US Paeds *compromise* on female genital mutilation

It's about fear of promiscuity, and women as property, and virginity as a prize to be owned by the husband. African and Middle-Eastern cultures believe that a woman will be promiscuous if she isn't circumcised. Although it's illegal in the UK there are a lot of backstreet places which do it, especially in London.

It's truly vile. A lot of women do try and protect their daughters from it, but ultimately, the husband usually has the say.

"The mutilation of children's genitals is sick and wrong and should be stopped and prosecuted if it happens."
Completely agree - that should be the bottom line really.

CagedBird, that is awful. I'm shocked and sickened by that - the physical act and then the symbolism of her husband un-sewing her

And pulled from your link:
"The circumcision rate is already estimated to be as low as 30% in the Western United States"

I am from california, as is DH. Almost all my family and friends are in the Western US. Our rates may be much lower than the national average due to our contrary natures willingness to break with tradition. DH is 7 years older than my oldest brother. It may well be that a slight switch in thinking took place in that time. Also, DH's mother delivered in a hospital w/OBGYN, my mother delivered in a hospital w/a midwife (special request in those days apparently).

tabouleh just wanted to add that circ of boys was the "norm" when my brothers were born (20+ years ago), not for religious or cultural reasons, but my parents chose not to. DH is "cut" because, according to his mother, they didn't want him to feel "weird" in front of his father/brothers/other men (how it sickens me to write that). My mom believes that if his junk ain't broke, don't try to fix it! Plus, my family was very poor, so it was considered an uneccesary expense.

From speaking to my mother and other women, circumsizing boys has been dropping off for a lot longer than they have been campaigning against it, but because there is a lag in normalising the um public uncut penis [penii?] (ie, mother decides not to do it, boy has approx 13 years before teen angst about such things set in. if he is the leading edge he will be unusual, but as more boys are left au natural, more boys will be left intact because it will become more normal and so numbers snowball)

I think the rates are dropping off now because in the 80's they were starting to find it wasn't actually cleaner (always the excuse I have heard), so women were choosing to "wait and see" and then the boys never ended up needing it. Those boys are now having their own babies and the idea seems ridiculous since it never harmed them to have a foreskin.

They routinely remove wisdom teeth in the US too. Many things that MIGHT eventually in some people be a problem get taken out as a matter of course... just in case.

I don't know anyone my age who is circumsizing their boys.

I think, AFIK, that FGM is seen as a diferent thing entirely since the understanding of it (that I have seen) is that women who are subjected to it cannot experience sexual arousal. Whether this is correct or not, I know people who consider FGM a MUCH biger deal, and not really analagous to male circ, because boys will have reduced sensitivity, but can still be perfectly randy little buggers so has a greater effect on girls. [note: I don't think they are RIGHT, I'm just saying I know this is how some people compare the two and the justification they use]

apologies for spelling mistakes but was tapping away furiously, words fail me for how much I hate this practice.

I think this is crazy and I'm usually all for "let people have their cultures" but this is a disgusting practice that is done for no other reason than a mysonginistic one.

I cannot believe the AAP would agree to this. They are seriously deluded if they think somebody who happily has their child mutilated in this manner, having gone through it themselves, knowing it would cause so much pain and unhappiness in their child's future life, would agree to this highly watered down procedure. The problem is it doesn't do what they want it to do.

The problem with comparing it to male circumcision is that it diminishes the effect of such an act. You might not like male circumcision but in no way (or at least very rarely) does it cause the same amount of pain or dysfunction. And the reasons for doing it are very very different. A woman I know who had it done said at 4 years old she was told she had to hve it done because it would make her a good girl for her future husband. I am sorry if this is a bit graphic but I feel it is important to make my point. She had her clitoris cut off. Part of the labia cut and she was sewn up (in order for her husband to unsew her on their wedding night). By the time she had got through telling me I was so traumatised and in tears that I dare not ask any questions but if you think about things such as menstruation and using the toilet it absolutely must be realised that FGM is much more abhorrent than male circumcision.

Can I just add that it is not just Somali's who practice FGM.

"Interesting to see that the Scandinavia countries are taking a lead on prosecuting FGM and screening for it within immigrant communities"
I didn't know that, how are they screening for it though. Have they implemented anything like this in the UK?

< CheerfulYank>

I'm ironic as it gets, math.

I agree that a straight up "this is illegal here, we don't do it and if you do you will be prosecuted and/or deported" would be the best policy.

