number of African countries -- including Ghana, Uganda, Morocco and Eritrea -- have also criminalised FGM in their penal codes or through other laws.
While there is no federal law banning FGM in Nigeria, according to the U.N. report, 11 states have adopted legislation against some "harmful traditional practices, including female genital mutilation."
Egypt and Yemen have also taken steps to curb the practice within their health-care systems banning health-care professionals from performing it.
The U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), which has taken an active role against FGM, has been promoting culturally sensitive programming to address the underlying social values of the practice.
Both UNFPA and the U.N. children's agency UNICEF have launched a 44 million dollar programme to reduce the harmful effects of FGM by 40 percent by 2015 "and to end it within a generation." The new initiative encourages communities in 16 African nations to abandon the practice.
Asked if FGM has increased or decreased over the years, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Ahmed Obaid told IPS: "The hard work and funding efforts of activists and international development and human rights organisations, such as UNFPA, over the decades are showing positive results."
She said there is now widespread awareness about the harmful health effects of FGM and its violation of women's and girl's rights. "This is leading to increased disapproval of the practice among women and men."
She also said that several governments have passed laws against the practice, and where these laws have been complemented by culturally sensitive education and public awareness work, the practice has declined.
In addition, Obaid pointed out, national and international organisations have played key roles in advocating against the practice and providing information on its harmful effects.
"There is a decline in FGM prevalence in countries where FGM abandonment interventions have been going on for some years, such as Eritrea, Kenya, Mali and Nigeria."
"However, despite some of these successes, the overall rate of decline is slow. We must speed it up," Obaid declared.
In 2006, according to the U.N. study, the WHO published its findings indicating a strong link between FGM and obstetric complications. The study included over 28,000 women in 28 obstetric centres in six African countries.
"The results showed that, compared to women who had not undergone FGM, deliveries to women with FGM were significantly more likely to be complicated by caesarean section, post-partum haemorrhage, episiotomies and prolonged maternal hospitalisation," the study noted.
In addition, babies born to mothers with FGM had a greater risk of needing resuscitation immediately after birth and of dying during birth, according to the study.
Asked if countries were doing enough to reduce or eliminate the practice, Obaid said: "While countries have been making efforts to reduce FGM, more work is needed."
For example, she pointed out, the enforcement of laws must be intensified and FGM abandonment lessons integrated into school curricula, including those for health and social workers.
"The international community must show renewed commitment and join hands with national governments to allocate sufficient funds to scale up community, national, regional and global efforts to produce social change," Obaid added.
Asked what role UNFPA plays in the campaign against FGM, she said the practice touches every aspect of the mandate of UNFPA, including reproductive health and rights, gender equality, women's empowerment and adolescent reproductive health.
UNFPA addresses the practice not only because it harms the reproductive and sexual health of women but also because it violates their fundamental human rights.
UNFPA addresses FGM in a holistic manner by funding and implementing culturally sensitive programmes for abandoning the practice, advocating legal and policy reforms, while building national capacity to stop all forms of FGM, he said.
Obaid said her U.N. agency also supports treatment and care for women and girls suffering from its immediate or long-term complications. In addition, UNFPA works on providing women, who do the cutting, with new skills that allow them to generate income, and hence stop performing that practice.
At the country level, UNFPA has formed partnerships with relevant stakeholders, including government ministries, particularly ministries of health, social affairs, finance, gender, youth and education. UNFPA has also developed ties to NGOs, safe motherhood projects, community and faith-based organizations and religious leaders.
At the global level, UNFPA brought together participants from U.N. organisations, faith-based organisations, NGOs, law enforcement agencies and governments to map out ways to eliminate FGM within a generation.
© 2008 Inter Press Service
34 Comments so far
Show AllI just wanted to point out as a mother of a recently uncut son, you don't have to force the skin back in some sort of "unnatural bathing ritual". As long as he's peeing okay he'll manipulate the foreskin loose all on his own....just the way nature intended. Go foreskin!
