Two Perspectives on Female Circumcision

The World Health Organization reports that more than 200 million girls and women currently have been subjected to female genital mutilation/cutting worldwide, and three million girls continue to be at risk each year. Vicenzo Puppo, an Italian sexologist, argues in the journal Clinical Anatomy that this “is a violation of human rights and must be abandoned”. In his article, he outlines various strategies to change what he describes as a cultural rather than religious ritual, especially the creation of alternative rites of passage for young women.

Coincidentally, Australian bioethicists argue in the leading journal Bioethics that Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery for adolescents should be permitted if they insist upon it. Merle Spriggs and Lynn Gillam discuss labioplasties for girls with body dysmorphic disorder. Patients with this condition can be so distressed by the appearance of their genitals that 21% to 44% are said to commit suicide.

So while the minor operation may not be physically necessary, “‘medical necessity’ should be interpreted broadly, and should include reduction of psychological distress just as much as restoring physical function”. From an ethical point of view, they say, this is not a controversial principle. A number of other common procedures do not restore health, but apparently reduce anxiety: C-sections, contraception, sterilization, laser surgery for short-sightedness, puberty- suppression treatment for an adolescent with Gender dysphoria. A similar argument is made for justifying abortion.

One strong objection to permitting adolescents with BDD to have genital cosmetic surgery is that they will subsequently move the focus of their distress to some other aspect of their appearance. But given that the surgery is minor, “The possibility that a condition may reappear after surgery, is not in itself a good reason not to do the surgery in the first place.”

Spriggs and Gillam note that this is a “counterintuitive” conclusion and one which made them feel uneasy initially. However, “this outcome shows the power of ethical reasoning. If pursued thoroughly, using the available evidence and working from first principles, it is similar to the scientific method, in that it leads to a logical conclusion, regardless of what one might have expected at the outset.”

Read more here.

Related reading:  Female Circumcision; Female Circumcision in Cultural Context; Circumcision and Binary Distinctions; Female Circumcision or Female Genital Mutilation?; Circumcision Debated; The Origins of Circumcision; Circumcision Among Abraham's Horite Caste

Female Circumcision

Michael Cook

It's hard to think of a more reviled practice than female genital mutilation. It is a crime in many countries - and the United Nations human rights committee has just passed a resolution calling upon the General Assembly to condemn it. This could take place as early as this month.

A spokesman for Amnesty International summed up the outrage: "FGM is an indictment of us all that a girl or young woman can be held down and mutilated is a violation of her human rights and, shockingly, an estimated 3 million girls are at risk each year."

However, believe it or not, there are another side to this story. Here is a health adviser to the vice-president of Sierra Leone, Fuambai S. Ahmadu, speaking to an anthropology conference in San Francisco last month: "How can Western public health officials, global health institutions and feminist organizations maintain a straight face in condemning African female genital surgeries as FGM and yet turn a blind eye, even issue guidelines for the performance of very similar and sometimes more invasive female genital surgeries on Western women under the guise of cosmetic surgery?"

Dr Ahmadu's perspective is not a popular one, to say the least. But a group of which she is a member, The Public Policy Advisory Network on Female Genital Surgeries in Africa, has issued a vigorous rebuttal of allegations of sexism, oppressive patriarchy, torture and mutilation which dominate in the Western media. It has been published in the current issue of a leading bioethics journal, the Hastings Center Report.

The authors' aim is to "move the coverage of the topic from an over-heated, ideologically charged, and one-sided story about 'mutilation,' morbidity, and patriarchal oppression to a real, evidence-based policy debate governed by the standards of critical reason and fact checking."

The claims and counter-claims are too long to list. But the authors - about 15 of them, mostly from Western countries - make the following points about female genital mutilation (or "female genital surgery", as they call it):

Medical research has found that a high percentage of women who have had genital surgery have rich sexual lives.

Medical complications are uncommon.

Those who value female genital surgery view it as aesthetic enhancement, not mutilation.

In almost all societies where female genital surgery is performed, male genital surgery also takes place. Women are not singled out.

The link between patriarchy and female genital surgery is unfounded. The practice is not customary in the world's most sexually restrictive societies.

