There are several different forms of FGM including clitoridectomy, excisions and infibulations. The first is the least invasive and the rarest and involves the removal of the clitoral hood. Excisions, the removing of the clitoris and labia minora, account for about eighty-five percent of circumcisions, according to a publication by the Wallace Global Fund (WGF). The most severe and health-damaging form of mutilation is infibulations, which are the excision and removal of the labia majora, and then the stitching together of the two sides. The result is a smooth seal with only a small opening to allow urination and menstruation. A report by the Commissioner for Human Rights found that in some cases, "the artificial opening is sometimes no larger than the head of a match," and this practice is so prevalent in areas like Somaliland that anthropologists call it "the land of sewn women." In some countries, Amnesty International cites that ninety-eight percent of women have undergone infibulation. The statistics in other countries are generally around fifty to ninety percent of women who have had any of the three forms of cutting. Pictured below is the aftermath of a ceremonial mutilation, which generally takes place in the bush or other non-clinical and unsanitary settings, and is usually done with no
anesthesia by a female elder. What is worse, the circumcision instruments are often unsterilized and may be anything from a knife, razor or scissors to broken glass.The risk of excessive bleeding, infection, shock, infertility and death during childbirth of both the mother and child, is increased dramatically, a serious problem pointed out by Edna Adan Ismail, a medical worker mentioned in my last post, who listed FGM as one of the six main causes of maternal mortality. She reported that ninety-seven percent of women at her prenatal clinic have some form of mutilation. This does not even take into account the psychological consequences incurred. For what purpose are females subjected to such harm? In many African cultures women who are uncircumcised are considered "unclean" and therefore "unmarriageable outcasts" says the report by WGF, which additionally explains that the mutilation is also believed to protect a woman from illnesses, assure fertility and safe childbirth, and is used as proof of virginity and prevention of rape. In reality, FGM accomplishes the opposite of the traditional beliefs. It makes women less clean by making hygiene difficult during urination or menstruation, as females often have infections or hematocolpos due to the build up of urine or menstrual blood when it is difficult for the fluids to pass through the small opening. Therefore the cutting does not protect them from illness, but rather subjects them to it. The procedure can also make a woman infertile, cause serious complications during childbirth, and does not necessarily prevent rape. Consequently, the only purpose it serves is to prove virginity, which shows the custom has no practical use but rather preserves tradition and women's subordination to men. Because of these damaging effects it has on females, FGM needs to be stopped.
Some African governments, such as Eritrea and part of Uganda have outlawed the genital cutting of girls, punishable with a fine and imprisonment. Kapchorwa, the district of Uganda that banned the act, has requested that the law be enacted nationwide. Obviously some progress has been made, but there are still over twenty countries that are yet to create similar legislation, and even if or when they do, I agree with UN agencies that say "traditions are often stronger than law and legal action by itself is not enough to tackle this." Others who have been taking action against the practice are nonprofits, NGOs and the few women who have survived the mutilation and are brave enough to speak up. These groups have succeeded in bringing the topic of FGM into the world conversation and have made its discussion less taboo, and may have some impact on lessening the practice
, but they themselves are not powerful enough to affect significant change in the culture and customs of the continent the way a local African leader or group could. The image to the right shows local women speaking out against female cutting, they are the genuine voices that should be heard in order to stop the practice. International organizations do not have the credibility or cultural insight necessary to gain the trust and following of these people who are often suspicious of the outsider's motives and ways. The report, Eradicating Female Genital Mutilation: Lessons for Donors, supports this idea by stating that, "projects are most effective when initiated and carried out by in-country activists whose occupation and high status give them credibility within communities." The best people for this position would be local leaders (both religious and traditional), African aid workers, teachers, nurses and other medical personnel. Some villages in West Africa have already started this process, by joining together to discuss and abolish FGM, according to BBC News. If this trend continues, we have a real chance of stopping this dangerous mutilation of women and girls. Governments can create laws and NGOs can attempt to convince people to change their ways, but it is my belief that when African governments enact legislation protecting women from genital cutting, combined with education and community outreach programs led by fellow Africans rather than outside organizations, areas that perform female mutilation will begin to alter their opinions and act against this harmful custom. It may take years or even decades to create significant change, but ultimately this approach is the most likely way we can succeed in protecting future generations of women from the pain and trauma of FGM.
