For instance, in some parts of Ijebu, Ijesha, Ogbomosh, Ibibio, Zulu, Fulani and Kalabari, women who got married to anybody from another tribe would be expected to be circumcised, if she had not done it before she got married. The woman must abide by her husband’s culture, which disallows her from protesting; otherwise the husband could be advised to find another wife.
This, according to some traditionalists, would go beyond the level of education and age of the woman. To many Africans, this is now being used as a form of retaliatory measure to punish perceived non-tribal women whom they considered strongly opposed to such imposition and marriage from another tribe.
Although a variety of justifications have been given in favour of continuation of the practice, including preservation of virginity before marriage, fidelity after marriage, enhancement of the husband's sexual pleasure, enhancement of fertility, prevention of infant and child mortality, cleanliness and religious requirements, tradition is by far the most commonly mentioned reason.
The excuse for the operation appears to be largely grounded in a desire to terminate or reduce feelings of sexual arousal in women so that they will be much less likely to engage in pre-marital intercourse or adultery. The clitoris holds a massive number of nerve endings, and generates feelings of sexual arousal when stimulated. But investigation has shown that what some of the girls experienced later in life go beyond the justification provided. For instance, it has been found that majority of the girls during the unsanitary operations are infected, experience bleeding, damage to the urinary tract, sepsis, even death. In fact, latest reports indicate that circumcised girls are now prone to AIDS infection. It may equally cause pain during coitus, and psychological damage.
Infibulations is particularly likely to cause long-term health problems. Because the urethral opening is covered, repeated urinary tract infections are common, and stones may form in the urethra and bladder because of obstruction and infection. If the opening is very small, menstrual flow may be blocked, leading to reproductive tract infections and lowered fertility or sterility. One early study estimated that 20-25% of cases of sterility in Nigeria could be linked to infibulations.
Without deinfibulation before childbirth, obstructed labour may occur, causing life-threatening complications for both mother and child. Because birth rates are high in many countries where infibulations is practiced, a woman's infibulation’s scar may be cut and resewn many times during her reproductive years. Given the medical complications and related consequences of female circumcision, why does the practice still continue?
It is evident that women themselves are involved in perpetuating this awkward and archaic practice.
Only a very limited number of options are open to women living in rural areas of Africa, thus, to put an end to this practice would invariably put an end to an otherwise profitable, centuries old business.
Similarly, older women themselves perpetrate the practice with much zeal having themselves previously undergone the same suffering. Senior women possess a deep conviction that in upholding and enforcing tradition, they hold together the fabric of a society that must, at whatever costs, be defended against external threats.
In many cultures, considerable social pressure is brought to bear on families who resist conforming to the tradition of female circumcision. In Man, a town in the interior of CÙte d'Ivoire, a Yacouba girl who has not been circumcised is not considered marriageable. Among the Samburu of Kenya also, uncircumcised girls are considered unclean, promiscuous and immature. Girls in this clime are generally circumcised at age 14 or 15, usually before they are married. A girl with a younger brother may undergo circumcision if she remains unmarried by her late teens, since custom dictates that a boy with an uncircumcised older sister may not be initiated into the warrior class.
In this case, a girl's wishes are often irrelevant; it is her family, often the father or elder female relatives who decides for her. According to one Kenyan, "my daughter has no choice. I decide. Her view is not important."
Indeed, girls have very little choice. They are dependent on their parents, and later on their husband, for the basic necessities of life. Those who resist may be cut by force. If they remain uncircumcised and their families are therefore unable to arrange a marriage, they may be cast out without any means of subsistence. Because of their lack of choice and the powerful influence of tradition, many girls accept circumcision as a necessary, and even natural, part of life, and adopt the rationale given for its existence.
However, due to the destructive effects of colonialism in Africa, Western efforts on the part of missionaries to eliminate female circumcision have been largely unsuccessful. Fears of weakening traditional customs and the perceived ill effects of western influences seem to be at the root of the resistance to change.
In civilized societies, especially those with large immigrant populations, the issue has gained legislative recognition and action. Countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and France have criminalized the practice. In Canada for instance, female genital "mutilation" is condoned only where it can be proved to be of benefit to the physical health of the person, or where it will restore the person's reproductive functions or sexual appearance. But even at that, the person must be at least eighteen years of age and there must be no resulting bodily harm.
Female circumcision has raised a number of human rights issues including the rights of women, the rights of children, the right to good health and the right to development. Because female circumcision transcends geopolitical borders, it has become an international issue.
The United Nations has been playing a leading role in formulating and coordinating actions against female circumcision. For instance, in 1984, the Inter-African Committee (IAC) on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children was formed by delegates to a conference held in Dakar, Senegal. The IAC believes in a soft approach to the abolition of female circumcision and, in addition to the support of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), has gained the support of some of the African ruling elite. Its national chapters in Africa conduct information campaigns in Africa showing the harmful effects of traditional practices. Despite the fact that many nations have ratified conventions that lay down international standards in relation to female circumcision, the lack of political will to enforce these conventions has meant that these standards are seldom upheld.
In Nigeria, the Upper Legislative House is set to pass a law banning female genital mutilation with a two-year jail term for offenders. The bill, which is currently being considered by the Senate, was unanimously passed by the House of Representatives last year. Given the differences in attitudes towards female circumcision, it is unlikely that a purely legal solution to the issue such as a prohibition will bring this practice to a halt. Instead, a great deal of work needs to be done in educating the public as well as the affected populations that circumcision is a practice that has outlived its purpose. Rigorous, culture-sensitive campaigns are needed if the attitude of the populations practicing it is to be changed.
All international NGOs must rise up once again and fight this demon from the society. The world is now operating under a globalized environment; efforts should be geared toward reducing female circumcision in our society.
« return.