Women manage and control female genital surgery in Africa and groups that fight against female genital surgery weaken the power of women.

Criticism of an influential 2006 WHO study in The Lancet about "deadly consequences" has been ignored. The evidence does not support sensational media claims.

Provocatively, the authors argue that women and girls who have undergone genital mutilation should not be stigmatized or taught to expect sexual dysfunction. This might cause "psychological mutilation", potentially compromising the development of a normal and healthy psychosexual life.

Female genital mutilation is too hot a potato to take sides. But as Nawal M. Nour, an obstetrician-gynecologist at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, writes in a sympathetic response to the advisory group's observations, "Speaking as both an African woman and an obstetrician-gynecologist, I hope that this practice ends during my lifetime. However, the impetus to abandon female genital cutting must come from within each community; a ban on it cannot be imposed by outsiders".

From here.

Related reading: Female Circumcision in Cultural Context; Circumcision and Binary Distinctions; Female Circumcision or Female Genital Mutilation?; Circumcision Debated; The Origins of Circumcision; Circumcision Among Abraham's Horite Caste

Dutch Doctors No Longer Perform Circumcision

Dutch doctors should discourage the circumcision of boys, even from Jewish and Muslim families, says the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG), because children cannot give informed consent.

In a recent position paper, the KNMG takes a strong ethical stand. It says that "minors may only be exposed to medical treatments if illness or abnormalities are present, or if it can be convincingly demonstrated that the medical intervention is in the interest of the child, as in the case of vaccinations. Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity."

The KNMG says that there is even a good case for outlawing circumcision, but that a ban would drive the practice underground and might do more harm than good. About 15,000 boys are circumcised in the Netherlands every year.

According to a KNMG medical ethicist, Gert van Dijk, 'We feel circumcision is a medically unnecessary form of surgery. The patient has to give consent, but children can't give consent and we feel that is wrong and a violation of the child's rights. In our code of medical ethics, it states that you must not do harm to the patient, but with this procedure this is exactly what you're doing."

Most Muslims and Jews oppose the KNMG's stand. "The motivation is plain Islamophobia. It's not a discussion about medical ethics, it's to make a lot of bad propaganda against Muslims and about our way of life and our religion," says Ibrahim Wijbenga, a Muslim member of the Christian Democratic Appeal in the city of Eindhoven, told the BBC. "Basically, it's an effort to stop Muslims from entering Holland."

And a senior Jewish leader, Rabbi Jacobs, said, "It's written in the Torah, in the Bible, that we should circumcise the child when the child is 8 days old. What God tells us to do, we must do." ~ BBC, Nov 3
 

San Francisco Proposed Bann on Circumcision

Here's a piece of proposed legislation that will meet with resistance and if it become effective will certainly be contested in the courts.  Lloyd Schofield, a resident of San Francisco, that bastion of politically-correct non-thinkers, wants to ban circumcision for males under age 18.  Religion be damned!  Health considerations? Humph!


Here's the report from BioEdge:

"Males need protection as females do," said Lloyd Schofield, the main sponsor for a local ballot measure in San Francisco that - if passed by voters in November - will effectively ban circumcision of males under the age of 18 in the city. A federal law and a number of state equivalents ban circumcision of girls, even for religious reasons. "Intactivists" like Mr Schofield ask, why not boys?


Circumcision arrived in America mainly as a Victorian British fad - which originally purported to aim at discouraging masturbation and nocturnal emissions. It spread during the 20th century, becoming almost universal by the 1960s. It has declined over recent decades, however, to about half of baby boys in 2008. The procedure's medical benefits are disputed - but evidence suggests that male HIV infection rates can be reduced by circumcision. Intactivists, however, counter that this does not justify what they label the amputation of a body part from infants who might never be at risk of HIV infection.


If the measure passes, circumcision would be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in prison. There would be no religious exceptions. "Parents are really guardians, and guardians have to do what's in the best interest of the child. It's his body. It's his choice," Mr Schofield said. He argues that circumcision is a more invasive medical procedure than many new parents or childless individuals realise.

