Torture for girls.

[pnwmom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/opinion/12kristof.html?_r=1&hp

SNIP

Ms. Ibrahim prefers the most extreme form of genital mutilation, called infibulation or Pharaonic circumcision. . . .

The girls’ genitals are carved out, including the clitoris and labia, often with no anesthetic. What’s left of the flesh is sewn together with three to six stitches — wild thorns in rural areas, or needle and thread in the cities. The cutter leaves a tiny opening to permit urination and menstruation. Then the girls’ legs are tied together, and she is kept immobile for 10 days until the flesh fuses together.

When the girl is married and ready for sex, she must be cut open by her husband or by a respected woman in the community.

All this is, of course, excruciating. It also leads to infections and urinary difficulties, and scar tissue can make childbirth more dangerous, increasing maternal mortality and injuries such as fistulas.

This is one of the most pervasive human rights abuses worldwide, with three million girls mutilated each year in Africa alone, according to United Nations estimates. A hospital here in Somaliland found that 96 percent of women it surveyed had undergone infibulation. The challenge is that this is a form of oppression that women themselves embrace and perpetuate.

SNIP

[Bladian]

1. I do believe I'm going to be ill. N/t

[Quantess]

2. Ugh...I was hoping this was about a waterboarding game marketed to kids.

[undeterred]

3. I believe it is illegal for a doctor to perorm this in the United States.

I'm not sure if its illegal for anyone else to do it.

[pnwmom]

8. Doctors in my city have faced a dilemma with Somalian immigrants.

Whether it is acceptable -- in order to avoid the full procedure done by a non-medical person -- to perform a procedure that only "nicks" the clitoris.

[WinkyDink]

52. I don't see where the "dilemma" is for AMERICAN doctors.

[WatsonT]

66. No dilemma

Medical professionals should not have any part of this.

If they suspect the parents are going to perform one at home they should report it to the authorities.

[blondeatlast]

4. "It was an accident." The fuckinghell it was--on your OWN daughter?

If shme is effective (as it was on at least one practitioner), then let's keep shaming them.

[defendandprotect]

5. More than 80 million women have suffered this torture --

[guyton]

6. ban this and ...

How many DU'ers who are sickened by this are also ok with the male form of genital mutilation? I know I'm not. Ban both of them!!

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/02/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-headed-november-ballot

[pnwmom]

7. The procedures aren't comparable.

Did you even read the post? If we were cutting off boys penis's, and leaving only a tiny hole for urine to pass through, that would be comparable. The U.N. also announced the results of two long term, large scale studies that showed a significant reduction in HIV transmission among circumcised men who were already using condoms. There are no health benefits -- not even any potential or disputed health benefits -- to female cutting and infibulation.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

9. They are BOTH barbaric.

The foreskin has a purpose, in both sexes.

Neither of them should be touched. The studies of circumcision reducing AIDS in Africa are flawed. Cleanliness is important.

Just because male circumcision is common, doesn't make it right.

[pnwmom]

12. The most recent studies in Africa were very well conducted.

But they were conducted in Africa, and it is reasonable to think that conditions in the U.S. might be different.

[guyton]

32. no the procedures aren't comparable ...

... one is much worse than the other.

But both are obscene violations of innocents, endorsed by the local culture and very difficult to change.

[pnwmom]

34. One has at least the weight of some science and medicine behind it.

The other has nothing except hate, control, and power.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

83. +1

[niyad]

17. just as a matter of curiousity, how do you compare circumcision with THIS

(you really should read exactly what is involved in fgm before making such statements)

and do try to remember, that fgm is about controlling female sexuality, not about health or religious beliefs


Ms. Ibrahim prefers the most extreme form of genital mutilation, called infibulation or Pharaonic circumcision. . . .

The girls’ genitals are carved out, including the clitoris and labia, often with no anesthetic. What’s left of the flesh is sewn together with three to six stitches — wild thorns in rural areas, or needle and thread in the cities. The cutter leaves a tiny opening to permit urination and menstruation. Then the girls’ legs are tied together, and she is kept immobile for 10 days until the flesh fuses together

[blondeatlast]

18. If you'd read the piece, you'd be able to spout off with some intelligence. There is no comparison

whatsoever. Added to "buddy list" as someone whose opinion no longer holds any credence for me.

[guyton]

33. why do you think I didn't read it?

I've been disgusted by both practices for many years now. I just wanted to make a point that they're both obscene practices that are very difficult to banish since they're endorsed by the local cultures.