Doctors are treated like demi gods in the US. They don't really answer to anyone or get struck off like they would in the UK. They don't have NICE guidelines. They have a lot of autonomy. ACOG and AAP are like unions, protecting the interest of their members rather than patients.

I don't think anyone in the US (apart apparently from the AAP and the parents of some girls ) would do anything but squirm in disgust at the idea of FGC. The male circumcision thing is very accepted, and is a completely different battle in the US. But the vast majority of Americans would be sickened at the thought of FGC. Somali immigrants might howl irony, but they'd get the flag waved in their faces. Americans don't really get irony, but they do not think FGC is a good thing.

"The American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists and
the College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Ontario, Canada, also opposed
FGC and advised their members
not to perform these procedures."

Why is it down to Drs to be advised? It should be made illegal.

So illegal that the pragmatic argument (better in sterile conditions than rusty bread knife) is blown out of the water: the law should be if you allow anyone at your baby with a blade, you will end up in jail. If you leave the country in order to have it carried out on a child who is a U.S citizen, you will end up in jail. If you are not a U.S citizen but leave the country to have this done to a child, you will be permanently excluded from the U.S.

However barring the token nicking version would doubtless look hypocritical to Americans with orgins in Somalia, or whatever, given the widespread enthusiasm for chopping boys' genitals.

What I find so strange is the idea that offering the 'nick' would prevent backstreet genital mutilation procedures. I think that a very high profile prosecution of such backstreet mutilation would have a much quicker effect.

Why does the AAP have little or no faith in the ability of the police and prosecutors to deal with this crime? YYY -- high profile prosecutions, having children taken away, and deportation would do the trick very fast.

It takes a lot of effort to immigrate legally into the US, and even the ignorant, backward people who would contemplate doing this to their daughters would think twice if there were going to be tough consequences that involved their immigration and legal parenthood status.

OK, misogyny allied with religion in the FGM case. Religion primarily with male circumcision.

Mind you it would be like pissing against the wind to have the whole tradition of male circumcision overturned, so would cloud the argument trying to argue both male and female circumcision together, especially when FGM is so hideously damaging.

Utterly chilled at Xenia's refereces to schoolgirls taking 20 minutes in the loo. Poor bloody kids

It should be prosecuted and in a high profile way. None of this shit about keeping in mind cultural differences.

No, not religion, misogyny. And fear. Mixed with poverty and ignorance. Women always come out worst from that perfect storm.

Who wants to write to the (apparent) author of the paper, [email protected]?

I agree that there should be absolutely no compromise on this kind of mutilation of children, both female and male.

If you are going to try and stamp down on FGM, you do in my view also need to stamp down on male circumcision as well. And the route of both of these evils is religion.

I don't see how a cremeonial nick would work at all. Either you remove the clitoris so she cannot have orgasms that way or at all and/or sew her up and cut off the bits around so no one else can get at her which is what it's all about in its various degrees or you don't. If you removed a token flap of skin that's not going to satisfy anyone. It would be like drawing a little bit of blood on the foreskin of a baby boy and not removing the skin and then saying there it's done.

"Actually, this is probably the only feminist issue where a 'what about the mens?' would be useful."
I agree. Shame it's more along the lines of "What about the babies" . When I was at uni an American friend was shocked that the Brtish guy she'd just slept with was uncircumsied. Shocked.

This is in total contrast to the work people are doing to combat FGM in countries with a high prevalence of it.

I have some friends in the Sudan who are involved in anti-FGM work. They tour the country with diagrams and posters explaining that there is nothing wrong with their bodies as they are and that this "cutting" is actually mutilation. No mention of any 'compromises' at all.

Full size here.

There's an author name listed under 'Staff' at the end of the article, with an e-mail address.

I can't understand how they can admit there's evidence that the Swedish approach (criminalisation plus threat of taking children away from parents) has resulted in the abandonment of the practice among Somali immigrants to Sweden, and state that FGC is illegal in the US, yet go on to suggest some sort of 'nick' (apart altogether from the 'do no harm' oath).

Mixed messages that end up with parents thinking their misguided culture is just fine and perhaps even legal are not the answer to this problem.

This is so wrong.

It should be criminalised and parents who have this done to their girls should be deported, but have their children taken from them first.

The US should be making it very clear in the course of the lengthy immigration process that this practice is not tolerated, and the immigration process should include a medical examination of the girls, with families excluded if they have done this to the girls.

If parents approach doctors and demand this procedure, the doctors should call child protective services, imo.