Thanks to Julie for drawing my attention to this piece by Jill Stanek. I must say I don’t understand why the American Association of Pediatrics would worry more about cultural sensitivity than, say, the health of girls. And not just physical health, either. For there is something deeply more troubling about female genital mutilation than “just” removing body parts; it’s the idea that girls and women are not supposed to experience sexual pleasure – that they are somehow dirty, or impure, if they do. It’s not just a “cultural practice”. It’s butchery, pure and simple – and if you don’t believe me, I challenge you to watch one (ditto with an abortion). So why would we put up with it, and try to minimize it instead of just saying “No way, we’re not going to tolerate that sort of butchery on American soil”? As Jill Stanek points out:
Traditionally, feminists have strongly opposed FGM, along with all of Western civilization.
But in this new age of cultural sensitivity, attempts are being made to bridge the divide, not necessarily end the barbaric practice of FGM.
For instance, there is a call to stop using the offensive term “mutilation” in favor of “female genital cutting” or “female circumcision,” both utterly inaccurate.
There is also the recent suggestion by the American Academy of Pediatrics to barter a compromise, recommending that pediatricians offer the gentler, kinder form of FGM, Type 4: pricking, piercing, or incising. In a new policy statement on April 26, AAP recommended:
“Some physicians … advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing. …[T]he ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC.”
I should note this recommendation is currently illegal in the U.S.
It’s also a pretty stupid idea.
by 
Jennifer Derwey says
May 12, 2010 at 7:51 pmThis post reminded me of an excerpt I read in a Reader’s Digest 10 years ago while waiting to get my transmission fixed on my beat up van. It was from a book called Desert Flower about Waris Dirie, a Somalian supermodel turned activist who went through FGM. I would suggest it as an introduction on FGM. It’s definitely an issue that needs more attention.
Christy says
May 13, 2010 at 9:42 amIt sounds like what they are suggesting would not take away the woman’s ability to feel pleasure in sexual contact. Rather that they hope to dramatically change it. I doubt that would be acceptable to the people who do it, but if it is, what’s wrong with that? Does it remain “butchery, pure and simple” because of its origins and background?
I agree that FGM is barbaric. I understand the different between FGM and male circumcision, but if they are offering a ritualistic prick instead, then what would be wrong with that? What would be the difference between it and someone getting their baby’s ears pierced?
Brigitte Pellerin says
May 13, 2010 at 2:49 pmThe difference is in the intent. Most people get their kids’ ears pierced for ornamental reasons. What’s the reason behind a “ritual prick” of the clitoris? I’m not a big defender of getting your kids’ ears pierced, by the way. Not until they’re old enough to want it themselves.
Jennifer Derwey says
May 13, 2010 at 6:02 pmTo be perfectly honest, I’m not sure any type of circumcision, male or female, is appropriate. Male circumcision is also unnecessary so long as proper hygiene is maintained.
There’s a good article on the topic here:
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/
Melissa says
May 13, 2010 at 7:52 pmYou guys are ignoring the religious angle here, and I think it’s an important angle to bring up.
Circumcision of Jewish males is a sign of their covenant with God, and goes back to the time of Abraham. What is the religious reasoning behind FGM, and were does it originate from? I really don’t know all that much about Islam. If it’s an initiation process into their faith, our ability to oppose it becomes much more tricky, as we certainly aren’t going to be banning male circumcisions, ever.
I don’t think we really want to mess around with parents’ ability to make faith-based decisions for their children. And so, I’m thinking that the ritual needle-pricking might be the best we can do.
Elizabeth says
May 14, 2010 at 4:42 pmThe issue seems more cultural than religious as many muslims live in places where this is illegal and they’re not all getting charged for the offense. Frankly we need to get over the idea that all ideas are equal just because someone considers it a cultural tradition. We live in a tolerant society largely because of the influence of Christianity. You’ll notice much of the rest of the world is filled with ethnocentric cultures that don’t value pluralistic ideas. Visit some of them and you’ll see. Faith-based decisions are fine – as long as they don’t do harm. FGM doesn’t fall into that category. It causes much harm. Tolerance is fine up to a point, but some line has to be drawn.