« A Psychopath Unplugged | Home | People don’t remember you as well when you’re not happy, so put on a happy face (video and lyrics, too) »
“So they mutilated your genitals, why are you still afraid?” says US Government
By swivelchair | March 20, 2008
If someone mutilates your genitals, would you be afraid of future persecution from them? You shouldn’t be, according to the U.S. government, as detailed in recent Congressional Research Service report.
Diagram 1:This image shows the different types of FGC and how they differ to the normal female anatomy. (Via Wikipedia, Wikimedia commons, creator: Kaylima)
According to the World Health Organization:
Female genital mutilation comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. Between 100 and 140 million girls and women in the world are estimated to have undergone such procedures, and 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation every year. Female genital mutilation has been documented in 28 countries in Africa and in several countries in Asia and the Middle East. Some forms of the practice have also been reported from other countries, including among certain ethnic groups in Central and South America. There is also evidence of increasing numbers of girls and women living outside their place of origin, including in North America and western Europe, who have undergone or may be at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation.
In the judicial branch, federal courts treat past genital mutilation as a well-founded fear of future persecution. But, in the executive branch, the Board of Immigration Appeals rejects this position, arguing that FGM is a one-time procedure, and that once inflicted, an applicant will not be persecuted with FGM again, and thus cannot act as a basis for an asylum application.
Make no mistake, there is a continuing harm to the women and girls. Women with FGM are significantly more likely than those without FGM to have adverse obstetric outcomes. Risks seem to be greater with more extensive FGM.
(2006). Female genital mutilation and obstetric outcome: WHO collaborative prospective study in six African countries. The Lancet, 367(9525), 1835-1841. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68805-3
In trying to understand this, about the only thing I can come up with is circumcision: male babies are routinely circumcised. Although at some point in the future, we may be horrified by this, as of now it seems to be pretty standard, and, of course, males have no fear of future persecution. Female genital mutilation, of course, is a perversion of all of that, and although it can only happen once, it is enough to instill fear into anyone. It is considered by the WHO to be a human rights violation.
HT: Docuticker (again).
Update: Here’s a link from Boingboing talking about anti FGM campaigns — the reader comments are particularly interesting.
Sphere: Related ContentTopics: Authoritarianism, Axis of fear, Brain anatomy, Conditions or Diagnosis, Neuropolitics |
March 20th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
as if the victims of this can’t have female offspring they wish to protect..
March 20th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Yes, protecting the children is an additional human rights issue.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am
not that i’m for this in any way but how is this any different than male circumcision? they’re both brutal and unnecessary.
April 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Yes, both forms of circumcision are brutal and unnecessary, but, at least, male circumcision still allows the male to enjoy sex: female circumcision takes away the possibility of a female enjoying sex: forever! I think that is just a little worse than a temporary removal of a bit of skin.
April 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 am
So the U.S. Government preformed a black op extraordinary rendition based on circumstantial evidence, while in their custody in a “detainment friendly country” they tortured, and raped you, after five or six years they let you go, why are you still afraid?
May 8th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Thanks everyone for the comments.
I think this forces us to consider whether we want to allow other cultures to practice what we see as abuse or not. Like “honor killing” and the rest of that abuse. I hope with the new oil money that human rights will improve, but, the more oil money feeds into the old kleptocracies, the less freedom for the masses. At a minimum, US Gov., we need to allow female asylum in the US where there are female-specific human rights abuses. (Not to say there aren’t equally as horrific male abuses, but perhaps those are abuses in general, not directed specifically against men, but I could be wrong).