Female Genital Mutilation
by Christine Mortlock
Female genital mutilation consist of clitoridectomy, the removal of all or part of the clitoris, or excision, the removal of the labia minora. An estimated 15% of mutilations in Africa involve infibulation (also known as pharonic circumcision); the removal of the labia majora, the mons veneris, the labia minora, and often the clitoris, using razors, knives, broken glass, tin lids, or other sharp objects. A splinter of wood or a reed is often inserted into the vaginal opening so that after the wound heals, a small orifice remains, allowing the discharge of both blood and urine. The raw surfaces are stitched with acacia thorns or horsehair, to facilitate convalescence of the lips. An antiseptic powder made of a paste of gum arabic or a mixture of sugar and eggs is then applied. The girl’s legs are then strapped together for as long as forty days in order to mold the two bloody sides of the vulva together. During recovery, excrement often remains in the bandage, and girls try to refrain from urinating because of the pain of urine touching the raw wound. Later, at the girl’s marriage, her husband, in the hope of deflowering his wife himself, might try to force the opening with various objects. Often, however, to the shame of the husband, a "midwife" or the girl’s mother is called in to defibulate her to allow for intercourse. When infibulated women give birth, labor is often prolonged and many women tear at the top and bottom. If a medical procedure known as episiotomy is not undertaken to enlarge the birth area, the tear can extend to the anus, so that the woman cannot contain her feces. After birth, post-partum reinfibulation often occurs.
It’s estimated that 135 million (or approximately 5%) of the world’s girls and women have undergone genital mutilation. Every year, two million girls, usually between two and 15, are at risk of genital mutilation; approximately 6,000 per day. The majority of mutilation occurs in populations in Islamic northeastern Africa, i.e. in northern Sudan, coastal regions of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and northeastern Africa. However, FGM is reportedly practiced in more than 28 countries, including (but not limited to) Muslim populations in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and India. (Interestingly, the Qur’an and Shari’a never call for FGM) With the rise of immigration of northeastern African populations to the United States and various European countries, including France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands, FGM has become more visible in the international population. Several pastoral tribes in East Africa also practice FGM as a means for the complete cultural feminization of young women. It is a birthright, one that is expected and even cherished.
FGM is an issue primarily focused on by feminists, international interest groups, international and government policy makers, and anthropologists. However, we have a responsibility, as proponents of justice within the general population, to at least question the practice of FGM. FGM has relevancy to our judicial systems, to our conception of human and women’s rights, and the validity of cultural relativism.
Arguments for the elimination of FGM include the serious health risk associated with the procedure. Many circumcised women suffer chronic pelvic infections, urinary stones, dysmenorrhea, pelvic and back pain, infertility and kidney damage. During childbirth, infibulation may cause prolonged labor, which raises the chance for fetal brain damage or fetal death. Because the "physician" often uses the same blade for many children, the practice has also been associated with the spread of AIDS. However, most of these women do not even connect physical pain and related gynecological and obstetric problems with having been circumcised. They believe these problems are the inescapable consequences of being a woman. So, while we look at the physical complications of FGM as unnecessary and painful, most of these women do not put the "pain" in these terms. Rather, to most who have been circumcised, the complications arising from FGM is the common experience of womanhood and not correlated to the procedure.
Moreover, FGM is conceived by most circumcised and infibulated women as a badge of honor, a rite of passage, and a mark of their womanhood. The clitoris is often seen within these cultures as a female penis. Thus, clitoridectomy promotes femininity, it establishes them as women in their culture. A woman who has not been circumcised is seen as unclean, and branded a prostitute by her family members. The woman stands little chance to marry. Since social identity and economic status for most of these women are based on their roles as wives and mothers, those who are not circumcised often risk pariah-status. Therefore it is difficult to qualify the psychological damage incurred by FGM: is excision of the female genitalia or the loss of social status more damaging in the lives of these women?
FGM is terribly difficult for me to deal with as a woman. As a young, educated woman in America my identity pivots on both my sexuality and a social structure that has allowed and will continue to allow me liberty and choice. FGM would strip me of my identity, strip me of my womanhood. However, I also understand that for many women who have been circumcised, the eradication of FGM would rob them or their culture, their identity, even their femininity. Should there be an appeal to universal standards/universal rights, that are not bound by cultural or traditional identities? Is FGM worthy of such a universal appeal? As an advocate for women, these women, what am I called to do?