FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION AND OTHER TRADITIONAL PRACTICES
Female Genital Mutilation has been called an extreme tool in the social construction of the female body.
Female Genital Mutilation is the removal of all or part of the external female sexual organs. Although it is sometimes called Female Circumcision the procedure is actually closer to castration were it to be performed on a male body.
Some sources prefer the term Female Genital Cutting. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Genital_ Cutting
In societies practising FGM the female body is the vehicle for expressing and inscribing collective identity. FGM tends to be performed on girls usually between the ages of 6 and 12, in societies where social recognition and survival for women is achieved mainly through marriage and child-bearing. Without FGM she cannot marry. Without marriage, she has no status or access to resources. Her physical capital can be converted into economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital only through marriage and child-bearing. Although various rationales exist for this practice (health, hygiene, enhanced attractiveness, religious requirement etc) the common objective would appear to be the control of women’s sexuality which could otherwise threaten family honour and societal cohesion.
Although it is often assumed to be an Islamic practice it is not a requirement though not expressly forbidden, and many Islamic rulings and authorities do not support it.(See the ‘Islamic Ruling on Male & Female Circumcision’WHO/ EMRO1996)
FGM is not a requirement of any of the world’s religions.
FGM is practised in 28 countries on the African continent where it is found amongst Jews, Christians, Muslims and some indigenous groups. It is also found in some areas of the southern Arabian Peninsula, among some Muslims in Malaysia, and Indonesia & some minority groups of Pakistan and India as well as amongst some indigenous people of South America.
.There is also evidence for its practice in ancient Rome & 19th Century Europe & North America.
FGM is not a traditional practise in North Africa nor in the ‘Fertile Crescent’ region of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan. There are no reports of FGM being performed in Iran. Who then supports and who performs FGM in those societies where it is traditionally practised? One finds that older women are usually the ultimate authority in how, when and upon whom FGM should be carried out and see enforcing its performance as an important aspect of their function in maintaining the social heritage.
On the other hand studies in Egypt and elsewhere have shown that the men in the community, usually those who have travelled abroad for work, are often the first to condemn the practice, sometimes on the altruistic grounds of preference for sexual relations with “non-mutilated” women. This is also a reflection of men’s greater confidence in proposing change, as well as their exposure to sexual partners beyond their community.
In terms of actual performance of the operation a pendulum swing can be discerned in some countries between traditional practitioners (grannies, midwives, barbers) and trained medical professionals. The latter being supported by those who think that it should be done, but done safely, and by those who think that it will be done anyway whether it is “outlawed” or not, and therefore it is better to be done under medical supervision.
The “medicalisation” of FGM is opposed by some medical professionals on the grounds that whilst it diminishes health risks, it appears to lend legitimacy to violence against women. Traditional practitioners not surprisingly oppose the removal of what is often a significant source of livelihood, and often query the “correctness” of operations performed under medical supervision, which may be less radical. Traditional practitioners may insist on re-doing the operation observing the traditional forms.
It is estimated that globally around 130 million women and girls have undergone the operation and are living with the consequences. Not surprisingly there are severe short-term and long-term physical effects and amongst the latter can be included sexual dysfunction and painful sexual intercourse, urinary incontinence and the formation of vaginal fistulae as a result of obstructed labour.
Should the disappearance of FGM then to be left to time and chance - the natural erosion, or evaporation of anachronistic practices? This is after all an expression of culture. Or should something be done, by whom, and if so what?
There are three main approaches to eliminating FGM. The first takes health and particularly maternal and reproductive health as the entry point for introducing change.
The World Health Organisation based in Geneva is a pioneer in this field http://www.who.int/en/ The United Nations Fund for Population Activities has declared 6th February as the International Day Against Female Genital Mutilation.
The second is a human rights approach which sees FGM as a violation of the human rights of women and girls. This is best exemplified by activities within the framework of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women & its Recommendations, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A number of important initiatives at regional level such as the Maputo Protocol on the Rights of Women (2003) also address the issue of FGM.
(Human Rights instruments can be found at http://www. unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm
The third approach is pragmatic & socio-cultural starting with the social function of the practice as a passage to social maturity and developing, with the communities concerned, replacement practices to fulfil the same function. An NGO in Senegal – Tostan – is one of the pioneers in this community-based and participatory approach and has attracted a great deal of international interest and support. Visit http://www.tostan.org/
The most successful approaches are those where international and regional donors and activists support initiatives which are rooted in the communities. The most unsuccessful approaches are those whereby the international community appears simply to be condemning a barbaric practice and has driven it underground and undermined local efforts at the same time. The CNN coverage of an actual FGM event in 1994 in Egypt was met with condemnation by local activists who felt that they and their work were threatened by association with this culturally imperialist behaviour.
National legislation relative to FGM varies greatly from country to country.
In Egypt, where an estimated 97% of women and girls between the ages of 15 and 49 have been operated upon, it is, after a number of reversals and revisions, legally banned and there is a concerted drive by State and non-State actors to eliminate the practice.
Sudan on the other hand has banned since 1946 the most extreme type of FGM (infibulation) which is also the most common, but has no legal sanctions against clitoridectomy or excision.
In the United Kingdom FGM has been a criminal offence since 1985, and Portugal is this year developing a national action plan to address the issue. The website of the Inter Parliamentary Union has comprehensive information on country legislation concerning FGM http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/fgm-prov.htm
The actual effects of the FGM have also been highlighted in recent years by the interest of celebrity women, notably Oprah Winfrey who has campaigned for greater awareness and treatment of fistulae and was honoured by the establishment of the Oprah Winfrey Centre for the Women of Ethiopia. See www.fistulafoundation.org/
A lot more work needs to be done to eradicate this practice by action on all fronts and at all levels. Legislating against FGM is necessary but not sufficient and righteous indignation whilst understandable does not change deeply entrenched behaviour. The most promising approaches are inclusive of both men and women in the practising community and start on the premise that like other forms of ‘Harmful Traditional Practices’ FGM needs to be understood in order to be replaced.