Many Jews in San Francisco are outraged at what they regard as an attack on religious freedom. Rabbi Gil Yosef Leeds, of Berkeley, a "mohel" who performs ritual circumcisions, says, "For a city that's renowned for being progressive and open-minded, to even have to consider such an intolerant proposition ... it sets a dangerous precedent for all cities and states."


Mr Schofield is glad that many Jews signed his petition. Some have begun carrying out an alternative ceremony known as "brit shalom" - the "covenant of peace" - which does not involve cutting.
 
See also Economist, May 19; Working to Outlaw Infant Circumcision

Circumcision Wars in Australia

Circumcision wars have broken out in Sydney, with a leading professional body endorsing a policy which discourages it and a group of doctors disputing this in the Medical Journal of Australia. Routine infant circumcision in Australia has been discouraged for years and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians wants it to stay that way.

However, a group of Sydney specialists has described the practice as "sound health policy" which could reduce the chance of transmitting HIV later in life. Sydney physician Alex Wodak argues encouraging parents to have their baby boys circumcised is "common sense", given that the proportion of new HIV cases in Australia associated with heterosexual sex was increasing. “We should be trying nationally to get back to where we were in the 1950s and 60s where the majority of infant males were circumcised," he said.

However, Dr Gervase Chaney, of the College, feels that experience in other countries is not relevant. “We don't agree with it. We believe that the evidence currently would not support that in Australia, that it might be supported in other countries particularly obviously in Africa where there are much higher rates of HIV transmitted heterosexually but that at this stage that that is not something that we would support.” ~ ABC, Sept 20; Courier-Mail, Sept 20

To read more on circumcision, go here:
http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2010/08/circumcision-highlights-global.html
http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/03/female-circumcision-in-context.html
http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2010/05/female-circumcision-or-genital.html

Circumcision Highlights Global Differences

A clear North/South divide is emerging in attitudes towards male circumcision. In May the Dutch Royal Medical Association became the first national medical group to declare that the procedure is both medically unnecessary and an abuse of the rights of the child, in the same way as female circumcision, or female genital mutilation.

However, the Dutch have decided to actively discourage circumcision rather than to ban it, as that could drive the procedure underground. About 15,000 boys are circumcised each year.

On the other hand African countries are actively encouraging circumcision because trials in 2007 in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa showed that it dramatically reduced the risk of infection with HIV/AIDS. According to a report in the BMJ, 14 countries in southern Africa are promoting circumcision with radio and television campaigns.

In Swaziland, where HIV prevalence is 45%. circumcision is even regarded as "crucial to the survival of the state". Botswana plans to circumcise all boys by 2012. Even Rwanda, where HIV prevalence is only 3%, is promoting it as a cost-saving public health measure.

However, the Dutch doctors are sceptical of the African data. They believe that while it might delay infection, it will not prevent it. They also say that there are some complications which cannot be ethically justified for a "medically futile" procedure.

In the UK, Australia and the US, the trend is away from circumcision. The Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, for instance, describes circumcision as "inappropriate and unnecessary" but allowable in children over 6 months old when parents "hold a very strong opinion." ~ BMJ, Aug 17

Female Circumcision or Genital Mutiliation?

Female genital mutilation is illegal in Sweden, Norway, Australia, and the United Kingdom. In the US “any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl is illegal. However, the American Academy of Pediatrics softened its opposition to FGM because it fears that it could actually worsen the situation. Because American doctors refuse, parents often take girls back to their home countries where FGM is done in unhygienic and unsafe conditions. In a revised policy statement, the AAP’s bioethics committee suggests a compromise:

“It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.”

Dr. Friedman Ross told the New York Times that the AAP opposes “all types of female genital cutting that impose risks or physical or psychological harm,” and consider the ritual nick “a last resort,” but that the nick is “supposed to be as benign as getting a girl’s ears pierced. It’s taking a pin and creating a drop of blood.”

However, critics of FGM were adamant that even this concession was completely immoral. In the UK, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health issued their own statement:

"To suggest that a qualified medical practitioner is involved in this practice as a ‘compromise’ does not make it less brutal and has the danger of giving legitimacy to FGM. Two wrongs do not make a right. The main objective for all civilised societies has to be the complete eradication of an unacceptable practice."

