Weapon+of+Oppression

Student Name: Ephrem Hailu Student Id.No: 08669384 Tutor: Michelle Cornford Coordinator: J. Caroll (PhD) **Faculty of Public Health ** **Health Culture and Society (**PUB209)   **Queensland University of Technology **  2013 SEM II    **Social Identities, Physiologies and Human Health: **  ** How do gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and geography affect morbidity and mortality? **

** FEMALE GENITAL MODIFICATION **  A Weapon for Oppression

The artefact on female genital mutilation (FGM) depicts a cultural aberration of gender. The girl whose legs tightly knotted with rope to seal her gash is pleading mercy, the phallic is clutching her teeth in helpless agony, and the woman on right is enduring alteration to her vaginal accessories. This weapon of oppression is heinous and horrendous veracity to the public as for the victim. The accessories removed are described as disgusting and hideous. The practice is safeguarded with myths of labelling, stigma and aesthetic beliefs. Uncircumcised female for example is portrayed as indecent, impure, smelly and nymphomaniac. FGM is misinterpreted to prevent uterus prolapse and produce pleasant fragrance that pleases men. In some cultures men who marry ‘impure’ woman would be teethed up. Another myth is circumcision generates sexual pleasure, the tighter the stitching the more pleasant the intercourse. The pain is taken as part of being a woman. Uncircumcised women cause impotence to men and hydrocephaly to neonates if the penis or head touches the clitoris during coitus or exiting the uterus respectively. The breast-milk is also misconstrued to poison the neonate. The sharps used to trim or remove female sexual accessories in most African and Middle-East cultures, often are unhygienic. In pursuit of male hegemony FGM maliciously rifts male and female lives and health outcomes.

**Trimmings**

**THE PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE OF FGM **

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">FGM a pressing <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;"> public health issue is <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;"> progressively reported from the backyard of Europe, Canada, USA and Australia ( <span style="color: #231f20; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Jones, Ehiri, & Anyanwu, 2004) as <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">in Africa and Middle-East (Johnsdotter & Essén, 2010). <span style="color: #231f20; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">A survey of 11,375 women on ‘factors influencing opinions of young and older women towards FGM’ by Masho and Mathews (2009) explored inverse relationship (P=0.001). Women 15 to 24 years of age favour FGM 1.2 times higher than women aged 40 to 49 years. The paradox of more women to men supporting FGM is subject to persistent acculturation. The World Health Organization (WHO, 2013) asserted between 100 and 140 million females predominantly from 28 African, Middle East and some Asian countries are subject to FGM (Jones et al., 2004). The global annual incidence rate (FGM intolerant countries included) is approximately three million (Masho & Matthews, 2009). <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">The WHO in 2008 together with United Nation member states banned FGM; in 2010 prohibited healthcare services from performing FGM, and in 2012 passed universal resolution to prevent FGM. In contrast western women are increasingly entreating surgical modification against the odds of surgery to diminish the size of labia, narrow the vagina, ‘reconstruct’ a hymen, engorge the clitoris, and draw fatty tissues of the pubis ( <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Johnsdotter & Essén, 2010). Not only operating FGM in healthcare setting emits inappropriate messages but also legitimises FGM. It conveys a sense of ‘‘it is virtuous if doctors do it’’ (Reyners, 2004). <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">The rite of FGM formalises womanhood, vulnerability, impurity, weakness and inferiority. It inflicts permanent damage such as haemorrhage, urinary incontinence, and infertility. The difficult to combat FGM ritual is pressures women to smile like nothing has happened. Letting the agony to recur on females would mean revisiting the demons from the past (WHO, 2013).


 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 34.6667px;">REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES **

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">In 2013 the WHO defined FGM as partial or whole removal, alteration, or infliction of harm to exterior female genital organs for non-therapeutic drives. Alteration of vaginal accessories whether labelled “circumcision”, “genital-modification”, or “female genital cutting” in Africa, economically-developed nations, or non-governmental organizations correspondingly is costing lives (Johnsdotter & Essén, 2010). The horror and pain FGM inflicts is horrendous (Alsibiani & Rouzi, 2010). <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">FGM involves i) cutting the clitoris and seldom the prepuce, ii) removing the clitoris and labia, iii) stitching to narrow the vagina; and iv) puncturing, piercing, slitting the clitoris and labia, cauterizing, scratching and depositing herbs to induce bleeding and tighten the vagina (Alsibiani & Rouzi, 2010; WHO, 2013) often prized cultural or psychosocial explanations (Nwajei & Otiono, 2003). Slaying the pleasure centres disempowers and shreds the girl’s dignity with enduring marks for vilification (Johnsdotter & Essén, 2010).