[pnwmom]

37. One has the weight of a significant amount of science and medicine

behind it.

The other is just about power and control.

[guyton]

39. well ... except that ...

.. all the "science and medicine" is very new. Male circumcision traditions predates the science by a just a bit.

The wikipedia page (I'm no expert) says in their history of circumcision page that its origin is disputed, except that everyone agrees "promoting good health had nothing to do with it."

And frankly I don't really have much faith in the oft-quoted studies. It makes about as much sense to me as advocating double mastectomies for teenage girls to prevent breast-cancer ... 99.99% effective! And before you think this is a silly argument (ok, it is, but ...) consider if double mastectomies were our tradition ... would people be quoting breast cancer stats to support continuing the practice?

And referring again to the wikipedia page ... "The major medical societies in the USA,<55> Britain,<56> Canada,<57> Australia and New Zealand<3> do not recommend routine non-therapeutic infant circumcision".

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

Btw, I'm really not trying to minimize the horror of female genital mutilation ... it turns my stomach. Just pointing out that we have our own rather amazing blind spots when it comes to our traditions.

[pnwmom]

43. But you do minimize FGM when you compare it to circumcision.

FGM is a far more drastic procedure, with much worse health effects and no possible health benefits.

With regard to male circumcision, it wasn't till the middle of the last century, after World War II, that male circumcision started to become widely practiced. That was because of the benefits that doctors began to note in terms of reduced urinary tract infections. So while the practice originated as a Jewish religious rite, it came to be seen as something with health benefits as well -- and that's when it began to spread in the general population.

[Quantess]

48. True, what you say.

What is done to girl babies' genitals is far, far worse, incomparable...but why can't I shake the idea that Toby Keith will give his opinion soon..
Maybe Lindsay Lohan or Charlie Sheen will say a statement.

[yardwork]

49. Female mutilation is not done to babies. It's done to young girls.

The two things are barely comparable.

[Quantess]

56. yeah....gross. Go ahead and justify it, creep!

[guyton]

59. wtf?

what are you talking about? I despise both procedures. I want both of them banned.

Sheesh.

[Quantess]

76. self-delete

[nomorenomore08]

64. Male circumcision has its downside, yes, and I think that the procedure should generally

be avoided. But to compare it even remotely with the "procedure" described in the OP is laughable at best, appalling at worst. You may claim that "I'm not saying it's AS BAD," but by bringing up male circumcision in this context, you essentially are saying that, for all intents and purposes.

[sibelian]

70. Grotesque distortion of the poster's words.

You desire a narrative with which you can take issue so you simply ignore what is said and replace it with something you can argue with.

[nomorenomore08]

72. Maybe, but *why bring up male circumcision at all* in this thread?

As I said, that procedure does have its apparent negative aspects, but compared to Pharaonic "circumcision" as described in the OP? Putting the two side by side, regardless of any disclaimers, serves to trivialize the horrific.

Look, I'm an adult male without a foreskin - HORRORS!!! - but it's not something I even think about, let alone weep bitter tears over, most of the time. As has been stated repeatedly by others in this thread, the Pharaonic "procedure" is equivalent to cutting off the penis and stitching shut the resulting hole. Once again, how are the two *even remotely comparable*? Sheesh...

[cali]

82. comparing the two is profoundly sick and ugly

I shudder to think what it says about a mind that thinks that way. :puke:

[Aerows]

20. If they chopped off a boys penis

then it would be comparable. I mean, he still has testes, so what is the problem?

There are some people that are determined to get outraged over jaywalking while a murder takes place two feet behind them.

[Codeine]

60. Christ. Every fucking time.

Always need to piggyback your silly little crusade onto the back of this horrorshow.

[EOTE]

62. Oh my god! Parents are cutting off their child's penises?

You're right, that male form of genital mutilation needs to stop. Just where is this practiced?

[CTyankee]

63. You had to go there...

[cali]

81. fucking sick and sickening to compare circumcision with this. What the fuck is wrong with YOU?

[seabeyond]

10. it is amazing how we women too, are conditioned to embrace misogynist behavior

and will even defend as a freedom with some things.

[Redford]

38. right on, sister

this is barbaric

[cally]

11. Does anyone know why this started and why it became so

pervasive? I am sickened by how often this is performed and the consequences.

[NeedleCast]

14. Religion

“It is God’s will for girls to be circumcised.”