From here.

 
Originally, circumcisions were done with obsidian knives of a high salt content which inhibited infection.  The introduction of steel, while seeming a modern advance to Africans, actually increases the risk of infection. To understand female circumcision in cultural context read this.

Imam Tantawi Dies

CAIRO, March 10: Top cleric Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi died on Wednesday in Saudi Arabia of a heart attack suffered while boarding a plane, state media said.

Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar — one of Islam’s highest seats of learning — had been in Riyadh to attend the King Faisal awards ceremony, Egypt’s official MENA news agency said.

Tantawi, 81, was boarding an early morning flight when he suffered severe pain and fell on the stairs, Egyptian television said. He was rushed to the Amir Sultan hospital in Riyadh where doctors pronounced him dead. An Egyptian official said that Tantawi had died of a heart attack.

The news of his death was “an indescribable shock”, his son Amr Tantawi told the channel. “The family has decided that since God chose for him to die on Saudi land, he will be buried in Al-Baqie” graveyard in Medina, he added. Tantawi was appointed head of Al-Azhar, the 10th-century university that has trained clerics from Africa and Asia, by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 1996.

“The Islamic and Arabic world has lost a scholar and a jurisprudent” who was “dedicated to his work and to everything that served the good of Islam and Muslims”, Al-Azhar said in a statement.

Tantawi’s rulings on a wide range of topics, such as the veil, abortion, suicide attacks, women prayer leaders and female circumcision, often caused a stir in the Islamic world and beyond.

“Many did not appreciate the fact that Tantawi was involved in the country’s political affairs. But he was brave,” said Mohammed Al-Hizbi, 32, an Indonesian student at Al-Azhar.—AFP

______________

Editor's Note:

The Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh Abd al-Aziz bin Abdullah al-Shaykh, believed that Islam forbids suicide attacks. He also stated that he supports the Egyptian health ministry's ban on female circumcision despite a court decision to allow the practice. He said, "I support the health ministry's decision to ban circumcision because it is a medical and not a religious matter," in an interview published in the weekly Al Musawer on July 24, 1997.

"I still believe that concerning circumcision there are specialized doctors who should do the cutting. If they say excision is unnecessary, we should listen to them," he added.

Circumcision: Religious Custom or Mutiliation?

Nicole Humphrey, R.N.


Do most Americans fear the unknown when speaking or debating about female circumcision? Do American women perceive female circumcision as a right of passage, a human rights violation or in a feminist view? This paper will use research to eliminate the fear and educate the unknown.

Female circumcision has been practiced for many centuries and in multiple cultures around the world. Circumcision started as a ritual in a small number of tribes in north east Africa. Some experts estimate female circumcision has been conducted for over 4,000 years in various parts of the world. Female circumcision is a tradition practiced today in rural areas of Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, Somalia, Chad, Nigeria, Niger, Northern Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kurdistan, Indonesia, Southern Jordan and Northern Iraq.

Circumcision is discussed often in the Bible, it is mentioned over 16 times. In Genesis, God commanded to Abraham that “every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you” God revealed what circumcision represented. "But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me, and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt- then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember; I will remember the land" (Leviticus 26:40-42). When God told Israel, "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer" (Deuteronomy 10:16), it meant that they were remove their stubborn sinful thoughts from their minds. In other words, they were to purge sin from their lives and become obedient to the laws of God. "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live" (Deuteronomy 30:6). Circumcision, in the biblical context, is a covenant between man and God. A person who is circumcised is one who knows God and has separated themselves for God.

The World Health Organization categorizes female circumcision into four categories (Type I, Type II, Type III, and Type IV). The Types performed vary from culture to culture. Type I Sunna circumcision, is the least severe type, the procedure is where the clitoris is nicked. Type II, would be the circumcision part where the clitoral prepuce is removed. Type III, Clitoridectomy Circumcision, would be the most common, which is where part or the entire clitoris is removed. Type IV would be the most severe which is called Infibulation or Pharaonic circumcision.