Vaudree,
When our son was born nearly 22 years ago my husband and I decided not to get him circumcised because there was no medical reason to do so. We had done some research and also asked Doctors. It was well known then that the foreskin was not to be pulled back before baby boys are app. two and a half years old otherwise the foreskin could tear. We always impressed on our son that he needed to pull it back and wash well every time he had a bath or shower. If he wants to be circumcised then it can be his decision.
Perceptionexperiment:
When Britian outlawed the practice of living wives being burnt with their dead husbands in India would you have argued against it by saying that it was their culture and the West shouldn't be imposing its views ?
Sorry but
If it's wrong it's wrong and should be stopped.
Ahh, there's nothing like a discussion of female genital mutilation to inspire the misogenistic rantings of the maladjusted testosterone crowd! Thanks, Jimbo. Your inane babble has really opened my eyes to the plight of the long-suffering male of the species at the hands of those devious bitches. Damn them all to hell!
And now, back to the real world...
CocoaSwan,
You make some excellent points, some of which will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, mine not being among them. :) You are right to give kudos to the organizations that have brought this issue to the attention of the world. For my part, I'll continue to spread the word on both male and female genital mutilation to whomever might listen. I did not see the United States on the list of countries banning this process. Something to research.
Perceptionexperiment: your argument is the same tired-old one used to excuse every type of sadistic, hateful, destructive behavior and attitudes; from americanized slavery of African people to women battering to stoning women to death for adultery (with no mention of what happens to men, usually nothing) to..... And frankly, i'm quite tired of hearing it from MEN who refuse to change these destructive behaviors rather than acknowledging them and getting on the band wagon to make this world a better place for everyone.
Let's first define what Female Genital Mutilation is.
Three types of procedures:
1. Sunna Circumcision - consists of the removal of the prepuce (retractable fold of skin, or hood) and /or the tip of the clitoris. Sunna in Arabic means "tradition".
2. Clitoridectomy - consists of the removal of the entire clitoris (prepuce and glands) and the removal of the adjacent labia.
3. Infibulation (pharonic circumcision)-- consists of performing a clitoridectomy (removal of all or part of the labia minora, the labia majora). This is then stitched up allowing a small hole to remain open to allow for urine and menstrual blood to flow through.
As bad as male circumcision is, the procedure and the after-effects come no where close to what young women go thru (who are usually forced to go thru these procedures). Men do not DIE of infections from these procedures. Men do not suffer cultural death (and sometimes threatened with physical death) for refusing the procedure. Men usually have the benefit of a doctor performing the circumcision procedure. Do I need to continue?
Like grumpyoldlady said, this discussion about FGM is NOT ABOUT MEN!!! If you read the title of the article, you'll notice it has FGM in it, not the "UNNECESSARY MUTILATION OF CHILDRENS BODIES."
I am just so thankful that someone at the UN (and other int'l agencies) saw the true horror of this procedure that is forced on women in a social context (usually by other women who IMO are collaborators -- like condolezza rice or ann coulter) and decided to DO something about it.
CS
As a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer, having lived in a West African country, I can assure you that FGM is NOT about the empowerment of women. It is about control- Plain and Simple. FGM is not limited to sowing; the removal of the clitoris was prevelant in Mali. If FGM were about empowerment, it would not be done right after birth or during childhood. The control of women's lives is not a "cultural or tribal custom". It is the exact reason that these communities continue to not "develop". Women's lives are not their own; they have children as early as 13; they do not get educated; Have very little or no say as to who they will marry; They, in essence, have no say in their or their country's future. When this changes, there will be positive change in African and other nations where women's lives are not their own.
Here, Ob/gyn's flip birthing women on their backs and slit them open with IMPUNITY. And MDs charge money for it! Medical insurance was the worst thing for women's bodily integrity... that is, next to the BigBoyMedicoBrotherhood usurping Midwifery.
Sharp objects slicing into human genitalia should be questioned, resisted, and seen for what it is - mutilation.
