Community | October 15, 2008 | 63 comments

Ugandans ban female circumcision

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7672236.stm

Image
oblivious
A community in eastern Uganda has banned the deeply rooted practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), an official has said.

Kapchorwa district chairman Nelson Chelimo said it was "outmoded" and "not useful" for the community's women.

The Sabiny are the only group in Uganda that practises FGM, which involves cutting off a young girl's clitoris.

Mr Chelimo said the council had submitted legislation to parliament for the ban to become law nationwide.

"The community decided that it was not useful, that women were not getting anything out of it, so the district council decided to establish an ordinance banning it," Mr Chelimo told AFP news agency.

He said there was a local belief that women who married without circumcision would be stricken by illness, but that this was "really outmoded".

FGM is seen in some countries as a way to ensure virginity and to make a woman marriageable.

In Africa, about three million girls are at risk of FGM each year, according to the UN.

UN agencies have called for a major reduction in the practice by 2015.

They say it leads to bleeding, shock, infections and a higher rate of death for new-born babies.

-About time.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Culture,   Health,   World News,   2 more
  2. tags:
    News,  Culture,  Health,  Current News UK,  10 more
  3.     
    |

63 comments // Ugandans ban female circumcision

  • CalgarC
    • 0
      CalgarC  

    • scientists and doctors suck. you have to cut of this or that will happen, you get less then 8 hours of sleep you will get cancer. cmon its human error that's causing the disease.

      i guarantee you now that they stopped circumcision. they will have healthier kids :D

    • 3 years ago
  • nazbags
  • marlykins
  • yolabravo124
  • nicalanius
  • danvass
  • aquamammal
  • sweeetback
  • bedeboop
  • DaveTheInventor
  • lix
    • 0
      lix  

    • It's about time! I understand it's a cultural thing, but with all the repercussions it just doesn't seem worth it. Besides, male circumcision is a good health precaution and a more (usually) sterile procedure.

    • 3 years ago
  • Nyx
    • 0
      Nyx  

    • If only the rest of the continent (and all other areas that practice this) would follow suit.

      And I get that some of you are against male circumcision, as well, but I not convinced that those of you who keep bringing it up really get that there's a huge difference between the two. Male circumcision isn't an oppressive act as female circumcision is. Not only that, a victim of FGM suffers from shock and infections, both of which can lead to death. And on top of that, male circumcisions are performed in a sterile, medical environment by a medical professional, whereas female circumcision usually takes place on the other side of the village by a person who has learned to perform it through trial and error with dirty tools. Plus, men can still procreate without any problems after being circumcised but the same can't be said for females. So, to me, it's kind of hard to compare the severity of the two.

    • 3 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
    • 0
      regjoeschmo  
    • Nyx:

      Im a man, im circumsized, and i hear you loud and clear. Where it is general practice to circumsize females it is not so prevalent to do so with males. Im sure if within the same surgical environment male circumcision would not be "hygenic"....... I personally believe the practice was originated by chauvanistic society that was afraid of their wives cheating on them because they were bad in bed.
      Any such dimeaning practice can only be seen as a control issue.

    • 3 years ago
  • Leaora
    • 0
      Leaora  

    • I don't think that the practice is really meant to cause harm (strange as that may sound, I will explain). The parents probably believe that they are doing what is best for their child. Such as foot-binding in China- it was to help their child marry into a high status. It's the same warped sense of what is desirable that causes Americans (and others) to basically mutilate themselves. i.e. hair removal, piercing, tattooing, and tanning. Or going further back wearing corsets, high heels, and poisonous makeup. We say that what they are doing is totally twisted, but have you looked in the mirror lately?

    • 3 years ago
  • ahimsapls
    • 0
      ahimsapls  
    • Leaora:

      or breast augmentation... or liposuction... or rhinoplasty, or botox... or any other voluntary procedure that americans go to a 'doctor' and pay copious amounts of money and endure a great deal of pain for in an attempt to make themselves more attractive, or dare i say, even... more "marriageable"?

    • 3 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
  • Saladin
  • think_free
    • 0
      think_free  
    • Saladin:

      I agree!

      It is mutilation regardless of male/female or social/religious. It should be that persons CHOICE.

      The cleanliness issue? Pull back the skin and clean it. Not too damn difficult.

    • 3 years ago
  • div
    • 0
      div  

    • actually, artic spirit, it's not a religious practice. it's a social practice done because it is thought that a woman who has a clitoris removed (and therefore feels no pleasure) will be less likely to participate in sex for the enjoyment of it. This, in turn supposedly creates virginal girls who are "marriageable."

      What it sadly does not take into account is the amount of horrible side effects and that rape is a high factor contributing to females not being "pure" enough for marriage.

    • 3 years ago
  • arcticspirit
  • perlgirl
    • 0
      perlgirl  

    • For all you guys who don't see the difference between fgm and male circumcision, why don't you shoot some novacaine into the head of your penis and then see how much enjoyment you get out of sex. Can you even get it up? When a woman has her clitoris removed, she loses all sexual gratification, because the nerve endings that provide it reside in the clitoris. If men didn't demand it, women wouldn't do it. In fact, if men demanded that it cease to be done, village by village, it would stop.

    • 3 years ago
  • yahtzee
  • fhassan
  • Cuddlebones
  • crystal_raye
  • sleepnomore
  • kacarlson
    • 0
      kacarlson  

    • this practice is so archaic and just the thought that someone would think it is a good idea, no matter what their belief system is, makes me sick. This is a step in the right direction!