As stated in Just Genesis by Alice Linsley: “In Pharaonic circumcision, the clitoris and labia minora are removed. Then the labia majora is sewn closed, leaving a small opening at the vulva for the release of urine and menstrual blood. Among the Sudanese this practice of female circumcision parallels the circumcision of males and emphasizes the binary distinction between females and males.” (Circumcision and Binary Distinctions) Female circumcision is often performed by a traditional practitioners, midwife, an elder trained for this task, traditional healer, and lay persons. It is estimated over 100 million to 140 million females world wide have undergone female circumcision.

In America female circumcision is viewed by many as mutilation and a violation of human rights. It is commonly referred to as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). In the United States, 16 states have instituted criminal sanctions against the practice of female circumcision. According to www.womenshealth.gov “The following states instituted sanctions: California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin. A federal law criminalizing the practice was passed in 1996 and became effective in April 1997. The law states the practice of Female circumcision on a girl under the age of 18 is a federal crime, unless the procedure is necessary to protect the health of a young girl or for medical purposes connected with labor or birth. The penalty for violating this law is a fine or imprisonment for up to five years, or both. This law specifically exempts cultural beliefs or practices as a defense for conducting female circumcision.”

In America, female circumcision is a controversial, ethical questionable topic discussed frequently among women’s groups. Many governments and organizations view female circumcision as a violation of human rights of women. These organizations efforts are focused on eliminating female circumcision through advocacy, research, education, legislature, and training programs.

The following are some statistics from UNICEF depicting female circumcision prevalence among women aged 15 – 49. Egypt 97 percent, Mali 92 percent, Sudan (north) 90 percent, Ethiopia 80 percent, and Mauritania 71 percent, the countries with a rate of 80 percent or higher display very little or insignificant variation by socio-demographic variables, including geographic location or background characteristics. In Guinea, Egypt, Mali, North Sudan and Eritrea on average 80 percent or more women have undergone female circumcision and a range of 45 percent to 75 percent of women living in the above countries have at least one daughter who has undergone female circumcision. In Mali, Nigeria and Benin husbands have the final say on his wife’s health care options. In Eritrea the wife has the final say on her own health care options.

Female circumcision is a ritual which has been practiced for thousands of years. It is a rooted custom, deeply entrenched in multiple ethnic groups. Governments and organizations have attempted to legislate and restrict female circumcision where female circumcision is performed. They are often met with resistance. There are multiple reasons societies practice female circumcision. Religion is one reason, a ritualistic right of passage, hygiene, cleanliness, preserving a girl’s virginity and to protect her from becoming “promiscuous”.

In some African cultures female circumcision is completed to prepare young girls between the ages of five and ten years old for womanhood and marriage. The BBC reported, “The shedding of blood is seen symbolically as a stream connecting the woman to the rest of her close-knit community. In a small community oneness is very important.” (Ethics – Female circumcision # section 6) It has social significance. Circumcised women are regarded with higher standards than uncircumcised women who are regarded as impure and not an appropriate choice for a wife. In some areas even circumcised women are prejudiced against women who had not undergone female circumcision.

Many cultures practicing female circumcision hold high regard for virginity and purity. These cultures believe women who protect there purity will become a role model for the entire tribe. Some cultures believe if an uncircumcised clitoris touches a man’s penis it could be fatal and is at the very least dangerous for the man. Various cultures perform the ritual because it has been a custom for years or an “old” tradition. According to an article in the New York Time, “Voices Rise in Egypt to Shield Girls From an Old Tradition:”

A young female died after her clitoris was removed causing outrage. Outrage not because the young female died but because the government shut down the clinic. Many women and men of the country support female circumcision. A few supporters stated: “They will not stop us,” shouted Saad Yehia, a tea shop owner along the main street. “We support circumcision!” he shouted over and over.

“Even if the state doesn’t like it, we will circumcise the girls,” shouted Fahmy Ezzeddin Shaweesh, an elder in the village.