Why is it that there can never be a discussion about a women's issue without some guy chiming in with a comparitive "But what about men?" analogy? Men and women experience the world in different ways. There are some experiences that men will have that women will never have. Similarly, there are some things that women experience that have no male comparison.
So, when we're talking about FGM, sorry guys, it just ain't ABOUT YOU!!
GEE I THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT THE UNNECESSARY MUTILATION OF CHILDRENS BODIES. WHY DOES THE SEX OF THE CHILD OVERWHELM THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED? This is exactly why I no longer work in the anti-rape sexual violence movement.. the sexism of women. And before you mention, "it can't be sexism without the power to do anytihng about the bias", I would just remind you that in the movement, WOMEN are the boards of directors, women are the majority of the membership and in some organizations men are excluded from voting membership. SEXISM is exactly what is going on here. It is bullshit. Get over yourself lady.
You so blilthely assume that your experience is totally different than mine. Certainly there are differences but as children we all experience agism, the power that all adults women and men, have over all children boys as well as girls. That is what is at issue with genital mutilation. Until women become willing to look at THEIR part in propagating patriarchy, until women are willing to look at what they get out of the way things are, the violence will continue. ANd I will continue to say, to hell with you and your claims of moral superiority.
Here is a rather strange yet true fact. In the country of Bahrain, they have a strict law where a male doctor may examine a females genitals, but is forbidden to look at them directly, he must use a mirror.
I suppose they must look different in reverse.
Unfortunately, most of the countries where FGM is practised are in Africa. We have been getting a fair bit of news coverage here in the UK, particularly about the violence in Kenya. Now, I hope people don't get me wrong, or accuse me of being a closet racist, but when I see tribal violence - hundreds of people roaming the streets armed with machetes, groups of people being burned to death whilst sheltering in a church, scores of people admitted to hospital with their arms hacked off - all of which started with an election process, then I do not think that these people have caught up with the 21st century. Tribal violence and female genital mutilation have no place in a modern World. Their origins lie in some dark part of history, when man used violence and fear to control other people.
Dcbeltway: I agree with you that this has turned into a kind of "Muslim bashing fest". There are restrictions on dress and alcohol in Islamic countries, but a lot of it is down to personal choice. When the Shah ruled in Iran, he tried to ban any form of Islamic dress, and there were demonstrations, by women. In Saudi Arabia, you have a very rigid and restrictive regime, which requires the woman to be covered from head to foot, and not even show her face.
Modesty, as you have pointed out, is required of both sexes.
FGM, is a different matter altogether, and cannot be compared to dress codes and the like.
SSW,
You're right. Enforcing these kind of laws can be dicey when one takes into account the deeply rooted cultural and religious views that reinforce these practices. I think that the approach taken by the UNFPA (combating the practice with education and by offering other economic alternatives to practitioners) is an effective one. Nevertheless, it will take time.
Unfortunatly just because there is a law to stop a cruel deforming practice doesnt mean it can be enforced :(
Like live export and industrial farming
Why is it that there can never be a discussion about a women's issue without some guy chiming in with a comparitive "But what about men?" analogy? Men and women experience the world in different ways. There are some experiences that men will have that women will never have. Similarly, there are some things that women experience that have no male comparison.
So, when we're talking about FGM, sorry guys, it just ain't ABOUT YOU!!
Nevertheless, we can, and should, empathize with each other. Even if a specific issue is outside our personal experience, we can all understand common human experiences like pain, humiliation, fear and powerlessness. FGM, and, yes, male circumcision, are unnecessary, brutal and archaic practices, a form of child abuse that should be outlawed everywhere. I applaude the efforts of the U.N., UNFPA and UNICEF in trying to raise awareness and bring an end to this dreadful practice.
Kelmer there is also a stipulation on Muslim men to dress modestly. If you've been to a conservative Muslim country you'll see that men cover their hair also, do not wear shorts, or short sleeves.
