Female Genital Mutilation

Female Genital Mutilation: When Culture and Human Rights Conflict

Jade Conner

Female genital mutilation is the very crux of patriarchal dehumanization and oppression of women and children. The value, or lack thereof, placed on the bodies of females is representative of women’s global subordination. Ownership of women’s bodies is invaluable to patriarchy. There is no act more telling of this than the mutilation of young girls’ genitals from an early age and ultimately throughout adulthood. Girls and women are stripped of their womanhood. They live their lives with their inferiority displayed on their bodies and burned into their memory. The price that patriarchy has set on female chastity has become paramount in the lives of many, if not all, women on this planet. Despite its status as a human rights violation, this archaic and dangerous practice has yet to be eradicated. Through my research, I sought answers as to the origins of the practice and the beliefs that perpetuate it. I believe that female genital mutilation serves no purpose outside of the domination and regulation of female sexuality, and I will demonstrate that throughout this essay.

What Do We Call It? There is much debate over the term that should be used to describe this cultural practice. Female genital mutilation, or FGM, is generally the accepted term in much of the research that I have done. Female genital cutting, or FGC, and female circumcision are two alternate names that have been used to describe this procedure. One reason to use alternate titles for FGM, on an international level, is that labeling the women who have undergone the procedure as “mutilated” stigmatizes them after having survived it. According to Suzanne Williams, Francine Pickup and Caroline Sweetman in Ending Violence

Against Women: A Challenge for Development and Humanitarian Work, “The use of the emotive term ‘mutilation’ in the presence of women survivors, and the revulsion expressed by international activists who considered women who had undergone FGM to be ‘incomplete,’ or ‘disabled,’ appeared to be another form of abuse” (Pickup 16). Often, on the local level, the term female circumcision is used. In doing so, this likens the procedure to male circumcision. In actuality, female circumcision would be the equivalent of the removal of the penis and part of the scrotum. Male circumcision does not remove the organ itself, but female circumcision clearly does. In the United States, the Medical Times and Gazette refuted the belief that the clitoridectomy was the equivalent of male circumcision. The Gazette said that, “Instead of taking away a loose fold of skin it (clitoridectomy) removes a rudimentary organ of exquisite sensitiveness, well supplied with blood vessels and nerves, and the operation is occasionally attended with serious bleeding, in these respects it differs widely from circumcision” (Darby 161-162). One of the reasons that the term circumcision may be used is simply because the organ serves no reproductive purpose, so it may not be viewed as necessary. Female genital cutting is used many times by cultural relativists, but a clear understanding of the practice itself proves that it is much more than simply cutting. Referring to FGM as cutting minimizes the experience and impact of the procedure on the individual and the community. Mutilation involves the removal or destruction of a body part, which will impair the individual’s functioning. The removal of female genitalia, without a doubt, fits under the category of mutilation.

Prevalence

Next I’ll discuss the prevalence of FGM and the localities where it most often takes place. Female genital mutilation occurs on a much larger scale than most realize. According to the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, or UNICEF, it is estimated that between 100 and 140

million women in Africa have undergone FGM. According to birth rates, roughly “three million girls who are at risk of some form of FGM every year” (UNICEF). FGM appears to be spreading as immigrant populations grow in industrialized countries. Despite passing laws that criminalize the practice, it is occurring at alarming rates in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Center for Reproductive Rights). As citizens of the United States, we have a tendency to remove ourselves from international affairs by feigning ignorance. Human suffering in the United States is nowhere near the levels seen in much of the world, leading to what I would call feelings of superiority. FGM is increasingly found in the United States despite its illegality under federal law. According to Ms. Magazine, “It’s estimated that in one year, nearly 200,000 women in the United States will be cut.” The rise in cases in the United States is a direct result of increased immigration from northern African countries where FGM is practiced. The lack of action on behalf of the United States speaks of the importance placed on the elimination of violence against women.