[LiberalLoner]

15. From what I've read, it was supposed to serve a dual purpose of keeping girls/women chaste and also

was meant to inhibit rape. It disgusts me. Sometimes I really effing HATE this world we all live in.

[Quantess]

16. Hmm... I think rape would be preferable.

At least your body would still be intact afterward, after some rest.

[NeedleCast]

13. “It is God’s will for girls to be circumcised.”

Another torture practice brought to you by Religion.

[blondeatlast]

27. Pretty sure God would have made girls that way if that's how s/he intended it to be.

Pretty sure that if by some chance s/he exists, this doer of "God's work" is going to get a mjor surprise in the co-called afterlife for mutilating her/his children and presuming to speak for him/her.

[hifiguy]

19. I don't give one shit about "cultural sensitivity" or

"religious tolerance" this is barbarism at its most primitive and should be stopped NOW!

Read this today in the Times and came away seething with anger. Kudos to Nick Kristof for bringing this atrocity to the attention of more people.

[REP]

22. It's "cultural" when it's done to women; "abuse" when it's done to men

Too often too many are too quick to "respect" barbaric things that are done to women in the name of 'cultural sensitivity;' these same things are quickly rejected if they are done to men or an ethnic minority.

[hifiguy]

26. Whatever.

It is inconceivable to me that such horrors are being perpetrated on these young women and that people aren't screaming to high heaven in protest to STOP it.

[REP]

28. Some of us don't excuse it

You may have misread my post - I reject any excuse for this practice. There are some things that can be condemned, no matter how 'cultural' they may be. This is one of them.

[pnwmom]

29. And Kudos to NYTimes for publishing the details despite

the possibility of turning more than a few stomachs.

[Rage for Order]

21. No culture is superior to another. n/t

[REP]

23. Thank you for making my point above.

[themadstork]

25. Are certain genitals less worthy than others?

[pnwmom]

30. Sure, and if Hitler had succeeded in his aims, his culture

would be just as good as any other, too.

[appal_jack]

44. bullshit

Cultures can and should be judged: by the happiness of all their members, by scientific progress, material well-being, and ecological sustainability.

Now, I'm not saying that my own culture would score highly in all those departments. But I will say that my culture is a damn sight superior to any which tortures girls in this barbaric and oppressive manner.

-app

[WinkyDink]

54. Says you. Perhaps you'd like your heart torn out by an obsidian knife?

[Codeine]

61. Complete bullshit.

Some cultures are clearly far better than others.

[WatsonT]

67. Not sure if sarcastic or not

but I would have to disagree.

Some cultures are inherently inferior.

Anyone who supports this should be first have it done to them.

[LeftishBrit]

79. But some cultural practices are worse than others and need to be changed

Was it OK for Americans to keep slaves and the British to send children up chimneys because that was part of the culture at a certain time?

[themadstork]

24. oh god

I wasn't aware they cut off the clitoris AS WELL AS the labia minora in some cases. WTF. I don't even know what to think. How can any human do this? To a little girl?

By the way, not trying to imply clitoral mutilation is acceptable or anything, the real depths of the cruelty just shocked me. holy hell.

[pnwmom]

31. I think a lot of people don't realize that. And how they then

stitch the empty skin together so the whole thing seals shut -- except for a tiny hole -- till the husband (usually) cuts the woman open with a knife so that he can have sex.

Many girls die from the procedure and many more go on to have lifelong problems as a result of scarring, infections, etc. It's a horrendous procedure.

[DaveJ]

35. I did not see any solution mentioned in the article

I guess no solution was mentioned because anyone who would dare suggest interfering with a culture would be flamed out of existence. If anyone were to suggest sending in military, capitalism, or religion, to change their culture they'd be taken down fast. Such is politics, where the most selfish get their way.

[pnwmom]

36. There's actually an issue we need to consider in the U.S.

because we have at least one population -- Somali immigrants -- who brought the practices here with them. And sometimes send their daughters back to Somalia to be cut.

Years ago, a hospital in Seattle considered the possibility of offering to give these girls a small, symbolic cut -- in order to avoid a much worse procedure. I think the final decision was no -- that doctors couldn't be involved in this at all. But I'm torn. According to the article, this is one of the possibilities they're thinking about in Africa, too -- whether many more girls might be spared if this option were encouraged.

[nomorenomore08]

65. But proposing easy, simplistic, "RAH RAH USA" type solutions helps no one.

Military? Capitalism? Religion? None of these things strike me as automatic positives, to say the least.