How on earth did a discussion on FGM become a Muslim bashing fest???
Vaudree---it is sad when that happens and people should not kick out little girls from sports teams for wearing the hijab. This happened recently to a runner in DC. The good news is that people are becoming educated about this and it is happening less.
tolerancenow--Arabic is a language not a form of currenecy/money. Most Arabs use the dirham by the way if you are interested in knowing what currency they use. Secondly money from Arabs has nothing to do with male or female circumcision. Most politicans do not even take money from anyone remotely Arab knowing how much anti-Arab sentimnet is preveliant amongst Americans and how the media would exploit this (sad fact). Some politicans have even returned donations from Arabs. Hillary and Bush have also been rather antagonistic to Muslims and Arabs if you haven't noticed and have done everything possible to distance themselves from them (another sad fact). I also want to point out that both Jewish men and Muslim men are circumcized and they aren't running around handing out money to have everyone keep silent on this issue. They are quite open that this is thier relgious practices. I am wondering why you are spewing this hate and ignorance?
How about the end of MALE genital mutilation?
I am uncircumcized and love the retractible penis cover that nature gave me. Never had a STD, no problem cleaning (takes 2 seconds) and the head retains the natural sensitivity that nature intended.
The mother has to roll back the forskin to wash the penis head!!! OMG!!!She also has to spread the asscheeks to clean the A-hole...
P.S I've never had sand get under my forskin....I just don't let in drag on the ground when at the beach.
For a very good survey of the differences between male and female circumcision, see "A Rose by Any Other Name? Rethinking the Similarities and Differences between Male and Female Genital Cutting" available at http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/darby_mgm_fgm_maq_0907.pdf .
Btw, it's appalling that urban myths like "sand" still get repeated regarding male circumcision when the facts are well documented that male circumcision in modern America was introduced solely to discourage masturbation. In regards to the oft-repeated medical myth that male circumcision "prevents" disease, sorry but safer sex practices and self-control prevents STIs and HIV. And yes, to oppose female circumcision and not the male version is a double standard. Both should be stopped.
When Hillary stops being so eager to take Arabic money to remain silent on this issue;When Bush and Cheney stop being so eager to take Arabic money to remain silent on this issue; the problem may slow down.
How can anything be done or even discussed when greedy, self centered, evil women and men love the money more than the innocent children.
Covering up your body -even your eyes, so you arent judged by your looks rather that your personality is bizarre. Why dont muslim men do the same?
Its because muslim men apparently are so uncontrollable they will attack women in a sexual rage if they see their faces or eyes.
They need to spend less time memorizing the Koran and more time controlling their urges.
For women to have to cover up their entire body whether they want to or not is not only anti-women its anti-nature.
At least countries that are banning FGM cant turn around and say we shouldnt stop blood sports, animal sacrifice, hunting, traditional chinese medicine, or other practices among immigrants on the grounds that it is racist or cultural imperialism.
If its good for one its good for all.
RE - Hijab
Why do they kick all these little girls out of soccer games and judo matches just because they are wearing a hijab? Is there an actual reason or is the person just being a jerk?
RE - facelifts
A face lift is basically just stitches - I am sure that everyone has had stitches. If the doctor does reconstructive surgery properly, everyone who doesn't know you just thinks you were in a bar fight. That is how you get rid of birthmarks, nip and tuck. Just made this point because a lot of the other stuff you were comparing it to were more severe.
RE - foreskin
I wonder how many who figure that it is where all the sexual pleasure is located still have one. There are articles which say that earlobes are the height of pleasure and we all know that is false.
There are three reasons why it is done:
1. family recomends it (ok family can be wrong)
2. protective against venerial disease (formerly against sand) This would be along the lines of "medically necessary" but only if the risk of contracting VD or HIV is very high in the area. The think is that it reduces the risk but does not prevent - which is where the cost/benefit comes in - whether the surgery is worth it just to reduce risk.
