It's a matter of understanding why, Tina. I don't think that "fear of 
female sexuality" quite does it. Or at least it begs the question of 
why the men in these societies are so much more fearful than the rest 
of us. In most cases a cursory look at a given society supplies other 
causes, which have to be addressed before change on any large scale 
will happen.

Let's look at our own society (I'm including the US, Canada, Britain 
and Australia under that rubric). Not very long ago the situation for 
most women was far more dire than it is now. One way to track the 
change is the average number of children per woman. The number drops 
as educational level rises, to the extent that in the places named, 
and in western Europe except Ireland (and it's fast approaching 
there, too), educated, middle class women are producing far less than 
the 2.6 children needed for population replacement. The same is 
happening in of all places Mexico--in the two generations since it 
became as common for middle class Mexican women to be educated as for 
their brothers the rate of live births per woman has fallen to the 
level it is in Italy. A lot of reasons for this, perhaps not 
necessary to go into here. But of course women with fewer children 
have more options that don't include dependence on men. And men who 
have to worry about the survival of fewer children, and need them 
less to insure their own survival in old age, also have more options. 
It's astonishing how quickly all of the social controls that served 
to keep women pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen have lost their potency.

Mark


At 11:56 AM 3/30/2006, you wrote:
> > As to "I don't believe it is seen as analogous to the circumcision of
> > boys.  I really don't.  The mutilation of women is, I believe, bound
> > up in fear of women's sexuality," belief has nothing to do with it.
> > In many of these societies female genital mutilation happens at the
> > same age as circumcision of boys, and the members of those societies
> > consider the practices analagous.
>
>I don't want to argue - ok.  Strike that.  I do want to argue.  I may not
>have as much experience in this area as you but I have come in contact with
>several women who have been mutilated in this way and in support of what
>they say (from the amnesty website):
>
>[Control of women's sexuality and reproductive functions
>In many societies, an important reason given for FGM is the belief that it
>reduces a woman's desire for sex, therefore reducing the chance of sex
>outside marriage. The ability of unmutilated women to be faithful through
>their own choice is doubted. In many FGM-practising societies, it is
>extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a woman to marry if she has not
>undergone mutilation. In the case of infibulation, a woman is "sewn up" and
>"opened" only for her husband. Societies that practise infibulation are
>strongly patriarchal. Preventing women from indulging in "illegitimate" sex,
>and protecting them from unwilling sexual relations, are vital because the
>honour of the whole family is seen to be dependent on it. Infibulation does
>not, however, provide a guarantee against "illegitimate" sex, as a woman can
>be "opened" and "closed" again.]
>
>
>Tina