The oh so politically correct anthropologists at the American Anthropological Association’s annual meeting.are going to debate if female mutilation under the guise of multiculturalism is okay.
Writes John Tierney of the NYTimes:
Should African women be allowed to engage in the practice sometimes called female circumcision? Are critics of this practice, who call it female genital mutilation, justified in trying to outlaw it, or are they guilty of ignorance and cultural imperialism?…. As the organizers of the AAA panel note:
The panel includes for the first time, the critical “third wave” or multicultural feminist perspectives of circumcised African women scholars Wairimu Njambi, a Kenyan, and Fuambai Ahmadu, a Sierra Leonean. Both women hail from cultures where female and male initiation rituals are the norm…
Oh how civilized. Why shouldn’t primitive women force allow their twelve year old daughters a joyful puberty ceremony? Let’s not be judgemental about such things.
And if you read the NYTimes debate, you see a nice debate, missing only one little thing: Details on what they are talking about.
Not even a F*****g Wikipedia link for their readers.
Without knowing the details, those defending the practice simply are ignoring the problems (and some of those who say “why not” are obviously ignorant of the details).
Let’s get clinical. I’ve written about this before….If you have a weak stomach, stop here.
Not mentioned in the article is that there are three types of female circumcision.
The practice, like male circumcision, probably started like male circumcision as an initiation rite and to help in cleanliness in dry climates where washing is difficult.
But those who pretend male and female circumcision practices are the same must be thinking that female circumcision is only removing the hood from the clitoris.
If this was the only form of female circumcision, I would have no problem with it. But the dirty little secret is that it’s a lot worse than that in most cases.
I worked in Liberia as a doctor and delivered some of these ladies. Let me explain.
Only type one female circumcision is equivalent to male circumcision.
You make a small slit in the skin covering the clitoris, or sometimes remove the tip of the clitoris.
Type two is removing the entire clitoris, equivalent to removing the penile shaft, and not only is bloody but scarring can end up scarring the urethral exit, leading to recurrant bladder problems.
But the type I saw in Africa was the type 3. Alas, this is more common.
This is equivalent to removing the penis and cutting the base of the penis out of the of the perineum. This type of circumcision removes the entire clitoris, the labia majora and labia minora (in lay terms, the pussy and the flaps that go around the vagina).
This, of course, leaves a big hole, which is then sewn shut leaving a small hole.
The urine has to find it’s way out of the hole, as does menstrual blood. If the hole is small, it causes pain with sex, especially when sex starts (thereby discouraging promiscuity). Usually with time, the tissue stretches.
However, Africans are prone to thick scarring, (Keloid formation) so what happens in some of these is that their entire outside genital region becomes hard and stiff, with a rigid hole in the middle.
Even in the cases with mild scarring, we had to make anterior and posterior episiotomies (cuts) to allow delivery of a baby; without this, often the women tear and bleed/get infected during delivery.
If the scar tissue is severe, it can cause a prolonged second stage of labour, leading to vesical vaginal fistula, and sometimes death from complications of long hard labor (infections, bleeding from the wound, and bleeding from uterine atony, a uterus too pooped to clamp down and stop bleeding after a delivery).
The risk of a woman in Africa dying of childbirth is 175 times that of a woman in Europe. How much of this is due to obstructed labour caused by perineal scarring from being circumcized? In simple terms, we don’t know.
Then there are the joys of having a vesical vaginal fistula, a complication that is rarely seen in civilized countries.
In circumcized women, the baby’s head stops partway down the birth canal (in the vagina). If it stays there long enough, the pressure of the head can injure or even cause necrosis (death) of the tissues, and you are left with a hole between the bladder (or bowel) and the vagina. So you constantly leak pee, smell terrible, and become a social outcast.
Ah, but Dr. Ahmadu, who defends the practice of female circumcision, grew up in Chicago. She volunteered to be circumcized as an adult, insists that the circumcision is a form of “female empowerment”, insisting:
the bulk of Kono women who uphold these rituals do so because they want to — they relish the supernatural powers of their ritual leaders over against men in society, and they embrace the legitimacy of female authority…
Whoopie do.
Honey, if you need to be mutilated to keep a man happy, you’re living in the wrong country. Or rather, as an American who decided to become “empowered” by volunatarily undergoing circumcision, you miss the point: you are already empowered as an American woman. However, your desire to pretend to be a woman in your tribe is pathetic. Do you fetch water from wells? Sleep on a mat? Work in the fields every day? Share your husband with several other wives?
Of course not. You live in Chicago.
As for all that stuff about “female empowerment”, one could have said the same thing about footbinding in China, a custom that lasted over a thousand years and was also done by women to young girls, all in the name of being more attractive to one’s husband and therefore being more “empowered” in marriage. Of course, women back then in China had few options except being empowered in marriage, so where is the choice?
The whole point of feminism is to allow women other ways to have power over their own lives: things like education, or being respected as an equal in marriage and society.
Defending dangerous mutilation of teenaged girls in the name of multiculturalism is political correctness gone amuk, and they should all be ashamed of themselves.
You tube has a film on it…only for those over 18 and who have a strong stomach.
———————–
Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the Philippines. Her website is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket. She posts medical essays to HeyDoc Xanga Blog















(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)


6 users commented in " Anthropoligists gone amuk: Let’s debate if mutilation is okay "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackbackmale circumcision is worse than female circumcision because it’s done to infants and the male genital’s are completely external and more delicate (filled with blood). Hundreds of infants die each year in the United States due to circumcision. They die even in a sterile hospital setting. Female circumcision when done in a hospital setting could be done with no risk. Both should be illegal, however, male circumcision is far more common and far more damaging. The foreskin is also filled with errogenous nerve endings and it provides the gliding action necessary for friction-free intercourse.
Dear John Doe: No, you are wrong. Try reading the article.
There is very little bleeding in male circumcision: I have done the surgery on both adults and children. The skin is as thin as this _________line in kids and as thick as 000000000 those zeros in adults. You simply place pressure and voila, bleeding done.
In Female type one no problem.
But if you read my entire clinical description, you see the problem is not only the risk from surgery but the problems in delivering babies.
As for male circumcision: in countries with low hygiene, there is a lot of dirt beneath the foreskin that gets irritated, causing sores, balanitis and phimosis.
The presence of these sores is why uncircumcized males in Africa have a much higher rate of HIV.
As for sexual performance being eliminated by circumcision, all I can say is that it doesn’t slow doen my husband.
The question here becomes the rights of the west to enforce their moral and ethical views on another culture. According to western views this practice is wrong(I personally agree with this) however it is not the place of western nations or supposed civilized nations to dictate traditions and practices to those countries who do not share their definitions of what is ethical and/or moral. This infringes upon cultural sovereignty and the peoples right to self determination.
Great article!
I am however saddened and surprised that you after this will go on to defend male circumcision. Even if it’s not as radical, it’s still wrong to do.
I realise it’s a cultural difference, in your world male circ just happens, in Scandinavia where I’m from, we think it’s child mistreating if it does.
Not the first time NY Times is being daft…
=,=
the video is no longer available..
is there any way for me to be able to see that vid?
And i read another article about FGM, it says that they do it as well in indonesia..
whack o_O
I just know in some country (not indonesia) they done it as a part of their tradition whatsoever..
then im kinda surprised when i read that article.. http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/01/female-circumcision-denial-of-intrinsic.html
*sigh
Ramon
The problem with your argument is that this practice is often done without the consent the the girl being mutilated. It’s not an ethical/moral problem. It’s a health probem
Leave A Reply