Origins

Female genital mutilation has taken many forms over the centuries in different parts of the world. First I’ll discuss the rise and spread of FGM throughout parts of Asia and Africa. The first historical references to FGM were found in ancient Egypt, 5th century BC, in the writings of Herodotus, who “was of the opinion that the custom had originated in Ethiopia or Egypt, as it was being performed by Ethiopians as well as Phoenicians and Hittites” (Taba, A.H.). According to Modawi’s article, The Impact of Social and Economic Changes in Female Circumcision, FGM is thought to have “diffused to the Red Sea coastal tribes, along with Arab traders, and from there into eastern Sudan” (Modawi, S.). Female genital mutilation may be of North African origins, but it also

made a brief appearance in European and United States history with the rise of the Victorian era. The Victorian era saw the introduction of new ideas regarding women’s chastity and perceived lack of sexuality. Clitoridectomies began in the United States as a medical solution to problems of epilepsy, nervous disorders, masturbation and lesbianism (Darby 158). In 1894, Dr. A.J. Bloch wrote an article in which he described female masturbation as “moral leprosy” and described a surgery in which he removed the clitoris of a 14year old-girl. Allegedly, the surgery ultimately cured her of her nervousness and eliminated masturbation (Block A.J.). Clitoridectomies were not widely accepted and quickly became an unacceptable solution to problems that were psychological or imagined rather than physical. The procedure was eradicated when comparisons between clitoridectomy and the castration of the male arose. According to Robert Darby, in A Surgical Temptation, the largely male medical community did not approve of the practice because it suppressed female sexual appetite, which could produce “frigid and barren wives,” which was “too high a price to pay for whatever vices it discouraged and whatever diseases it cured” (Darby 158). It was also likely that doctors envisioned themselves in the husband’s place, because “a bride was supposed to be a virgin, and how virginal can she be if a surgeon had known her so intimately” (Darby 158). Rather than ensuring the health and happiness of the woman, doctors felt it was inappropriate because they imagined themselves as the sexual partners of the women undergoing the procedure. Despite the belief that the procedure was beneficial to women, men’s ultimate pleasure and happiness took precedence over something that was perceived to improve women’s health. Women’s health was never really a priority; rather her chastity and her husband’s ownership over her chastity were priorities.

How is FGM done? Patriarchy has given women no mercy in regards to female genital

mutilation. There are countless ways in which the “circumcision” is done, and all are incredibly dangerous and dehumanizing beyond belief. The U.N.’s World Health Organization gives a comprehensive definition of FGM, defining it as “comprising of all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious, or other non-therapeutic reasons” (WHO). The World Health Organization also gives an explanation of each of the types of FGM found in Northern Africa. The first involves excision of the prepuce, or the clitoral hood, that may or may not include excision of part or the entire clitoris. In her article “Female Genital Mutilation” in Women’s Rights, Human Rights, Nahid Toubia reports that “85 percent of all women who undergo FGM have clitoridectomies,” or type one (Toubia 226). Type one is by far the least physically damaging of the major types of FGM. The second entails the excision of the clitoris with partial or complete removal of the labia minora. The third major type, and most damaging to women’s health is type three, or infibulation. Infibulation is the removal of part or all of the external genitalia, including the clitoris and labia minora, and the stitching of the labia majora to create a vaginal opening often the size of a matchstick head. The complications that arise as a result of infibulation are extensive, and I will discuss those complications later. All other types of FGM involve the scraping of tissue or the introduction of corrosive substances to cause bleeding or in order to tighten or narrow the vagina. The tools used for the removal of the external genitalia are, in most cases, unsanitary and barbaric. Joan Silver and Kowser H. Omer-Hashi report that instruments such as “dull kitchen knives, rusty razor blades, or shards of unwashed glass” are often used without anesthesia (Omer-Hashi 62). Infibulation requires stitching which is typically done with “silk, catgut, or thorns,” and the girl’s legs are usually bound together for “up to 40 days to allow scar tissue to form” (Omer-Hashi 62). Female genital mutilation takes many shapes and forms, but damage done to the female genitalia cannot be viewed as more damaging or less damaging because it is all mutilation, which has serious negative effects on the individual.

