This week in Egypt, in a joint statement medics and human rights organisations condemned the actions of the Freedom and Justice Party -the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in raising a convoy providing mobile female genital mutilation services and vaginal inspections. This is in spite of Egypt's commitment as a state to the universal declaration on human rights and child rights convention including the right to bodily integrity.

To many such as UNICEF who campaign for awareness of this harmful practice in western countries however, Egypt remains a giant on the list of over 30 offending countries that provide this 'service' for over 90% of Egyptian girls and increasingly international clients, from for example Britain, India and Pakistan notwithstanding the 28 African countries that practice FGM.
Though we see a growing alignment in public media between FGM and Muslims in fact this practice pre-dates Islam by a long way, it is believed that Pharonic cultures practiced it among the highest echelons of society (circa 1450bc), thus this heinous act became a vehicle for social mobility aiding the lower classes to marry into the upper classes.
For those wondering why on earth (in spite of the many rebuttals from Islamic clerics that FGM is distinctly un-Islamic) the Muslim Brotherhood have decided to virtually campaign on their support of it? Perhaps a view down the lens of social currency is helpful. Certainly we are not unfamiliar here in the UK with the idea of politicians aligning themselves with moral currencies such as marriage and sexuality in the face of the rapid decline of monetary capital. The Muslim Brotherhood also find that taking the [dubious] moral high-ground of chastity and honour avails them the opportunity to triumphantly reach into the heart of the vast majority of economically deprived Egyptians without offering any actual policies to relieve their hardship.
Once again, women must pay the real cost, upon their bodies and within their painful memories, women's complicity in the practice the greatest gift to the un-Islamic, callous and greedy politik that has engulfed the Muslim world.
FGM is rife among communities where the social capital of the family or tribe is secured through marriage and childbirth. In poverty-stricken communities the frequency of FGM rises because social capital functions in the place of hard currency. Governments (with their 21st century knowledge on medical evidence against FGM) that allow and even promote such egregious acts as bound up with honour and religiosity are inevitably in fact revealing their unwillingness and incapacity to raise their people economically.

In Britain, conservative estimates are that 100,000 women are victims of FGM, against a backdrop of 130 million worldwide, with three million a year being cut in the name of honour. Only recently the Crown Prosecution Services began proceedings against a British man who advised a British family to go abroad for FGM, and many of us know as practitioners and researchers that this is the tip of the iceberg .
As the Western world experiences hard times we may see an increase rather than a reduction of this appalling practice among our people, local socio-political skirmishes translating to heightened controls on marginalised women; their honour being called upon to shore up moral deficits elsewhere. In the coming months it will be up to each and every one of us to police and prevent any decline in the human rights of girls and women through FGM and make sure our voices are heard in our communities and neighbourhoods, standing behind those who wish to be free of this oppressive cultural practice but lack the moral support to overcome this culturally entrenched abuse.
Follow Michelle Brooks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@chellebeyond
Caroline Lucas: Violence Against Women is Not Inevitable
The United States has absolutely no moral high ground in this area. The push toward eliminating this barbaric procedure will have to come from elsewhere. The US is (rightfully) perceived as hypocritical when it comes to removing normal parts of children's genitals.
http://www.enfant.org
Do "child rights" include baby boys?
What does bodily integrity actually mean?
False analogy. Try again.
Could it be because well in excess of 130,000,000 men have been genitally mutilated in the United States alone through the routine practice of neo-natal male circumcision? Because very powerful interests in the United States would like to preserve the United States preferred genital cutting practice of male circumcision? Because well over 1,000,000 male infants in the United States alone are genitally cut annually-one every 36 seconds of every day of every week of every month of every year?
The double standard and intellectual dishonesty displayed by the Unted States generally, and its male genital cutting defenders specifically is astounding. On the one hand, there is appalled outrage that FGM occurs in Africa, that 130,000,000 women worldwide are victims, and 3,000,000 women worldwide are genitally cut annually.
But, more men, in the United States alone, are victims of genital mutilation, than female victims exist on the planet. One third as many males are genitally mutilated in the United States alone as females are genitally mutilated on the entire planet on an annual basis. The United States has 5% of global population......
Where's the outrage?
Then onto the hypocracy of the US with regards to the UN Convention on the RIghts of the Child. I agree with you that there is a double standard on behalf of the US when it comes to human rights etc. when the government, including the Congress, has not been willing to sign and ratify the Convention. And you are probably right that male circumcision is one of the reasons for why it has not happened yet.
But issues such as the minimum age for enlistment in the US Military, 17, and corporal punishment are likely to be more significant. According to the UN we are children untill we turn 18, so letting a 17 year old enlist is de facto recruiting a child soldier.
WHen it comes to corporal punishment I believe it is a matter of not being able to pass it in Congress because the representatives are not likely to be able to 'sell' it to his/her constituents
Just because the right didn't believed them (and turned out to be correct) is no reason to make fun of the left...
After all this bruhaha, how is it ok?
ITA - where's the protection for boys?
The editorial license you have taken with your post is interesting, and revealing.
The WHO 2007 FGM Typology includes four (4) Types of FGM. However, contrary to your abbreviated and embellished summary above, there are two (2) subtypes included in Type I, three (3) subtypes included in Type II, and two subtypes included in Type III, in addition to Type IV. Here is a link to the actual WHO "Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation" document, on the actual WHO website: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596442_eng.pdf A review of page 24 of the document would be illuminating.
Your "Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself" statement is interesting, in that it doesn't comport at all with the actual language of the WHO Type I typology:
Type I: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy). When it is important to distinguish between the major variations of Type I mutilation, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only; Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce.
The WHO does not state anything that could remotely be construed to be analogous to your embellishment "almost invariably accompanied" in its typology. It is also interesting that you chose to use the term "clittoral hood" used once by the WHO, as opposed to the term "prepuce" used three times. Why?
Because, you would like to artificially differentiate the exactly analogous genital cutting procedure routinely performed on males in the U.S.-male circumcision. The surgical amputation of the male prepuce (foreskin) only performed in the male genital cutting circumcision procedure is exactly analogous to WHO FGM Type I(a) which involves the surgical amputation of the female prepuce (clittoral hood) only. Not only is the name (prepuce) the same, the prepuce develops from the same cells in males and females.
This is an inconvenient truth. Genital cutting in all forms, on any person, of any gender is abhorrent. Why are U.S. folks mortified by FGM, yet these same folks, like you, defend and differentiate male genital cutting, or circumcision? This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. And, this posture smacks of predjudice and racism. Our genital cutting is OK because we do it do males, but not females. Your genital cutting is not OK because you dfo it to females.....
It's time this debate is re-focused on the broader issue of genital cutting. Males deserve the same exact rights currently enjoyed by females. The same exact reasons FGM is a travesty are equally applicable to male circumcision.
As ever, the answer to the problem is education, and lots of it. And watch what happens when people try and provide it - from the Girl Scouts of America catching flak from Catholic Bishops to the Taliban throwing acid in women's faces for attending school.
The almost perfect measure of a society's worth and sophistication is the degree to which it provides open and honest education for its young women.
And although I in no way am comparing what women of the Arab Spring are experiencing to what women in the West went through in the aftermath of WWII, where they were expected to returned to their duties as homemakers after having been the main bread winner for years, the mechanisms are much the same.
Watching the scenes of jubilation in Tahrir square last year, the phrase 'too good to be true' came to mind.