    • 3 years ago
  • aswift1
    • 0
      aswift1  

    • This is great news! This will save so much pain and many lives, as women often die from infections resulting from circumcision. I am so happy for the women of Uganda!

    • 3 years ago
  • krush_productions
  • Future_America
  • breathexelectric
    • 0
      breathexelectric  
    • Future_America:

      all involuntary & unsanitary circumcision should be banned in my opinion. aside from clean religious practices, these practices could constitute as a form of sexual abuse. i'm glad these travesties are over thanks to a government ruling; i just hope that secret circumcisions don't rise because of it.

    • 3 years ago
  • Eat_Disco
  • ahimsapls
  • bigloutech
  • sophtron
  • browneyedlibrarian
  • UrbanGypsy
  • tokomoe
    • 0
      tokomoe  

    • Jesus christ it's about fuckin time. I'm just curious though why this thread isn't getting 100% support? What sicko is on this site all mad that women aren't being mutilated in Uganda anymore?

    • 3 years ago
  • ahimsapls
    • 0
      ahimsapls  
    • tokomoe:

      some are merely pointing out that it is clearly and blatantly wrong from our vantage point, but, unfortunately for the women of this culture, it is a common societal practice that has been accepted for a very long time there.

      if only this law really and truly did mean that women were automatically not going to be mutilated from this point forward. how many things are against the law that people still practice every single day in every country of the world? especially things with such traditional roots and belief systems to back them up for the people that choose to practice them.

    • 3 years ago
  • rwylie
    • 0
      rwylie  

    • Someone tell me the difference between mutilating a woman's genitals and routinely mutilating those of young boys as is common practice all over the world? These children have not given permission to be cut apart.

    • 3 years ago
  • Emil_G
    • 0
      Emil_G  
    • rwylie:

      Well, I agree with you but I guess the main difference is that circumsized males still experience orgasm and enjoy sexual intercourse. Not so with these females.

    • 3 years ago
  • Nettle
    • 0
      Nettle  
    • rwylie:

      A female circumcision is next to useless, but a male circumcision prevents bacterial infections. I know a lot of people say, "Nuh-uh! It's natural," but my mom used to work at a nursing home and when the old guys with their foreskins couldn't bathe as much (apparently old people don't bathe for some reason), they developed infections and it became excruciating to pee. She said their wangs were grossly swollen, red and constantly gave off a goupy puss and smelled awful.

    • 3 years ago
  • bowtiekittydish
  • KarlitoMosquito
    • 0
      KarlitoMosquito  
    • rwylie:

      rwylie,

      While I agree that male circumcision seems unnecessary (as a woman I suppose it's easy for me to say that), the reasons behind male circumcision are not mysoginistic.

      FEMALE circumcision on the other hand is a purely hateful, sexist ploy to make women 'marriageable' (i.e. they will never enjoy sex thus they will never cheat or touch themselves for pleasure). In other words it is another way for men to control women. It's sick and heinous and anyone who thinks it is okay should imagine what it would be like to never experience sexual pleasure, EVER!

    • 3 years ago
  • Emil_G
    • 0
      Emil_G  
    • rwylie:

      Male circumsizion is a religious practice.

      Preemptive removal of appendixes has probably more benefits than circumsizion, as far as eliminating risk goes, but it is not a common procedure, is it?

    • 3 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
  • Emil_G
  • Eat_Disco
    • 0
      Eat_Disco  
    • rwylie:

      male circumcision is a hygienic thing... Not ceremonial or oppression oriented.

      P.S. Male circumcision is no longer necessarily a religious practice. my parents are not religious and guess what...

    • 3 years ago
  • furio15
    • 0
      furio15  
    • rwylie:

      Well, there's actually a big difference ,Male circumcision cuts a connection in the skin which after it is done will make very little difference in the pleasure and organ. While when it is done to a female ,it takes away all feeling and pleasure from the organ,I guess it's like if you were to cut off ALL of the skin from a male's penis and just leaving the muscle.

    • 3 years ago
  • D_Lace
    • 0
      D_Lace  
    • rwylie:

      I don't think you understand the difference between male and female circumcision . When a female gets her clitoris cut out, it is so she cannot enjoy sex- period. Women are supposed to just lay down and make a baby it would make a woman "loose" if she got pleasure from sex.
      When a boy gets circumcised it is based in religion for some people but it is done mostly for cleanliness.Now I don't have a penis but common sense tells me it is easier to keep something clean when the thing you need to clean is out in the open, rather than wrapped in skin. I have also read studies that say men that are uncircumcised are more likely to get infections. If it were the same principle as FGM,then baby boys would get the head of their penises cut off.

    • 3 years ago
  • Emil_G
  • Nettle
    • 0
      Nettle  

    • Lets not forget to not be ethnocentric. In some parts of the middle east, women are considered unmarriageable if they don't have it done. Whether you think it's right or wrong is irrelevant; it's what they think (and fortunately this community decided against it).

    • 3 years ago
  • oblivious
  • kernals
    • 0
      kernals  
    • Nettle:

      I agree that it's important not to be ethnocentric, but I think this case leans more toward objective morality. This law is trying to ban something that is purely destructive, painful, and often harmful to these females' lives, and that is definitely a good thing.

    • 3 years ago
  • bowtiekittydish
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • This is wonderful news but the problem is far from solved. Several African nations already have bans on female circumcision, however, there is still a gap between what the law says people shouldn't do and what people actually do. The governments are many times unable to enforce these bans and the practice continues. A comprehensive education program that illustrates the evils of female circumcision is necessary for real change.

    • 3 years ago
  • Brazil617MA
  • armchaircritic
more from Community:
from the community

top videos