War on Women in the Middle East

[Cleon]

More with the exaggerations. If a woman willingly has a piercing done in the Middle East by a nurse with sanitized instruments it would still be called FGM by Westerners who continually want to paint women in the ME as nothing but victims.

Mule fritters.

The comparison between a voluntary piercing by a grown woman and severing the clitoris of a baby girl is so ridiculous as to be offensive.

 

[truethat]

Who is doing that? FGM has four different categories which are posted above. There is no distinction ever made by Western women discussing this issue. The numbers of "above 90%" are based on what research? What evidence? It's just another thing that is touted with no real proof that everyone sucks up and throws around. Research please?

Of course there are definitely tribes and groups in the ME that absolutely do this to their children. I find it only a bit more barbaric than circumicizing boys in Western culture. There are some severe forms of FGM but they are not the norm. And in fact what norm there is we do not know. We do know that FGM is forbidden in Egypt and has been for decades and that it has nothing to do with Islam.

That doesn't stop people from jumping on the misinformation bandwagon.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Who is doing that? FGM has four different categories which are posted above. There is no distinction ever made by Western women discussing this issue. The numbers of "above 90%" are based on what research? What evidence? It's just another thing that is touted with no real proof that everyone sucks up and throws around. Research please?

Of course there are definitely tribes and groups in the ME that absolutely do this to their children. I find it only a bit more barbaric than circumicizing boys in Western culture. There are some severe forms of FGM but they are not the norm. And in fact what norm there is we do not know. We do know that FGM is forbidden in Egypt and has been for decades and that it has nothing to do with Islam.

That doesn't stop people from jumping on the misinformation bandwagon.

Types I and II account for about 85% of FGM.

And I posted the links to the research giving the figure of above 90%.

Could someone quote my earlier links as truethat probably has me on ignore.

 

[Cleon]

Who is doing that? FGM has four different categories which are posted above. There is no distinction ever made by Western women discussing this issue. The numbers of "above 90%" are based on what research? What evidence? It's just another thing that is touted with no real proof that everyone sucks up and throws around. Research please?

Already supplied. You apparently ignored it.

In Egypt 1997-2010:
91% of 15-49 year old women have been cut/mutilated
24% of 15-49 year old women have at least one mutilated/cut daughter

Source:

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/egypt_statistics.html

More data here:
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/OD6/03Prevalence.pdf

There are some severe forms of FGM but they are not the norm. And in fact what norm there is we do not know.

Yeah...I can see I'm going to need the aspirin for this one.

That doesn't stop people from jumping on the misinformation bandwagon.

Oh, indeed. Tell us again how what your friends tell you is stronger evidence than studies by world health organizations?

 

[truethat]

You posted a link you found online. The question I asked was, how many participants were in the study. How do they justify the 90% figure? Where was the research done, who paid for it etc.

I found this in your link

Female genital mutilation/cutting – (a) Women – the percentage of women aged 15 to 49 years of age who have been mutilated/cut. (b) Daughters – the percentage of women aged 15 to 49 with at least one mutilated/cut daughter. Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) involves the cutting or alteration of the female genitalia for social reasons. Generally, there are three recognized types of FGM/C: clitoridectomy, excision and infibulation. Clitoridectomy is the removal of the prepuce with or without excision of all or part of the clitoris. Excision is the removal of the prepuce and clitoris along with all or part of the labia minora. Infibulation is the most severe form and consists of removal of all or part of the external genitalia, followed by joining together of the two sides of the labia minora using threads, thorns or other materials to narrow the vaginal opening. A more detailed analysis of these data can also be found at www.measuredhs.com and www.measurecommunication.org

Where are the actual numbers of women interviewed? Aren't you a professional? Do you normally just accept numbers posted on a website that has an invested interest in promoting social welfare programs in the ME.


Also sarcastic personal attacks against me are not facts. I don't know a single person who does research who would just accept numbers without evidence.

There is a huge difference in knowing someone has had something done and presuming that they MAY have had it done due to their age, gender and culture.

 

[Cleon]

You posted a link you found online. The question I asked was, how many participants were in the study. How do they justify the 90% figure? Where was the research done, who paid for it etc.

I found this in your link




Where are the actual numbers of women interviewed? Aren't you a professional? Do you normally just accept numbers posted on a website that has an invested interest in promoting social welfare programs in the ME.

Are you serious?

You want us to believe your friends, and yet you demand we explain to you the methodology and details of a UN study?

 

[truethat]

Limits of study as presented in one study done in Germany

3.7. Limits of the study
3.7.1. Unique focus on Sub-Saharan Africa
The study focused exclusively on countries in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Other countries where the practice is known to exist
were not taken into consideration. We did not include the
immigrant population from Egypt and Yemen in the research
even though both countries have integrated the issue in the
questionnaire of the Demographic and Health Surveys and
have presented solid estimations for the prevalence rates
of FGM/C in their countries (96% for Egypt and 27% for
Yemen).