Just because a thing (like FGM) is horrific, stomach-churningly so, doesn't make it simple to do away with. And you'll get no cultural-relativism argument from me, certainly not on this.

[Scout]

40. happens EVERY time ... only 6 posts in this time.... n/t

[Cerridwen]

42. Ah, but Scout, don't you know?

No topic about women is important enough to stand on its own; it must include the impact on men or something equivalent; otherwise, it's about just women and of what interest is that?

Do I need the sarcasm thingy? Yeah, I think I do.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Cerridwen]

41. Oof. Someone upthread asked about the history and I had to google.

This is one interesting theory of the earliest history:

<snip>

The history of female circumcision, also known as female genital mutilation (FGM), has been traced back as far as the 2nd century BC, when a geographer, Agatharchides of Cnidus, wrote about female circumcision as it occurred among tribes residing on the western coast of the Red Sea (now modern-day Egypt). Based on current geographic locations of FGM, the practices seems to have originated in Egypt and has spread south and west.

Origins
Some believe that female circumcision was rooted in the Pharaonic belief in the bisexuality of the gods. According to this belief, mortals reflected this trait of the gods; every individual possessed both a male and a female soul. The feminine soul of the man was located in the prepuce of the penis; the masculine soul of the woman was located in the clitoris. For healthy gender development, the female soul had to be excised from the man and the male soul from the woman. Circumcision was thus essential for boys to become men and girls to become women.
Prior to the rise of Islam, Egyptians once raided territories to the south for slaves, and Sudanic slaves were exported to areas along the Persian Gulf. Reports from the 15th and 16th centuries suggest that female slaves were sold at a higher price if they were ''sewn up" in a way that made them unable to give birth. After the region converted to Islam, this practice was no longer possible because Islam prohibits Muslims from enslaving others of their own religious beliefs.

<snip to a wee bit more at link>

And, of course I found something that has to do with the US circa 1950s...yep, "we" did it here, too.

<snip>

FGC was also a common practice in North America, and specifically in the U.S., type I, II and III was common until the 1950’s in order to control female sexuality. Clitoridectomy was performed for various reasons. One of the most common reasons was to reduce masturbation. In England, Isaac Baker Brown published a book about his successes in treating female masturbation with clitoridectomy. He also claimed it to cure obscure nervous disorders such as hysteria and epilepsy.<8> Many more solutions were offered for masturbation, such as chastity belts, first used in medieval times to ensure that wives remain chaste while their husbands were away. In order to prevent masturbation in boys, spiked rings even more drastic measures were employed, such as cauterization and even castration.<9>

In one of the most classic of pediatric textbooks, Diseases of Infancy and Childhood, published 11 times from 1897 to 1940, the author L.E. Holt advocated cauterization of the clitoris as well as blistering the vulva as a preventive measures for masturbation. Masturbation was seen as the reason of many ills, such as neuroticism, disobedience, and disrespect of parents.<10>

In the U.S. an organization known as the Orificial Surgery Society was formed, publishing journals mentioning the various benefits of clitoridectomy, even for things as trivial as headaches.

There were also many hygienic benefits that were thought to be produced by clitoridotomy. C.F. McDonald states in a 1958 paper entitled Circumcision of the Female<11>: “If the male needs circumcision for cleanliness and hygiene, why not the female? I have operated on perhaps 40 patients who needed this attention.” The author states that it remedies “irritation, scratching, irritability, masturbation, frequency and urgency,” and smegmaliths causing “dyspareunia and frigidity.”

<snip to much more at link (read about Freud's take)

Yet one more brief snippet; actually an abstract of a paper behind a pay-wall, about the practice in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century in our enlightened western countries.

Rethinking the history of female circumcision and clitoridectomy: American medicine and female sexuality in the late nineteenth century.

Abstract

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there was one kind of female orgasm and it was clitoral; there was also only one kind of healthy sexual instinct for a woman and it was for penetrative sex with her husband. When a woman behaved outside of this normality-by masturbating or by not responding to her husband's affections-her sexual instinct was seen as disordered. If healthy women, then, were believed only to be sexual within the marital embrace, what better way to explain these errant behaviors than by blaming the clitoris, an organ seen as key to female sexual instinct? Doctors corrected a clitoris in an unhealthy state using one of four surgeries-removing smegma or adhesions between the clitoris and its hood, removing the hood (circumcision), or removing the clitoris (clitoridectomy)-in order to correct a woman's sexual instinct in an unhealthy state. Their approach to clitoral surgery, at least as revealed in published medical works, was a cautious one that respected the importance of clitoral stimulation for healthy sexuality while simultaneously recognizing its role as cause and symptom in cases of insanity that were tied to masturbation.