Female circumcision is the counterpart of male circumcision in the African cultural context, which is the original context of circumcision. Among the Afro-Asiatic peoples (who gave us the Bible) circumcision of the flesh is an outward sign of the purified heart or the life surrendered to God. This is why the Apostle Paul never insisted that Gentile converts be circumcised. He speaks instead about the greater importance of circumcised hearts. He is referring to the heart that is obedient to God. (Rom. 2:25-29; 1 Corinthians 7:19) In this context the woman who is most likely to be chosen to be a wife is one who is circumcised. African men want brides who have undergone circumcision as an act of surrender to the order of God's creation, an order in which males and females supplement each other by virtue of their differences. To draw a parallel to the way things were in our own country a century ago, young women were chosen as brides if they were known to be good and one sign of goodness was that she went to church and had been baptized.

It is strange that some are outraged by female circumcision, calling it mutilation, but many of these same people have their baby boys circumcised.

Female circumcision is still widely preformed in Egypt even though it was banned. The ritual is deeply rooted in Egypt and will take more than a few laws established by the government to change this cultural tradition. The laws may have an adverse reaction causing female circumcision clinics to go underground.
Every spring in Bandung, Indonesia a free female circumcision clinic is held. Girls are taken by their mother to be handed over to a group of women who perform Type II circumcision. After the procedure is finished the girls are taken to a recovery area and given a celebratory present signifying their initiation into womanhood. According to a 2003 study by the Population Council, an international research group, 96 percent of families surveyed in Indonesia reported their daughters had undergone some form of circumcision by the time they reached age 14.

Although several countries still practice female circumcision it is a highly debated ethical questionable topic. There is disagreement between viewing female circumcision as cultural relativism or an issue of human rights. The human rights position has gained ground over the last several years, increasingly international organizations and governments are attempting to set laws to ban female circumcision. The cultural relativism position is never far from the surface and religious and cultural groups are defending why a ban should not be enforced. Support for the continuation of the practice is not universal and tends to vary within and between countries. Female circumcision is difficult to understand in our culture. It is a practice that we should not judge based on our own sense of morals and ethics. We should not judge cultures who continue to practice female circumcision until we have researched all dimensions. This includes health affects and viewing it within the proper cultural and religious context. It is important to do this research prior to forming an opinion and certainly before classifying circumcision as mutilation.


Related reading:  Female Circumcision in Kenya

UN Guilty of Cultural Genocide?

Alice C. Linsley

Is the United Nations guilty of cultural genocide in Africa? It certainly appears to be the case.

The U.N. has targeted two African religious customs with a view to eradicating them. One wonders what motivates this effort: racism or antagonism to traditional religions?

Consider the case of female circumcision, called Female Genital Mutilation by the U.N.

Female circumcision is wide spread practice in Africa and deeply rooted in the African religious worldview. Contrary to U.N. and Feminist propaganda, it doesn’t lessen sexual arousal or pleasure, and it is no more dangerous than male circumcision is to the male. In fact, the 2 types of circumcision are comparable, yet the U.N. has not taken on male circumcision with an eye to eradicating it.

To read about female circumcision in context, go here.

Consider also the practice of indentured girls at local shrines. The U.N. refers to this as the "trokosi system" and fails to look at this custom in its proper historical and cultural context. The U.N. literature stresses only the negative aspects of the practice, stressing the need to liberate the shrine girls. However, those involved with the shrines have repeatedly denied the UN’s claims of wrong doing on the part of the shrine priests and have pledged to preserve the ancient custom.

To read about indentured shrine girls in context, go here.

So what motivates the United Nations attack on traditional religions in Africa?

A U.N. spokesman would likely respond that the motivation is human rights and the liberation of abused and oppressed African women. The U.N is always able to find witnesses to support its agenda. But the majority of African women and their families would probably prefer that the U.N. direct its efforts to the eradication of polio and malaria rather than to the eradication of traditional African religion.

Female Circumcision in Context

There is a great deal of heated debate and rhetoric about what the United Nations and Feminist groups call "female genital mutilation". While we may agree as to the danger of infection following the ritual, the custom is nearly impossible to eradicate because it is deeply rooted in religious sentiment and is intregal to the Afro-Asiatic worldview.

Here is an essay exploring how this is so.