The number of registered immigrants from Yemen is very
small in Hamburg (22 men and seven women). We could not
focus our resources on such a small community. The Egyptian community is more relevant in terms of numbers and
the high prevalence rate in the country. There are offi cially
1249 immigrants of Egyptian origin registered in Hamburg.
Most of them are men (857), but among the 392 registered
girls and women, there are 105 girls below 18 years of age.
It is recommended that the further study include or investigate specifi cally the knowledge of, attitudes toward and
ways of practicing FGM/C in the Egyptian immigrant community in Hamburg.


3.7.2. No random sampling for the quantitative survey
As described in section 3.3.2.1, we had no means to conduct
a probability survey for the collection of the quantitative
data. It can be assumed that the probability of getting
interviewed was not the same for all immigrants from
Sub-Saharan Africa. Community members outside social
networks (church, mosque, integration classes, community
events and meetings) or who abstain from visiting typical
meeting places (Afro shops, main station, betting agencies)
were less likely to be interviewed. At the same time, persons
acquainted with one of the researchers were more likely
to be interviewed. The snowball sampling and the efforts
undertaken to collect data from various districts of Hamburg
aimed to balance this effect. It is clear, however, that the
unfeasibility of random sampling reduces the validity of the
data and has to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.


3.7.3. Oral reports as the only source
The qualitative and quantitative research tools allowed only
the collection of data based on oral testimonies. Previous
studies on FGM/C, however, have indicated that verbal
reports can be biased. This is usually due to efforts of
participants to provide socially desirable answers (see for example Cellule de Planifi cation et de Statistique du Ministère
de la Santé, Direction Nationale de la Statistique et de
l’Informatique du Ministère de l’Économie, de l’Industrie et
du Commerce et al. 2006). It can also be linked to the lack of
knowledge. Circumcised women, for example, are sometimes
not aware about the form of FGM/C they have undergone
and give inexact descriptions of what has been done (see
for example Asefaw 2007). Furthermore, some of the study
participants feared negative sanctions after responding
truthfully to certain questions. This makes it likely that some
of the data collected during the current project is subject to
reporting bias. We tried to mitigate this limitation by taking
note of non-verbal reactions and interview compliance and
by excluding dubious responses from the data analysis.

3.7.4. Small sample sizes for some countries
The sample sizes of immigrant populations from Eritrea,
Sudan, Tanzania, Somalia, Guinea Bissau, Sierra Leone, and
Liberia are too small for an in-depth analysis. For the fi rst
four countries, the small number of immigrants reached
can be explained through the small population size of the
communities in Hamburg. For the three other countries, we
recommend further studies to gather additional information. Listening to African Voices 21
Literature review
The fi rst part of the current chapter furnishes general
information on the practice of FGM/C (section 4.1-4.5). The
second part summarises knowledge of FGM/C in immigrant
communities in Europe and in Germany in particular (section
4.6 and 4.7).
4.1. FGM/C and its different forms
FGM/C is defi ned as “all procedures involving partial or total
removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to
the female genital organs for non-medical reasons” (WHO,
UNICEF et al. 1997). The WHO/ UNICEF/ UNFPA published
an initial categorisation of FGM/C in four different types
(WHO, UNICEF et al. 1997). In 2008, a group of United Nation’s agencies launched a joint statement which introduces
a revised version of the four types. They are defi ned as
follows:
Type I: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the
prepuce (clitoridectomy).
Type II: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the
labia minora, with or without excision of the labia
majora (excision).
Type III: Narrowing of the vaginal orifi ce with creation
of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning
the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or
without excision of the clitoris (infi bulation).
Type IV: All other harmful procedures to the female
genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example:
pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterisation.
Moreover, the joint statement proposes two sub-categories
for the three fi rst types respectively in order to make it
easier to classify the variety of forms of FGM/C practiced in
different contexts (UNAIDS, UNDP et al. 2008).
4.2. Prevalence and geographic spread of the
practice of FGM/C
According to estimations from the WHO in between 100
to 140 million women have undergone FGM/C and two to
three million girls and women are at risk of being subjected
to the practice every year (UNICEF 2005; UNAIDS, UNDP et
al. 2008). Most of the women and girls live in Sub-Saharan
Africa (UNICEF 2005). The map below gives an approximate
picture of the geographic spread across the African conti

http://www.planusa.org/docs/ListeningtoAfricanVoices.pdf

 

[truethat]

Are you serious?

You want us to believe your friends, and yet you demand we explain to you the methodology and details of a UN study?

I would like you to actually back up your statements which I have yet to see you do. You keep dodging the question.

Just this one study shows it is impossible for them to put forth the number that 90% of all Egyptian women have had some form of FGM.

Let me say it again. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make that claim legitimately. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why.

Yet it doesn't stop people from throwing this number around like it's a proven fact.

