U.S. Policy on

U.S. Policy on "Female Genital Mutilation": Threat of Economic Pressure Internationally, Enactment of Criminal Sanctions at Home

Description

Surgeries on female genitalia have been performed for at least twenty-five hundred years. Today they occur routinely in forty countries—in Africa, in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula, and, to a smaller degree, in India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia. The World Health Organization estimates that 130 million women and girls have been subjected, at ages ranging from infancy to adulthood, to some form of female genital cutting. Drawing on the experiences of the twenty-eight African countries in which the surgeries are routine, Amnesty International's Zan-Akologo described the reasons for the endurance of the practice: “Though there are no laws that make female circumcision obligatory, the social pressure on women is enormous. In most cases the women in these societies in Africa cooperate with the practice, and continue to force it on the next generation of girls. These women are dependent on men, and therefore they have no alternative but to fall in line with the custom. In those parts of Africa men are still the only ones who make decisions, and it is they who set the standards for women's conduct.” U.S. government sources suggest that as many as 168,000 girls and women in the United States have had their genitals cut or are at risk for the procedures. These are overwhelmingly immigrants or the first-generation daughters of immigrants. Since 1996, the U.S. Congress and the legislatures of fifteen states have passed laws against “female genital mutilation.” Most statutes are criminal only, although some have civil provisions. The question addressed in this chapter is not whether efforts should be made to eliminate the practice. It is, rather, whether these new statutes provide the appropriate tools to combat female genital mutilation (FGM) here or in other countries. Particular attention will be paid to criminal anti-FGM laws. The problem with these statutes is not simply that they are unlikely to keep girls and women safe from the procedure. Rather, and more importantly, the problem is that they are virtually guaranteed to drive FGM underground and increase the danger to those on whom it is performed. It should be noted at the outset that the surgeries themselves vary widely. The least invasive entail either ritual “nicking” or the removal of a small portion of the clitoris. Others involve removal of all or part of the clitoral tissue. In the most significant procedures, practitioners remove the clitoris and labia minora, incise the labia majora, and stitch together the labia majora to cover the urethral and vaginal openings (leaving a small opening for the passage of urine and menstrual blood). Various forms of the first type of female surgery—removal of part of the clitoris--were performed in the United States and the United Kingdom until the 1950s, ostensibly for the purposes of improving female mental health, discouraging lesbianism, and reducing the incidence of masturbation. During those periods the procedures were deemed medical and were fully legal. Now that female genital cutting is identified in this country as the practice of immigrants, however, it has been criminalized. Several terms are used to describe the procedures. The term “female genital mutilation [FGM]” is very common in the United States and used almost exclusively in its criminal context. Indeed, the very term expresses the disapprobation of the procedure. Isabelle Gunning urges the use of “female genital surgeries [FGS]” to reflect the variety of procedures performed. Nahid Toubia, a physician of Sudanese origin, and an activist in the United States and abroad who is opposed to the practice, uses both the terms “female genital mutilation” and “female circumcision” (although she notes that the practice is not analogous to male circumcision). The reasons for her choices are reflected in a statement issued by RAINBO (Research, Action and Information Network for Bodily Integrity of Women), an international advocacy organization which she founded: “Efforts to empower women cannot begin with using language that offends them. . . . We accept that the term female genital mutilation has been too widely used to be rolled back. In fact, we prefer to retain the term FGM at the policy level to remind everyone of the effect of this practice on girls and women. However, we advocate the use of the term female circumcision when dealing with affected individuals, parents, or other community members. . . . It is important that we respect the feelings and beliefs of individuals even as we inform them of facts contrary to these beliefs.” The decision to call the practice FGM for pragmatic and policy reasons, but to refer to it as FC in outreach and education efforts, reflects RAINBO's awareness of the complexity confronting opponents of the practice. It points to the need to choose one's strategy carefully.

Source Publication

Moral Imperialism: A Critical Anthology

Source Editors/Authors

Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol

Publication Date

2002

U.S. Policy on

Find @ NYU

Share

COinS