 * Piercing**

[] <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Gender inequality does not exist in void. Risky behaviour patterns, morbidity, opportunity, and access to resource are rooted within a sociocultural context. Biological, psychological, behavioural and sociocultural factors explain health disparity of men and women as social ascriptions (Denton, Prus, & Walters, 2004).

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Many European countries with laws prohibiting female genital cutting consistent with WHO, apparently are accepting, operating, and tolerating vaginal modification (Johnsdotter & Essén, 2010). Nonetheless female circumcision continues to inflict permanent psychological, social, physical as well as cultural injury to millions of young girls (Little, 2003). <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Both the Qur’an and the Bible, <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">prohibit any <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">harm inflicted upon the <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">body, <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">nor seek FGM practice ( <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Alsibiani & Rouzi, 2010) <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">The manifest and latent implications of FGM solidify gender oppression. The former underlies purity, virginity, fidelity, marriage prospects and sex appeal whilst the latter embeds the desire to control women. Women perpetrators are convinced FGM is in female’s best interest (Masho & Matthews, 2009). <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Fear of stigma and labelling researched by (Alsibiani & Rouzi, 2010) are as agonizing as physical ailments of shock, infection, clitoral-swelling, enuresis, labour-complication, sterility; low-libido, dysmenorrhea, and psychosexual disorders. The authors assert women assuming inferior, passive, and subordinate positions are silenced further through selective reward for obeying social constructs (Alsibiani & Rouzi, 2010). <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">The results from four studies on sexual function of circumcised women using semi-structured interview by (Catania et al., 2007) revealed women with positive attitude to FGM experience orgasm during sexual response cycle; whereas those with conflicting cultural space have diminished orgasm. Reyners (2004) believes integrating counselling is helpful to reconstruct the myths of vaginal tightness and improved sexual response cycle from FGM. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">A study on sexuality conducted by Happell and Browne in 2011 among mental health consumers identified 43% of women compared to 31% men in general public experience sexual disorders. The rate is excess among those living with a mental illness. The authors found female sexual disorders (frigidity and uneven menstrual cycle) to be higher amongst FGM survivors. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Exposures to enduring and vilifying conditions like the FGM (Dentona et al., 2004) are <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;"> positively <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">linked to adverse health effects and distress. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">The authors further noted psychological, social as well as behavioural elements are embedded in existing sociocultural practices of modifying the female genitalia. The direct p <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">sychological impacts of FGM include low self-esteem, recurrent traumatic experience, and poor resilience.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Ward, Meyer, Verity, Gill, and Luong in their study on “Complex problems require complex solutions: the utility of social quality theory for addressing the Social Determinants of Health” in 2011 estimated greater social participation of women with paradoxically low rate of social inclusion. It is a living proof to the systematic marginalization of women from the apparatus of power. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">It is until girls learn to depict themselves as subjects of domestic violence and barbarity that they perceive mutilation as sign of beauty and courage with content, love, and acceptance. Their new learning, however, permanently muddied their pride with sense of ugliness. Their psychological world is “permanently destroyed” with social critics and negative cultural attributions that distort their cultural values. In short, they undergo a mental infibulation which result in iatrogenic sexual dysfunction (Catania et al., 2007). <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Socialization agents neither empower nor nurture sense of security on women. Socialisation prepares women for subordinate positions by setting cruel and inferior roles. These collectively <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">instil poor self-esteem which leads to severe depression and poor physical health (Denton et al., 2003). <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Nwajei and Otiono investigated the relationship between genital mutilation and sexual pleasure on female students at Delta State University, Abraka, Nigeria in 2003 and found no significant difference between the circumcised and uncircumcised females. The pathological pretext presented to execute FGM is fostering morality, attracting spouse, promoting purity, prevent labial hypertrophy, improving fertility, inducing pleasure to men, and conformity with religious prescriptions which all are proven wrong (Nwajei & Otiono, 2003). <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">An effective intervene is needed to terminate health inequities between women and men through the principles of equity in health services, foster the exercise of birth rights, and ensure equitable resource allocation. In addition, laws and control mechanisms to regulate harmful practices targeted on women should be in place. In order to close the gender gap health outcomes for women should be constantly monitored and intervention mechanisms activated (Blas et al., 2008).