The reason my FRIENDS matter is that is was very odd to me to hear this number being pedaled all over the place as a fact when NONE of the women I knew had this experience. From parts of Egypt such as Alexandria, Cairo and also the small "farmer towns" that are very backward villages. Granted it may be that none of the women were told that it had been done to them, or perhaps that they were embarrassed to admit it. But more and more I realized there are no actual figures to back up.

 

[truethat]

If you google WHO FGM Limitations on Study you will find that in some cases they inspected 255 women etc etc. This is based on estimation. It is not a fact.

 

[Cleon]

I would like you to actually back up your statements which I have yet to see you do. You keep dodging the question.

No, I just have **** to do. Analyzing UN reports for someone who obviously is digging for reasons to dismiss them is really not something I'm going to put a high priority on.

Feel free to declare victory, if you like.

The reason my FRIENDS matter is that is was very odd to me to hear this number being pedaled all over the place as a fact when NONE of the women I knew had this experience. From parts of Egypt such as Alexandria, Cairo and also the small "farmer towns" that are very backward villages. Granted it may be that none of the women were told that it had been done to them, or perhaps that they were embarrassed to admit it. But more and more I realized there are no actual figures to back up.

Your motivations for your beliefs are your business, but around these parts we generally prefer data and studies to anecdotes about your friends.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

*Sigh*. The links I provided told you exactly where the data comes from and you could very easily have found out the sample size and methodology yourself. But if you need spoonfeeding...

The papers I linked to were summaries of data from a few sources over several years. here is a link to one of the sources, the DHS. I picked 2008 because it was the first to come up in a search and is relatively recent. The sample size is approximately 5000 and it appears to use appropriate sampling methodology so that the numbers can be extrapolated to the population with reasonable confidence.

http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/fr220/fr220.pdf

 

[truethat]

Ok so they sampled 5,000 women and then based on that they decided that 90% of women had had this done. And this makes good sense to you.

How about if we go to a free clinic and sample women who are there because they don't have medical coverage for gynecology and then we write up a "estimate" and "study" that says based on these numbers 90% of American women don't have proper gynecological coverage.

That seems about equivalent to me.

 

[truethat]

No, I just have **** to do. Analyzing UN reports for someone who obviously is digging for reasons to dismiss them is really not something I'm going to put a high priority on.

Feel free to declare victory, if you like.

Your motivations for your beliefs are your business, but around these parts we generally prefer data and studies to anecdotes about your friends.

Right except when I post them they are ignored and when I ask you to back up your statements you can't do it so you say you are too busy but then take the time to post a snarky comment.

Got it!

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Ok so they sampled 5,000 women and then based on that they decided that 90% of women had had this done. And this makes good sense to you.

How about if we go to a free clinic and sample women who are there because they don't have medical coverage for gynecology and then we write up a "estimate" and "study" that says based on these numbers 90% of American women don't have proper gynecological coverage.

That seems about equivalent to me.

You obviously know zero about sampling methodology. Come back to me when you've educated yourself.

PS The description of the sampling methodology used starts on page 4. And here's some info on one of the authors who you seem to think know **** all about how to do research:

http://www.elzanaty.com/about.asp


/me puts her spoon away

 

[Cleon]

Feel free to declare victory, if you like.

Right except when I post them they are ignored and when I ask you to back up your statements you can't do it so you say you are too busy but then take the time to post a snarky comment.

Got it!

Hope you enjoyed it.

 

[truethat]

You obviously know zero about sampling methodology. Come back to me when you've educated yourself.

PS The description of the sampling methodology used starts on page 4. And here's some info on one of the authors who you seem to think know **** all about how to do research:

http://www.elzanaty.com/about.asp

There are limitations to sampling methodology that are very much acknowledged by those that do it. If you look at the link I posted from Germany it is included in that.

I've asked you for a very simple thing. Please post information and evidence that shows the methodology that backs up the numbers being passed around at 90% and above.

And I'm still waiting. My posts that are discussing it are clear in their limitations of study.

I'll look at this link though.

ETA You posted someone's CV instead of evidence? Okie dokie then. Your evidence is "cause they said so."

 

[Morrigan]

Keep digging that hole, it's hilarious.

Not sure what you expect on a skeptics forum by going with "b-b-but my FRIENDS!". Or what you think you're accomplishing by downplaying a very real, very common atrocity being routinely committed. But it sure is entertaining.

 

[truethat]

I knew when I'd open this that you'd be whinging without a shred of evidence as USUAL. LOL I may use personal anecdotes as a jumping off point for thinking but I sure as hell don't stay there. I go do research and look up facts.

You on the other hand read a news clip online and let that do all the thinking for you without ever taking it further which is why none of you can answer a simple question.

What are the study limitations done by those who purport this percentage and how do they rationalize the percentage based on the study?

I will never get a post that answers the question because I don't think you even understand what it means.

 

[Virus]

So now you think researchers don't know how to do research?

 

[DC]

considering how studies about accupuncture are handled on this forum, i would say what truethat did is usual on this forum.