International Law The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund has called FGM a “fundamental violation on the rights of girls,” saying that it is “discriminatory” and “violates the right to equal opportunities, health, freedom from violence, injury, abuse, torture, and cruel or inhumane and degrading treatment” (UNICEF). International law also gives women and children “protection from harmful traditional practices,” and gives the right to “make decisions concerning reproduction” (UNICEF). International law protects women and girls from genital mutilation, but very often international law can be difficult to prosecute against individuals, as it is targeted more towards governments or other institutions. In order for human rights violations to be prosecuted, the victim(s) must be aware of their rights and, perhaps more importantly, must be in a position to claim that their rights have been violated.

Grassroots Activism

Tostan is a nongovernmental educational organization located in Senegal that shows women methods for problem solving and educates them on human rights, usually introducing them to the idea of women’s rights. They organize workshops that empower women to work towards autonomy and, in doing so, have made significant changes regarding FGM. By educating the women, they have given them the necessary insight to question the practice, thus leading to a 20% decrease in the number of villages practicing FGM (Talbott 108). Both men and women are welcome at Tostan’s workshops, and after discussing some issues, in particular FGM, two men went village to village, educating others about the dangers of female circumcision. According to Vivienne Walt, many villagers gathered and vowed to never circumcise their daughters, enacting the “Diagoubou Declaration.” These programs teach women and men how to work for social change and the betterment of their communities and have been largely successful without being morally or

Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism

Activism on an international level is widely criticized on the part of cultural relativists who argue that “allowing international norms to override the dictates of culture and religion is a violation of state sovereignty” (Musalo). In patriarchal societies, culture and religion are used conjunctively as justification for the subjugation of women. Cultural norms often cater to the powerful and oppress the powerless, as is demonstrated with practices such as FGM. Karen Musalo, the attorney who worked on behalf of Fauziya Kassindja’s during her asylum case, says, “The cultural norms in a patriarchal society become a way to maintain the inequality of women.” She also compares patriarchal norms to the norms of a caste-based society or a racist society, both of which also use discrimination as a form of social control. When the United Nations was created after the Second World War, it was not legislated by the superpowers of the time. It was comprised of and was drafted by representatives from many nations of varying powers, who believed that there were certain rights that were universal. The U.N. ruled practices such as genocide and torture as violations of human rights, despite what the culture may believe, but FGM seems to be more of a touchy subject. Despite the fact that it is torture inflicted upon children who are incapable of consenting, it is justified on the grounds that it protects culture. When culture extends itself into brutality against men, it is a human rights violation, but when brutality is being inflicted on women and children, it is done for the preservation of the culture. Universality is the belief that human rights, which are “guaranteed in international treaties and conventions,” apply to everyone irrespective of culture or religion (Musalo). It is believed that the eradication of FGM is part of a western feminist agenda, but women’s movements have been taking place long before western feminists began speaking out about the practice. Oppression breeds unhappiness, leading to social change. The fight to end

violence against women did not begin as part of a western feminist agenda. Wherever there is oppression, there will also be resistance. A problem with protecting the human rights of women is that the women themselves are often very unaware that they have rights and do not know how to make their voices heard in regards to their rights. Tostan, the educational organization I discussed earlier, enables women to make their own decisions outside of the cultural expectation, and in doing so, they have inadvertently advocated human rights without moral or cultural imperialism. Patriarchal structures use other institutions such as religion, family, culture, and marriage as forms of social and private control of women. In Which Rights Should be Universal?, William Talbott discusses the importance of recognizing patriarchy’s failure to truly justify the oppression of women. He says, “Once it is recognized that a culture with patriarchal institutions will almost surely have developed socially enforced self-serving justifications for them, the question of whether they are justified cannot be settled simply by citing the culture’s own answer” (Talbott 99). Cultural relativism does not go far enough in its attempt to refute universalism because the answer cannot be found within the culture when the problem is so deeply embedded in the culture. There are interesting critiques of developmental agencies that promote the idea of universalism yet claim cultural relativism when faced with the difficult task of confronting violence against women, in particular female genital mutilation. These organizations are often reluctant to challenge gender relations in the communities where they work, yet they are eager to challenge ethnic or caste-based inequality (Pickup 64). It becomes clear that women’s rights are human rights as long as they do not threaten the very core of patriarchal structures.

