Female circumcision is also a matter of 'property rights', in that a woman's reproductive potential is seen as having a value that must be protected from non economic use.

Consequently the 'principle' behind of honour killings, female circumcision, child brides, bride burning, cousin marriage and even the wearing of a white dress by a western bride (white for virginity) are all linked.

This is a gender issue from the perspective of the victims being female, but the perpetrators of this abuse are both males and females. In many cultures it is the women of the village / community who carry out the circumcision: it is seen as one way of ensuring that the girl has a greater value and can attract a higher dowry.

Female 'circumcision' is almost specifically designed to make sure that a girl would only give up her virginity for the man that her family has arranged for her, and therefore the children of any such union are almost certainly guaranteed to be the children of the husband. Of course, the girl has no choice. There have been hushed up incidents in Australia where grandmothers have been charged with sexual assault after disfiguring their granddaughters, and other instances where girls have been sent overseas, with the consent of the mother, for infibulation to take place.

It is not just an Islamic practise, but a tribal one, by people of many different beliefs, but with the one aim.

Many bride burnings are carried out by the mothers in law of the bride, in order to free their sons so that they can marry another girl who may have a larger dowry.

This of course makes it all the more horrific and harder to accept. The idea that women can carry out such atrocities against other, more vulnerable, women is pretty hard to stomach, and is therefore rejected by many, and the view that it is all about men oppressing women is substituted. That is not to say that men don't play a big part in this abuse, but that men are not the sole sources of abuse.

RObert, Hamlet, Almanac

Pardon my ignorance! I have read and been taught other stuff.

Regards
Kay

How dare Waleed try to say that it is not Islam that is to blame for the disgusting treatment of women,

"This appallingly tribal and un-Islamic practice of trading women to resolve disputes, known as “vani”, is tragically common in the poorest, most illiterate tribal villages in Pakistan"

How does he argue down the fact that all Islamic nations, especially those that are Arabic and practice Sharia Law, still stone so-called adulterers to death, as in many cases in a male dominated culture women are severely mistreated by being raped and then accused of adultery, such as in Pakistan, an Islamic women's group found that 75% of all women in jail are in their because they were raped but charged with adultery. Such treatment of a certain group of people is not historically uncommon, if they are already considered less than men. If it really was just this "vani" practice that Walled tries to escape with, then why are women treated like garbage in every Islamic nation, such as in Saudi Arabia, one of the richest nations in the world, most women are illiterate, but schooling is free, then how are they illiterate?
Why do women have to wear the veil if they don't want to known as the local slut, like all western women are to muslims(thus the high muslim youth gang rape rate). Waleed ought to start wearing a veil himself, as well as all muslim men, now that they are in a country that actually treats all equal, including homosexuals, who if they fancy just might find them(muslim men who are unveiled) immodest and deem them sluts, worthy of a good racist gang rape.

For those who may be ignorant of the facts surrounding female circumcision here is some information -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

Of particular interest to the discussion is the following quote -

"The operation is most often carried out by female practitioners. Thus it has been attributed by some authors to a deep-rooted fear of elder women that the more attractive younger women might seduce away their husbands and thus leave them without support."

Now, how this practice can be attributed to alleged patriarchal subjugation and oppression of women by men is beyond me. Men have very little to do with it. It's a women - grandmothers, mothers, sisters and aunts - thing done to their daughters.

The subject as relating to this forum is totally out of context. You can't go blaming men for the peculiarities of female fears and ancient female customs in medieval societies.

And, if you, kalweb, think that my statements of fact are likely "to stir up a very nasty argument", then so be it. But I shall not sit idly by while my sex is defamed and falsely accused of ever more violence against women. If you want to turn that into a "very nasty argument", then go ahead. But I shall not be silenced on truth.

Kalweb

I am sure that you have learnt and read from some very good sources; however a lot depends on the ideological leanings and intention of the authors and researchers of that material.

I could find and read, if I chose to do so, thousands of articles, publications and books on domestic violence that do not make a single mention of men being victims. In the same way that if I wanted to read up on the Holocaust I could chose to read the works of David Irving, and from those works derive an opinion that the holocaust did not occur. I could also get an impression from other writers that Jews were the only victims.

But of course the holocaust did occur, and whilst many of the victims were Jews, Gypsies and other groups were also slaughtered. It is by reading widely that I can obtain a fuller understanding of the ‘truth’. And men are also victims of domestic violence.

In the same way, you may have been taught that infibulation is purely yet another method of men oppressing women. That does not mean that what you have been taught is the full and only truth.

There are many factors behind female circumcision, and they all involve both men and women, either as perpetrators or being complicit in the practise.

I am old enough to remember when it was unacceptable in this Australian society for a girl who was known to not a virgin to get married in a white dress. This society valued virginity as something to be carried into marriage.

It was both men and women who expected this, and often it was women who were most against the idea of pre-marital sex, because it, in their eyes, devalued the commodity that they could provide in the marital bed. In effect, the idea of the disgrace of not being legitimately able to wear that white dress was a symbolic chastity belt as strong, at that time, as female circumcision is now.

But our society has changed, and this particular form of symbolism has changed as well.

Hamlet, Maximus can I request that you lighten up a bit on Kay. If you have a read through her posts on a variety of topics you will find that she is generally a moderate and has stuck up for men in places where the deliberately sexist are on the attack.

I think part of what we do here is test our views and opinions against others to learn and grow (I know some don't do that).

Assume that Kay is serious in what she says, willing to learn and think about stuff and review then please your posts. Also assume that Kay is generally fairly well informed and is worth listening too.

Now back onto the topic.

My brief skim of the literature showed a mix of causes for the ongoing nature of FGM. Some clear statements that men are involved in wanting it (last thing I would want in a potential partner) and plenty of statements about cultural identity and women regarding it as important. In cultures where it is practiced it looks to me as though it is so much a part of teh culture that all the adults advocate it, men and women. Kids growing up are taught to think of it as important for their becoming adults.

Men were and are involved but their co-conspiritors were and are women. Not a case of men oppressing women, rather an example of a cultural practice which I hope disappears from the face of the earth.

I've read and heard similar about footbinding but am rusty on that topic.

R0bert