**<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 34.6667px;">CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS **

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">The agonizing FGM according to the radical feminists is master minded by men with intent to dominate women and justify the position of men in society. The social institutions in addition are loyal, in pursuit of men, to instil mythical values associated with FGM. The system of patriarchy, therefore, is raping women’s determination to emancipation from men (Cossman, Danielsen, Halley, & Higgins, 2003). <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">The social construct theory asserts language as a powerful tool for reconstructing gender. Society lures women and men into sociocultural constructs of gender roles and behaviour patterns. The social landscape of health beliefs and gender related health behaviours are constantly negotiated in language. The legendary gender constructs (femininity and masculinity) cultivate male hegemony. In terms of risk behaviours, men indulge in boxing, car race, and rock climbing as signs of honour; while women are trapped in subordinate and primitive behaviours like FGM (Courtenay, 2000). <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">The renaissance of FGM from a conflict theory perspective is portrayed as an exercise of micro-power in order to govern and maintain the existing patriarchal organization and male hegemony. FGM is operated under the pretext of religion and health behaviour to legitimise the position of men as dominant and hegemonic authority figures in society ( <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Courtenay, 2000). <span style="color: #231f20; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;"> It never is a religious requirement (Jones et al., 2004) <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">by the Bible or the Qur’an (Jones et al., 2004). <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">The symbolic meaning of FGM (Reyners, 2004) is to celebrate fertility rite, amend natural eccentricity, diminish labial hypertrophy, deter nymphomania and premarital sex, foster hygiene and aesthetics of the external female genitalia, prevent labour trauma, and promote socio-political position. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">A study conducted by Judd, Komiti, and Jackson on help-seeking behaviour in 2008 on Australian and New Zealand population reveal more women than men seek support when confronted with a challenge unlike men who demonstrated autonomy. This is a simple way of depicting how men and women are socially invented, including how the attributes and expressions of power to women and men are rooted in a given sociocultural context. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">A study conducted by Johnsdotter and Essén titled ‘features of genitals and ethnicity: the politics of genital modifications’ in 2010 identified the cultural values that transfuse meanings to the erogenous zones of the body such as the clitoris and labia. The sociocultural conception of erogenous zones and the social opinion of sex, gender, and genitals created politically sensitive loop in favour of genital mutilation. Males predictably instil and foster oppressive concepts through socialisation agents. <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Social order is maintained through reward for conformity and punishment for non-conformity during enculturation process. <span style="color: #231f20; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Patriarchy desirably rewards and distinguishes women who undergo FGM, while punishing deviants. A woman's desirability for marriage depends on whether or not she has undergone FGM. Women assuming their role is to prepare girls for womanhood and marriage, advocate pro FGM. The strong detest of men for uncircumcised women is systematic reinforcement. Ingrained deep into cultures and traditions, eliminating FGM over a night is a challenge. Even if FGM is to regulate the sexuality and maximize marital desirability of girls, then it is controlling their lives (Masho & Matthews, 2009). <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Women and men are socialized to conform to institutional patterns of social interaction. The Marxist perspective speculated FGM as a proxy war against gender-oppression between the oppressor (men) and the oppressed (women). Therefore, FGMseems a perfect tool to exploit and objectify women’s subordination. Men selectively reinforce submissive behavior on women via FGM-related myths and continue to control women’s bodies to ensure women would not break-off the shackles (New, 2001).

**Partial infibulation:** **Foetal scalp appearing at vulva**
 * Infibulation**
 * Stitching after surgical-defibulation**


 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 34.6667px;">ANALYSIS OF THE ARTEFACT: REFLECTION **