Why does FGM continue? Despite its status as a human rights violation, FGM is practiced and defended by the idea of cultural and religious relativism. The reasons for

the continuation of FGM are many, yet none of these reasons justify any argument used to perpetuate the practice. Each attempt at the justification of FGM leads, inevitably, to patriarchy’s need to control women’s bodies and female sexuality. One of the reasons for the continuation of FGM is that in order for patriarchy to thrive, men must dominate female sexuality to ensure women’s safety and morality. FGM reduces female arousal due to the removal of the clitoris. This loss in arousal, and often interest in sex, is thought to be necessary in order to maintain chastity and fidelity. Women’s clitorises must be excised in order to limit their sexual drive. Many times in rural areas, the men may leave for extended periods of time to work, and eliminating women’s sexual pleasure also ensures their fidelity. Even in cultures that recognize women’s need for sex, she serves the purpose of a reproductive vehicle rather than mutual partner. She has no right to her own pleasure or bodily integrity. Nahid Toubia compared infibulation to a chastity belt. She says, “With infibulation the radical shaving off of all sensitive tissue plus the folding away of the vagina can be seen as a metaphor for the more abstract denial of woman’s sexuality: her reproductive capacity is locked up with a chastity belt made of her own flesh” (Toubia 229). The women who undergo infibulation become their own tormentors. Infibulation causes the woman’s own body to betray her. Her genitalia, which should serve as a source of pleasure, become the source of her greatest pain. FGM is believed to increase male sexual pleasure, which is paramount in any patriarchal society. The removal of the external genitalia and the stitching together of the labia majora create an extremely small opening, which may or may not need to be sliced opened by the woman’s husband upon marriage. This giving of her virginity and her body is a representation of the extent of male control over women. In a study of the Kikuyu in Kenya, Nici Nelson found that Kikuyu women believed female sexuality was about “procreation for the patrilineage” rather than for mutual pleasure (Caplan 221). Sex for men is for pleasure and advances are expected to be met with complete

acceptance by women, whereas a woman’s right to her own bodily pleasure simply does not exist. Nelson goes on to explain Kikuyu women’s sexuality, saying “Women are recognized as full sexual beings but their rights to indulge their sexual natures must take second place to the control of the patrilineage” (Caplan 237). She points out that in order for patriarchy to maintain control over women, they must have their clitorises excised to “limit their sexual enjoyment” (Caplan 237). Patriarchy goes to drastic lengths to subjugate and control women. Women’s sexuality is feared in many patriarchal institutions, and it is a belief, albeit a mistaken one, that women have little to no control over their bodies, despite that control having never actually been given to them. Patriarchal cultures have a tendency to create and enforce gender roles, by spreading the idea of a divine creator. Religion spreads and maintains the idea that women were and are second citizens. Rarely are women able to step outside of oppressive religions to even suggest working towards change, leading to acceptance of inhumane treatment, under the assumption that this is “god’s will”. Westerners often mistakenly believe that FGM is a requirement of Islam, because religion is so often used to encourage FGM. There is no major religious text, in Islam or otherwise, that makes FGM a requirement. According to Toubia, “Neither the Quran nor the “hadith” (collections of sayings of the prophet Mohammed) includes a direct call for FGM” (Toubia 230). As is the case with all religious texts, they are left open to much interpretation; many crimes against humanity have and can be committed in the name of religion. Due to many women’s acceptance of oppression on the basis of religion, FGM destroys the lives of the daughters of Africa. Culture and religion are fused in many societies, and untangling the web of subjugation that has been forced on women and girls is made difficult by myths that justify crimes against them. In cultures where a woman’s survival depends on marriageability and fertility, her health is of utmost importance. Female genital mutilation is believed to enhance fertility and the mortality of both mother and child. There are numerous implications of circumcision, none of which enhance fertility or