[cali]

84. common? really? I'd like to see some statistics on that.

[MH1]

85. they were looking for a 'solution' to masturbation? egads.

Paging Dr. Jocelyn Elders ... paging Dr. Elders ...

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[readmoreoften]

47. It IS disingenuous. I care about FGM, but warmongering Americans crying about it isn't going to

change anything. As if we care about African women suddenly--give me a break. How can we complain about womens' rights against genital mutilation when we don't fight for any other type of general liberation in Africa? It comes across as schadenfraude and smug superiority. Maybe if we didn't back right-wing thugs in various African nations (like we're doing in Uganda, for example) than the leftist parties in Africa could make some progress against their anti-woman and anti-gay religious extremists.

The only way to genuinely fight FGM is to fight for the progressive/labor forces on the ground in various African nations. What the hell is moral outrage and finger-wagging going to do?

[Hannah Bell]

58. it's supposed to make us think that arabs are so backward it's ok to kill

them to stop their backwardness, that's what.

[LeftishBrit]

80. Nonsense. Human rights organizations criticize all kinds of practices.

Campaigning against something doesn't mean you want to bomb the people who do it.

And FGM is hardly specific to Arabs.

[Hannah Bell]

87. sorry you don't get it

[Scout]

50. so start a thread about it n/t

[msanthrope]

53. Your post reminds me of an abortion clinic protestor's sign.

It is without context or information, and is graphic and an appeal to disgust, rather than logic.

You may not like pwnmom's thread, but at least she had the respect for other posters here to present an argument.

[Bonobo]

57. If you have an argument that can excuse the usa doing that to even one person...

I'd like to hear it.

But in fact you passively condone it being done to hundreds of thousands of people.

You want logic? Tell me logically how that is supposed to make the US safer.

[msanthrope]

74. What does that outrage have to do with FGM?

It's as if you are offering up a shattered limb in exchange for clitorises.

Some of us can appreciate multiple outrages, and eschew false equivalencies.

Shall I not call out cultures who cut women because they are bombed by US warplanes?

Fuck that.

[woo me with science]

77. Oh for pete's sake. nt

[WatsonT]

68. Through the magic of false dichotomies FGM is now acceptable!

Hurray! Snipped clits for everyone (well half of us anyway)

[sibelian]

71. ...and via the magic of completely ignoring the content of Hannah's post

and replacing it with something easy to argue about like FGM there is now need to think about anything else.

[WatsonT]

75. Consider:

On any post, about any horrible subject I could simply post pictures of the holocaust and say "wow, yeah X is bad, but is it worse than the holocaust?"

That would come across as an attempt to negate the point of any specific post, would it not?

And as we already have a post about the iraq war (actually if you search you'll find that there are dozens!), that is completely pointless and unnecessary here.

[cali]

86. her post couldn't be more absurd. should I parse for those who are

unable to figure out why? Here's her post:

it's supposed to make us think that arabs are so backward it's ok to kill

them to stop their backwardness, that's what.


First of all, is hannah a fucking mind reader? No? then how the fuck does hannah know what the intent of the article is? Let me fucking spell it out: She doesn't. Secondly, no one, but no one is talking about killing anyone because of FGM. No one, but no one is talking about launching a war over it. Believe me, women just don't rate that kind of action. And lastly, genius, talking about a human rights abuse, whether in Africa or the U.S., is not akin to bombing anyone. Fucking duh.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

69. So FGM is okay then?

:eyes:

[WildEyedLiberal]

73. Gore porn from our resident Marxist, how precious

People like you are just like the "pro lifers" with their graphically gruesome photos of aborted fetuses and the PETA nutjobs with their photos of chickens being stomped to death. If you can't make your point without resorting to cheap, crude shock value, then it probably sucks.

Notice how pwnmom didn't post a picture of a mutilated vulva.

[SkyDaddy7]

46. This is beyond SAD!! Like another poster said...

I think I am going to be sick!

[WinkyDink]

51. PERVERTED SEXUAL TORTURE. THERE IS NO "CULTURAL" or MEDICAL DEFENSE.

[ZombieHorde]

55. That is pretty intense. The pain must be horrible. nt

[LeftishBrit]

78. Horrible.

Here is a link to an Amnesty International campaign against this awful practice:

http://www.endfgm.eu/en/