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px; text-align: justify;">The artefact reflects how the brutal weapon of oppression, female genital modification, in two remotely different cultural spaces is dehumanizing women. In Africa, Middle East and some Asian countries the practice of FGM is enforced against the girls expressed consent often at an early age using unhygienic trimmings. Whilst in economically developed and FGM intolerant states FGM is running in hospitals and with expressed consent of females during adult years. In both contexts, however, FGM is underpinned in sociocultural constructs of gender.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px; text-align: justify;">The artefact presents the two polar issues of FGM, amazingly projecting how aesthetic values are turned into a brutal weapon of oppression, making women willing to be oppressed. It is an excellent example of cultural relativism and variation.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px; text-align: justify;">On a personal level, this wiki has made me think deeply about the roots of the non-therapeutic misuse of FGM as a universal phenomenon inflicted against females. This has been a breakthrough to uncover how systematically and profoundly gender is rooted into the lives of men and women. Often but not always gender related behaviours seem to dehumanize and objectify females. The other heartbreaking fact I have unveiled is the fact that whilst men master mind aspects of gender oppression women engineer the aspects of gendered behaviours.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px; text-align: justify;">In order to build a more inclusive Australia fair a collective health promotion is appropriate to terminate the strong cycle of invisible gender oppression and overthrow the existing structural inequalities.

**<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 34.6667px;">REFERENCES ** <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Alsibiani, S. & Rouzi, A. (2010). Sexual function in women with female genital mutilation: Fertility and Sterility. //American Society for Reproductive Medicine//, //93//(3). doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.035

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Blas, E., Gilson, L., Kelly, M., Labonte, R., Lapitan, J., Muntaner, C.,…Vaghri, Z. (2008). Addressing social determinants of health inequities: what can the state and civil society do? Health Policy. //World Health Organization, 372//, 1684-89. Retrieved from [|www.thelancet.com]

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Catania, L., Abdulcadir, O., Puppo, V., Verde, J., Abdulcadir, J. and Abdulcadir, D. (2007). Pleasure and Orgasm in Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C). //Journal of Sexual Medicine//, //4//, 1666-1678. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00620.x

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Cossman, B., Danielsen, D., Halley, J., & Higgins, T. (2003). Gender, Sexuality, and Power: Is Feminist Enough? Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Courtenay, W.H. (2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-being: a theory of gender and health. //Social Science & Medicine//, //50//, 1385-1401. Retrieved from [|www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed]

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Dentona, M., Prusb, S., & Waltersc, V. (2004). Gender differences in health: a Canadian study of the psychosocial, structural and behavioural determinants of health. //Social Science and Medicine//, //58,// 2585-600. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.008

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Happell, B., & Browne, G. (2011). Sexuality and consumers of mental health services: The Impact of Gender and Boundary Issues. //Issues in Mental Health Nursing//, //32//, 170-6. doi: 10.3109/01612840.2010.531518

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Johnsdotter, S., & Essén, B. (2010). Features Genitals and Ethnicity: The Politics of Genital Modifications. //Reproductive Health Matters//, //18//(35), 29-37. [|www.rhmjournal.org.uk]

<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Jones, S., Ehiri, J., & Anyanwu, E. (2004). <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Female genital mutilation in developing countries: an agenda for public health response. //European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Reproductive Biology//, //116//, 144–151. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.06.013

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Little, C.M. (2003). <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Female genital circumcision: medical and cultural considerations. //Journal of Cultural Diversity// <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">, //10//(1):30-4. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Masho, S., & Matthews, L. (2009). Factors determining whether Ethiopian women support continuation of female genital mutilation. //International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics//, //107//, 232–235. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.07.022

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Nwajei, S.D. & Otiono, A.I. (2003). Female Genital Mutilation: Implications for Female Sexuality. //Women’s Studies International Forum//, //26// (6), 575-580. doi 10.1016/j.wsif.2003.09.011

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Reyners, M. (2004). Health consequences of female genital mutilation. //Reviews in Gynaecological Practice//, //4//, 242-251. doi:10.1016/j.rigp.2004.06.001

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">World Health Organization. (2013). Female genital mutilation. //Media centre fact sheet//. Retrieved from []

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">New, C. (2001). Oppressed and Oppressors? The Systematic Mistreatment of Men. //Sociology//, //35//(3), 729-748. doi:10.1017/S0038038501000372.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Milner, K., and Khawaja, N.G. (n.d.) Sudanese Refugees in Australia: The Impact of Acculturation Stress JOURNAL OF PACIFIC RIM PSYCHOLOGY Volume 4, Issue 1 pp. 19–29

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 18.6667px;">1: [] <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 18.6667px;">2. []! November 22/2013 @14:15 amendment http://healthcultureandsociety2013.wikispaces.com/share/view/64696116
 * <span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow','sans-serif'; font-size: 21.3333px;">Link to Comment: **