mortality. According to UNICEF, the fatal side effects of FGM are as follows: “severe bleeding, leading to hemorrhagic shock, neurogenic shock as a result of pain and trauma, and severe, overwhelming infection and septicemia” (UNICEF). According to Dudones, “35 percent of the women who undergo FGM die” either from immediate or long-term complications (Ms. Magazine). Those who do not die are left with a variety of psychological, emotional and physical side effects that often last a lifetime. FGM has been shown to cause “cysts; keloids; painful sexual intercourse; increased susceptibility to HIV/ AIDS, hepatitis, and other blood-borne disease; reproductive tract infection; pelvic inflammatory disease; painful menstruation; chronic urinary tract obstruction/bladder stones; and incontinence” (UNICEF). Sadly the belief that FGM is beneficial to women’s health persists despite the increased risk of infertility, and of death of the mother and the child. Women who are able to survive circumcision are still faced with a lifetime of psychological problems, including depression, anxiety and feelings of incompleteness (WHO). While midwives, birthing attendants, or others do many of the procedures with no medical training, the procedure is backed by some in the medical community in Africa. One suggestion for the eradication of FGM is to “legally designate a group that may be allowed to practice FGM” (Asefa 102). The idea behind this is that if doctors carry out the procedure, under sanitary conditions, the results will be better in regards to the health of the female. This quickly becomes a medical ethics issue. The Hippocratic oath says that surgical procedures must have medical benefits and must be done on consenting patients (Asefa 102-103). FGM is mostly done on children, who are clearly unable to give their consent. It also serves no medical purpose and inflicts injury and even death on girls and women. The practice of FGM continues despite its obvious negative health effects, because the women’s health is of little to no importance. The patriarchal lie that women’s health is improved by mutilation is beneficial to no one but the patriarchal system and those who support and maintain it. Next I want to briefly discuss the hygiene and aesthetic reasons that

FGM is practiced. There is widespread belief, even in this country, that female genitalia are ugly and dirty. There is this whole idea of feminine hygiene, and there are dozens of products marketed towards women with the ultimate goal of achieving cleanliness. In countries that practice FGM, female cleanliness is achieved by the removal of the external female genitalia. Some cultures believe that the clitoris or labia will grow uncontrollably unless they are done away with. Women are kept in such a state of ignorance that they have no understanding of truth in regards to their bodies. The clitoris is likened to the penis, and it’s believed that it must be removed in order for a girl to become a woman. In order to preserve masculinity, women must not possess male characteristics and must sacrifice their clitorises in order to rid themselves of masculinity. Lastly I want to focus on the sociological justifications for FGM. Not only does FGM serve the purpose of controlling women’s sexuality and supposedly benefiting their health, it also serves as an initiation into womanhood and is thought to maintain social cohesion. The preservation of culture in the face of colonialism has become paramount in many North African communities. Many traditional practices have been lost, and there are some who feel it is absolutely necessary to adhere to these practices in order to keep some of their culture intact as globalization and colonization attempt to change them. Another sociological reason for the continuation of FGM is that, simply put, it’s profitable. The practitioners often make their living off of mutilating the bodies of young girls, and without other skills, they cannot survive. In a film I viewed in my women studies seminar, one woman was given a sewing machine but had no idea how to work it. These are often older women who have been circumcising for most of their lives and are very unlikely to desire an end to FGM, despite having seen time and time again the effects, because their survival depends on it. Toubia also points out that the “loss of prestige” for the practitioner forces many practitioners to defend the practice (Toubia 230). Women’s protection of FGM is a result of the idea of a patriarchal bargain. Girls who do not undergo this practice essentially become social

pariahs. They are viewed as unmarriageable and unclean. Mothers, who have an understanding of the pain and other implications of the procedure, are faced with the difficult choice of mutilating their daughters or damning their daughters to a life of shame. According to Pickup, “It may be a rational – even loving – decision for a mother to decide to genitally mutilate her daughter in a culture where she will stand little chance of finding a husband otherwise and where there are few economic alternatives to marriage” (Pickup 22). In western culture, we view FGM as torture on the part of the community and the parents, but in the cultures where it is practiced it is often a decision that the mother must make to ensure the survival of her daughter. Economically a woman cannot survive without marriage, so she must conform, in this sense. A clitoris becomes a small price to pay for the luxury of survival. Women very rarely resist change because they must be loyal to the patriarchal institutions that have given them what they perceive to be a life based on their best interests. Upholding marriage in societies where it is economically necessary is of utmost importance to women even if it sustains and excuses violence against women or, in this case, children. They simply must be loyal to the institutions that protect them even if the bargain is not in their favor.

