Atrocities Against Women: Female Genital Mutilation

By Marcia L. Mason

Sunna Circumcision: removal of the prepuce and/or tip of the clitoris.

Excision or Clitoridectomy: excision of the entire clitoris with the labia minora and some or most of the external genitalia.

Excision and Infibulation (Pharaonic Circumcision): This means excision of the entire clitoris, labia minora and parts of the labia majora. The two sides of the vulva are then fastened together in some way either by thorns . . . or sewing with catgut. Alternatively the vulva are scraped raw and the child's limbs are tied together for several weeks until the wound heals (or she dies). The purpose is to close the vaginal orifice. Only a small opening is left (usually by inserting a slither of wood) so the urine, and later the menstrual blood, can be passed.

Mary Daly (Gyn/Ecology, 1978) writes that this is just the beginning of the many repeated torturous "cuts" to the opening-either by the husband or by another woman, to permit intercourse and childbirth-which are then resewn. This occurs throughout the woman's "living death of reproductive 'life.'" Immediate medical results of excision and infibulation include "hemorrhage, infections, shock, retention of urine, damage to adjacent tissues, dermoid cysts, abscesses, keloid scarring, infertility caused by chronic pelvic infections, and psychological maiming."

The origins of FGM

Only a few years ago, FGM was considered a cultural tradition. Now the United Nations has labeled FGM a violation of human rights. Canada has declared FGM grounds for seeking asylum. The Dutch government states in no uncertain terms that the genital mutilation of girls is a punishable offense in the Netherlands and will not be tolerated. And the U.S. Immigration Service, because of the bravery of Fauziya Kasinga (see below), could be considering FGM a type of harm, even persecution, that could qualify someone for protection under the Refugee Act.

The key to the problem

What drives women to continue FGM? Fear! In a society where a woman has no economic rights-cannot own property, is not allowed to work for herself, has little access to education-marriage is all-important. And when the controlling gender insists FGM is an essential requirement for marriage in all African societies where it is practiced, the only recourse is to submit or escape.

One escapee's story

Fauziya Kasinga was protected and educated under the safe wing of a progressive father who did not believe in polygamy, forced marriage, or "female circumcision," thereby flaunting the conventions of his tribe in Togo.

But Fauziya's father died when she was only 17, and then everything changed. Under tribal rules, her father's sister inherited the home, banished her mother, ended Fauziya's schooling, and betrothed her to be the fourth wife of a 45-year-old man she had never met. She was also scheduled for ritual mutilation, to have her genitals cut off by scissors or razor blade, without anesthetic, then to be sewn together and to lie, legs bound, for 40 days. She would emerge a "bride."

Fortunately, she escaped before the circumciser arrived. An older sister courageously drove Fauziya to an airport in Ghana and handed her $3000-all the money her mother had inherited. Now entirely on her own and on the run, the 17-year-old girl flew to Germany and then to America, where she had an aunt and uncle in Virginia and a belief in a country that, surely, would grant her refuge.

But she was not greeted like a heroine. Instead, like a criminal, the terrified African teenager was detained, shackled, sent to prison, and subjected to eight months of indignities (including regular strip searches) in a maximum security prison while she awaited a "hearing."

At the "hearing," a lower level immigration judge pronounced her story "unbelievable," claimed "this alien is not credible," and declared that she did not have "a well-founded fear of persecution." Fauziya was returned to prison to await action on an appeal.

Further evidence of the complicity of males in the control of women!

Medicalization of FGM

The New Woman Research Center in Egypt says the decision to codify FGM instead of criminalizing it had nothing to do with religion or morality, but is instead "a decision to codify the control of women, and codify violence against them, in addition to codifying their inferior status in society" (The Women's Watch, June 1995).

Physicians perform the mutilations mainly on the daughters of wealthy African and Middle Eastern men who get a higher bride-price for a girl who is properly mutilated-if the mutilation is botched and the girl dies, the father gets nothing. It is all an economic deal, says Hosken, between the physician and the father-both supporting patriarchy and male control. In spite of the law, the vast majority of girls are mutilated by women who are the traditional practitioners of this trade. Cultural tradition-regularly used to perpetuate tortures of women and keep them subservient to men-is an all-too-common justification.

Racism also enters the picture: for example, the proposal to medicalize the mutilation of Bedouin girls when Israeli girls absolutely reject all forms of FGM. The Bedouin women, as well as women of all other African or Middle Eastern societies, reject all forms of FGM once they receive an education, are active participants in modern settings, and learn about reproduction.

What will it take to stop FGM?

Although FGM has been classified as a human rights violation by the U.N. Office of Human Rights in Geneva and at the 1993 U.N. Human Rights Conference in Vienna, and medicalization of FGM is a criminal offense and against the statutes of most national and international medical associations in much of the world, the means to globally carry out a ban on FGM in any form is lacking.

In spite of the historic 1948 document the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which set the standards for the achievement of human rights and which has had a powerful influence on the development of contemporary international law; in spite of the U.N.'s 1952 Convention on the Political Rights of Women; in spite of the U.N.'s 1962 Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages; in spite of the U.N.'s 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (see Dianne Tangel-Cate's article on page 5 and David Gallup's article on page 7); and in spite of the U.N.'s 1967 Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, women and girl children are the victims of continuing and flagrant violations of their human rights. The incomprehensible part of all this is that most of the the countries that allow FGM have ratified these conventions.

As is continually pointed out, the U.N. has no enforcement powers nor will the nation-states willingly "give up" male control of women and children. Only with a World Court of Law will there be protection for the oppressed of the world.

Note: Much of this information was taken from: Women's International Network News, Vol. 22, No. 2, Spring 1996, pp. 44-49. C1996 Fran Hosken, Editor, 187 Grant St., Lexington, MA 02173, USA. Tele. and Fax (617) 862-9431. For more information about teaching prevention of FGM, see The Childbirth Picture Book.

Marcia L. Mason is a feminist, Quaker, peace activist, world citizen, and World Syntegrity Project alumna who lives in Burlington, Vermont, U.S.A.