3. instructions that say mothers who don't get the operation done have to peel back the foreskin and wash the area every day. With baby girls, you don't have to peel anything back or stick your hands where they don't belong like they expect you to do with baby boys. Are these instructions unnecessary or should mothers not worry about scarring their kid for life by following them?
Those who don't believe in male circumcision how do you answer question three.
RE - female circumcision
Seems that the big reason it is done is chastity - and that it has bad side-effects. That loss of sexual pleasure is one problem, though not the main one. It doesn't seem to work very well even as a method of chastity in that it doesn't protect one from being recruited as a child soldier and becoming a bush wife.
I also wanted to add FGM is not an Islamic practice. FGM has been carried out largely in Africa and Muslims, Christian, and Animists have all performed the procedure. If FGM was exclusively a Muslim practice it would be performed in Indonesia the largest Muslim country or elsewhere in the Islamic world. FGM does not happen in Indonesia.
jmacneil plenty of Muslim women choose to wear hijab as they prefer to be judged on their character and not their looks. So many westners get it wrong when they view Muslim women as oppressed for wearing the veil. I find the objectification and oversexualization of women in the west by advertisements and the media pretty damn repressive don't you? I am for women having the choice in how they dress. The one thing I will say is great about this country is we usually respect Muslim American women who choose to wear the hijab/veil and protect their legal rights to do so as much as we respect and protect the rights of a Muslim American woman who chooses not to wear the veil/hijab. No woman she be forced to remove it if she chooses to wear it and no woman she be forced to wear it if she chooses not to. States like Saudi and Iran by forcing women to wear the hijab are wrong...they should respect personal choice and states like Turkey that force women to remove the veil to serve in public office or France by forcing school girls to remove the scarf so that they can go to school are equally oppressive. Its all about giving people freedom to choose.
I think we can make two pan-cultural recommendations:
#1. No surgery/mutilations for children unless they are medically necessary, or to correct a deformity, etc. This includes both male and female genital mutilation.
#2. No surgery/mutilations for adults unless they, themselves, opt-in (whether necessary or not).
Can't you hear the apparent ethnocentrism in this? Your cultural practices are wrong. They violate universal human rights as WE define them. WE define them because WE are the WEST the epitome of Universal Human Rights. Where our women starve themselves, inject botox into their skin, breasts are enlarged and reduced, caked on makeup, cosmetic dentistry, facelifts, nip and tuck...
Describe any of these processes in a detailed and graphic way and they sound just as bad as FGM. Why do we get off telling other cultures how they live.
Did any of you know that much of FGM is a FEMALE institution that, in the view of the tribes that practice it, EMPOWER women? Did you know that anti-FGM activists many times employee MALES to repress this FEMALE institution?
Did you know there are many different types of FGM and not all of them make for worse sex. In fact, where adjustment of only the clitoral hood is involved and not the clitoris itself, it can make orgasm easier to achieve? The most brutal practices are actually bastardizations of ancient tribal rituals that have been subverted by fundamentalist Islamic societies to repress women. But this is a small fraction of the entire FGM picture..
The male foreskin is where the most dense packets of pleasure nerves are located, and we have no problem lobbing it off.
When female immigrants want to perform their tribal rituals on their daughters are we to throw them in prison for not conforming to our own cultural ideology?
Has it occurred to any of us that THERE IS MORE THAN ONE RIGHT WAY TO LIVE?
For more on the issue from a more relativist perspective:
http://www.thirdeyemag.com/nonfiction/essays/in-the-eyes-of-the-beholder/
Lets get our own culture together before we start casting stones at others we don't bother to try and understand.
Like Margaret Thatcher? Catherine the Great? It has very little to do with sex, a lot more to do with gender (check the anthropoloogical distinctions here), but generally is about policy. There are warmongering females, there are males who treat other males badly. Making sexist remarks isn't going to help separate out actual observed behaviors.
Speaking of surgery and reproduction, the West is also guilty -- demonstrable quantitatively -- of over diagnosing c-sections. Has it suddently become a lot harder to deliver babies the way mammals have been doing it for millions of years?
