July 31, 2005

OUCH!!

All right, guess; what's this woman about to do?

noeffinway.jpg

Yet another reason I'm proud to be a Christian. How devasting this practice is for women. I'll spare you the gory details of female clitoris mutilation; go to the extended entry below if you're a brave soul.

I'll leave it with this:

It's there for a reason, no cutting please.

Swiped From Here

Female circumcision, or mutilation of the genitals, is one of the most political areas of women's health. Worldwide it is estimated that well over 100 million women have been subjected to it.

Supporters of the practice say it is done for cultural and religious reasons, but opponents say that not only is it potentially life-threatening - it is also an extreme form of oppression of women.

Those who persist in the practice in Senegal will now face a prison term of between one and five years.

Female circumcision is mainly carried out in western and southern Asia, the Middle East and large areas of Africa.

It is also known to take place among immigrant communities in the USA, Canada, France, Australia and Britain, where it is illegal.

In total it is estimated that two million a year are subjected to genital mutilation.

There are three main types of circumcision:

The removal of the tip of the clitoris; total removal of the clitoris and surrounding labia; the removal of the clitoris and labia and the sewing up of the vagina, leaving only a small opening for urine and menstrual blood - a process known as infibulation.

So drastic is the mutilation involved in the latter operation that young brides have to be cut open to allow penetration on their wedding night and are customarily sewn up afterwards.

The aim of the process is to ensure the woman is faithful to her future husband. Some communities consider girls ineligible for marriage if they have not been circumcised.

Girls as young as three undergo the process, but the age at which the operation is performed varies according to country and culture.

Health workers say that the operation is often carried out in unsanitary conditions.

Razor blades, scissors, kitchen knives and even pieces of glass are used, often on more than one girl, which increases the risk of infection.

Anaesthesia is rarely used.

Some girls die as a result of haemorraging, septicemia and shock.

It can also lead to long-term urinary and reproductive problems.

However, girls who have not been circumcised are considered "unclean" in many cultures, and can be treated as harlots by other women. Many men believe the folklore which says they will die if their penis touches a clitoris.

Campaigns are working
Female circumcision is part of the fabric of many African societies

Due to health campaigns, female circumcision has been falling in some countries in the last decade. In Kenya, a 1991 survey found that 78% of teenagers had been circumcised, compared to 100% of women over 50. In Sudan, the practice dropped by 10% between 1981 and 1990.

Several governments have introduced legislation to ensure the process is only carried out in hospitals by trained doctors.

Other countries such as Egypt have banned the operation altogether, but there is significant opposition to change because of the traditional nature of the process and health workers think a less confrontational approach, such as Ntanira Na Mugambo, could be more successful.

Ntanira Na Mugambo, also known as 'circumcision by words', has been developed in rural areas of Kenya by local and international women's health organisations.

It involves a week-long programme of community education about the negative effects of female genital mutilation, culminating in a coming of age ceremony for young women.

The young women are secluded for a week and undergo classes in reproduction, anatomy, hygiene, respect for adults, developing self-esteem and dealing with peer pressure.

Family members also undergo health education sessions and men in the community are taught about the negative effects of female circumcision.

Health workers believe the programme works because it does not exert a blunt prohibition on female genital mutilation, but offers an attractive alternative.

Posted by Stacy at July 31, 2005 03:09 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Hey Girlfriend,

Thanks for leaving a comment at my site today! God wouldn't have given us a clitoris if He didn't want us to have one!!!!! I can't begin to imagine the pain these women must experience. I'm glad I still have mine ;)

Posted by: Paula at July 31, 2005 03:38 PM

Me too (blushing).

Posted by: Stacy at July 31, 2005 03:43 PM

Ignorant Bastards. Use of my tax money to educate these people is fine with me, or even place a price upon the head of anyone doing this - even when it is done in a "hospital setting" Idiots.
One can almost draw a parallel between Muslims hearing only one thing all their lives and people like this who have only believed in this behavior all their lives.
Sex, being a woman, enjoying intimacy is somehow evil. Don't these people enjoy each other at all?
I'm sorry, this article made me sick.

Posted by: Paul of York at July 31, 2005 03:58 PM

I'm not even going to READ the article...the picture says enough for me.

Posted by: Tammy at July 31, 2005 04:00 PM

I have never understood societies that do stuff like that. Female genital mutilation really has only one purpose, and that is to remove sexual satisfaction and pleasure from the woman. If I was a male in such a society, why would I want my wife to experience less pleasure? Why would I want to have sex with someone who wasn't also enjoying herself? Seems more like masturbation than sexual intercourse...

Posted by: Ken at July 31, 2005 04:27 PM

And the liberals would defend this as part of another "culture". This is about as uncivilized as you can get. Can you say barbaric? I knew you could!

Posted by: BobG at July 31, 2005 05:57 PM

Hey Bob, we all know I can say alot more than that!

Excellent point Ken.

Yep Paul, I agree.

(Tammy shaking her head saying "I can't believe I helped her with this blog, oh dear.")

Posted by: Stacy at July 31, 2005 06:08 PM

OK, this reminded me of this story about Hillary Clinton defending some woman from Africa who claimed to have been a victim of FGC (female genital circumcision), who later turned out to be a complete fraud. Can't find it via Google (yet), but I did run across this page about the practice. And it tells of Hillary's speech to the 1995 World Conference on Women in which she condemned the practice.

Posted by: Jeff H at July 31, 2005 07:33 PM

Uh, forgot to edit out the part about not being able to find that article via Google, since I obviously did and put a link to it.

Sheesh. Old age is hell.

Posted by: Jeff H at July 31, 2005 07:33 PM

Nah, y'all is just -taired- from all dat singin. Sorry, you're hymn reminded me of my childhood living occasionally in the South.

Posted by: Stacy at July 31, 2005 07:59 PM

It's hard to sit across the table from people like this and reason with them. But that is exactly what our diplomats do every day. Can you imagine talking about the finer points of foreign policy or human rights with people from these cultures.

Even if these countries were "liberated", I think it would take generations for some of these practices to halt. Maybe these women need to be told about Loreena Bobbitt.

Posted by: MerryMadMonk at August 1, 2005 10:17 PM

MerryMadMonk...you hit the name on the head...this practice has been taken with them to new homes in European countries.

Posted by: Maggie at August 6, 2005 07:57 AM