Conclusions

It is clear that female genital mutilation is never in favor of the woman, her health, or her bodily integrity. It is a tool used to systematically brutalize and oppress women from girlhood and to remind them of their place throughout adulthood. Female genital mutilation is an international crisis and should be dealt with accordingly. The eradication of this practice must begin at the grassroots level, due to the amount of mistrust between cultures who practice FGM and the international community. Cultural relativists will defend practices such as FGM on the grounds that culture is subject to interpretation, and one culture has no right to regulate the practices of another. Female genital mutilation is a human rights violation in every way, and cultural relativism has no grounds

to declare it anything but. Genocide is related to culture, but it is not accepted and defended because it does not reward patriarchy. Men in patriarchal cultures benefit and enjoy the subjugation of women, because the need to control is priority. Women’s well being and happiness has not and will not be a priority in these, or any other, cultures unless there is grassroots activism and public condemnation of practices that maim women. Violence against women and girls is symbolic of the larger systemic war on women, and female genital mutilation is an expression of the contempt held for women throughout the world. It serves no purpose other than the gross dehumanization of hundreds of millions of women and girls, leading to a life of misery and oppression in order to ensure men’s happiness.

Works Cited

Asefa, Semra. “Female Genital Mutilation: Violence in the Name of Tradition, Religion, and Social Imperative.” Violence Against Women: Philosophical Perspectives. Eds.

Stanley G. French, Wanda Teays, and Laura M. Purdy. Ithaca: Cornell University

Press, 1998. 92-104.

Block, A.J.: Sexual Perversion in Female, New Orleans Medical Surgical Journal (new series) 22:1-7, 1894-1895.

Caplan, Pat, Ed. The Cultural Construction of Sexuality. New York: Tavistock

Publication, 1987.

Darby, Robert. A Surgical Temptation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Dudones, Jill. “The Unkindest Cut.” Ms. Magazine. Winter 2007.

“Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting.” United Nations International Children’s

Emergency Fund. 11 March 2007. <http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_ genitalmutilation .html>

“Female Genital Mutilation (FGM): Legal Prohibitions Worldwide.” March 2007.

Center for Reproductive Rights. 11 April 2007. <http://www.reproductiverights. org/pub _fac_fgmicpd.html>

“Female Genital Mutilation.” June 2000. World Health Organization. 14 February 2007. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/>

Modawi, S. (1974), The Impact of Social and Economic Changes in Female Circumcision,

Sudan Medical Association Congress Series, No.1, Sudan Medical Asssociation,

Khartoum.

Musalo, Karen. “When Rights and Cultures Collide.” Markkula Center for Applied

Ethics. 8.3 (1997) 18 March 2007. <http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ iie/v8n3/rightsandcultures.html>.

Omer-Hashi, Kowser H, Silver, Joan. “No words can express: two voices on female genital mutilation.” Canadian Women’s Studies. 14 (1994): page 62. Pickup, Francine, Suzanne Williams, and Caroline Sweetman. Ending Violence Against

Women: A Challenge for Development and Humanitarian Work. London: Oxfam

GB, 2001.

Saadawi, N. el., (1982) Circumcision of Girls, Traditional Practices affecting the

Health of Women and Children, World Health Organization, EMRO Technical

Publication 2(2), Alexandria, Egypt.

Taba, A.H., (1980), Female Circumcision, World Health.

Talbott, William. Which Rights Should be Universal? New York: Oxford University

Press, 2005.

Toubia, Nahid. “Female Genital Mutilation.” Women’s Rights, Human Rights. Eds.

Julie Peters, and Andrea Wolper. New York: Routledge, 1995. 224-237.

Wallerstein, F., (1980), Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy, Springer Publ.

Corp., New York.

Walt, Vivienne, “Village to Village: Circumcising a Ritual,” Washington Post, 7 June 1998, Outlook.

Shauna Fecher

Sometimes I’m too many curves and words that make people squirm and turn to more conventional things, less sensational things like the stake in power that a phallacy brings.

Or a Monument jutting out from the Mall watching over the pool that reflects it by dawn. In a city where I cannot find a seat or a House where they will just let Her be.

Let her be. Let her be. Where did you learn Steinese? It doesn’t matter, it would probably bore you to sleep.