There is only one prerequisite for health, and that has nothing to do with religion or belief. If such fabled criteria are allowed to interfere with health services then true equality of humanity can never be attained. Women are the true masters of a civilized society and when the scum of the earth, that is to say the warmongers, are deposed then peace will reign.
Double-standard.
But then the story hasn't yet been written on how some males treat most other males like crap as well.
RE: - Then let all men 18+ get themselves circumcised if they wish. It is a medically unncessary religious or cosmetic alteration
Actually it was done originally because with all the sand in the desert would blow under the long gowns men used to wear before pants became widespread and get stuck in the foreskin. It was done, originally, for comfort rather than control. I haven't done a study of that body part to the degree that I would know of the negative side-effects (short of the odd botched surgery). The positive side-effect of the surgery is that one doesn't have to handle it as much as a parent and the slightly lower risk of contracting HIV. There are special washing instructions for uncircumcised baby boys which tend to be a bit - er - intrusive. Then there are the males who give long rants in favour of the procedure - so it depends both who talks to you and how comfortable you are with - er - intrusive washing instructions. That is how the decision tends to be made.
At least you did not try to sue your impoverished mother for damages like one person I know. Talk about futile!
At present, male circumcision is discouraged but legal and covered, but female circumcision (even the act of sending one's daughter out of the country to get one) is illegal.
In fact, I believe this issue fits into a general class of problems -- medically unnecessary and forcible surgery. Whether on minors OR on adults, the only surgery of any sort ought to be:
(a) medically necessary in the case of minors or
(b) performed on an adult who signed onto the deal (whether necessary or not).
Exactly the case, Mr. Bramscher! That same philosophy applies to all of the Islamic nations which seem to believe it appropriate to shroud their women in garb that hides their sexuality, which is contrary to their biological design. All human females are designed to attract the male's attention and suppression of that facet of their being is a suppression of God's design and of the female's natural inclination, which is a retardation of their being. The only result that can emanate from this stupid religious policy in the long term is that the religionists will be suppressed as the knowledge of life forces them to acknowledge biological reality. Therefore, any religion that refuses to recognize that the women are the true masters of households will atrophy.
vaudree,
Then let all men 18+ get themselves circumcised if they wish. It is a medically unncessary religious or cosmetic alteration (such as labia reduction surgery). What motivates adults to do things to their own bodies is really a different case ethically compared to what parents do to children.
Why can't we anti-genital-mutilation activists just all get along? Those who want to throw their energy into the more horrifying, but also more geographiclly distant issue of female genital mutilation, go ahead and do that!
Those who want to throw their energy into the relatively less horrible, but still horrible nonetheless, and more local issue of male genital mutilation... go for it!
No need to dismiss the importance of one issue in order to promote the importance of the other.
No doubt, the obscene pratice of genital mutilation is related to males' societal dominantion due to an undeserved, and impracticable, belief that males are more important than females. Actually, the reverse is true and all of the male dominated societies are going to be overthrown and cast down until it is realized that the females are the most important gender of the species. Also, no doubt, the UN plays at correcting this problem, the same as they do with so many others, likely because if it can be drawn out to a career's length the appointees can enjoy a luxurious lifestyle until they retire.
Because MALE circumcision makes it slightly harder to contract VD and HIV. FEMALE circumcisions can cause problems with bladder control and other things.
Also, MALE circumcision is not used to prevent a person from having sex. Though, if parents were really interested in preventing their children from having sex they would wash their clothes in Bleach. Think of it, how eager would you be to be judged by someone you want to be intimate with when you have a big red rash on certain parts of your body.
First lets get rid of female circumcision and then lets get rid of bleach - or at least limit its use. Let bleach become the taser of toxic "cleaners" - used only when more lethal toxins would be used otherwise.
Bleach circumcises the brain.
Good to see this progress, though I remain confused why male genital mutilation (circumcision) is treated with a double-standard.