- ‹ previous
- 4230 of 8902
- next ›
Crazy As They Need To Be: Circumcised Women Who Support The Practice
This weekend, the American Anthropological Association will hold an annual meeting that ought to make quite a bit of noise for such a seemingly staid body. Interestingly, international groups which oppose "this procedure" will be debating anthropologists who support it. Among the dissenters? African anthropologists who have personally undergone, and defend, female circumsicion. Organizers note in the New York Times:
The panel includes for the first time, the critical "third wave" or multicultural feminist perspectives of circumcised African women scholars Wairimu Njambi, a Kenyan, and Fuambai Ahmadu, a Sierra Leonean. Both women hail from cultures where female and male initiation rituals are the norm and have written about their largely positive and contextualized experiences, creating an emergent discursive space for a hitherto "muted group" in global debates about FGC [female genital cutting].
Well, this particular tactic is already working: much as I want to, I haven't allowed myself to type the phrase "female genital mutilation". Way to stifle debate and go all PC on us. Now it's not just blacks shutting whites up, it's Africans shutting every Westerner up.
This was one of the few issues that American blacks bothered to notice about Africa and now we find ourselves roped off in the pit of disapproval with The Man, our 'colonialist' critiques guilty until proven innocent. Having had to deal with it throughout my career as a non-conforming black public intellectual, I sincerely hate to speculate on the psychological forces at work in 'circumcised' women singing its praises. Still, I have to wonder if these womens' (there goes PC again; I really want to say 'victim/survivors') sanity might not depend on making this particular lemonade. If you've been circumcised, and you live in the West, you have two choices: celebration or mourning. Even more dangerous: anger. Who knows which any of us would pick.
Just like veiled women who embrace their robes and enforced seclusion as expressions of feminism or cultural pride, however, these women have a long way to go in creating a counter narrative that makes the West look on the bright side of female circumsicion. We might shut up and just leave Africa to its own devices (jagged soup can lids and bacteria-ridden thorns). But I doubt that even these brainy, politicized women living in the collision of two such different worlds can accomplish more than that. Which isn't to say that these well-educated culture warrior-women aren't indeed creating an "emergent discursive space" it won't be easy to speak truth back to the power of. This is what a western education can do in service of the unspeakable:
Dr. Ahmadu, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Chicago, was raised in America and then went back to Sierra Leone as an adult to undergo the procedure along with fellow members of the Kono ethnic group. She has argued that the critics of the procedure exaggerate the medical dangers, misunderstand the effect on sexual pleasure, and mistakenly view the removal of parts of the clitoris as a practice that oppresses women. She has lamented that her Westernized "feminist sisters insist on denying us this critical aspect of becoming a woman in accordance with our unique and powerful cultural heritage." In another essay, she writes:
It is difficult for me—considering the number of ceremonies I have observed, including my own—to accept that what appears to be expressions of joy and ecstatic celebrations of womanhood in actuality disguise hidden experiences of coercion and subjugation. Indeed, I offer that the bulk of Kono women who uphold these rituals do so because they want to—they relish the supernatural powers of their ritual leaders over against men in society, and they embrace the legitimacy of female authority and particularly the authority of their mothers and grandmothers.
The "authority of their mothers and grandmothers" to mutilate their daughters in unanesthetized and unsanitary rituals meant to please men and reinforce male control over female sexuality? It appears to be Dr. Ahmadu who is doing a bit of de-contextualizing here, making the ritual stand apart from the reason, and the gendered hierarchy, in which it occurs. Ok, I'll go there—putting women in charge of circumcising other women is little different from slave masters putting loyal slaves in charge of whipping the rebels. It's no different from any other gut-wrenchingly hideous job categorized, and despised, as "women's work". That the women made something exultant from the entrails of oppression is no different than what the slaves did with chit'lins.
In the same way that this issue has reinforced how important it is to control the language of any particular debate (e.g. fgc vs. fgm), it's also helped reinforce the importance of not being guilted into silence in dealing with the Third World. If these women can prove to us that female circumsicion, whatever it used to be, isn't now barbaric and foundational to female oppression, fine. But we must not allow the debate to center on the festivities surrounding the circumsicion itself, however rockin' the party that day. The practice must indeed be culturally contextualized—do women hold office, are they educated like males, is there a dowry system, will the panelists daughters be circumcised?—however much further trauma that might cause those who survived and now support it.
Claiming that women in circumsicion cultures uphold the traditions because they want to just rhymes too closely with the good ol' boys who claimed that their 'nigras' were happy as clams until the 'outside agitators' and 'civil rightsers' got 'em all confused. Which, if memory serves, is also what the slave masters, and many slaves, said. Free your minds, African women, and your clitorises willl follow.
We're the last country on earth to do this circumcision to little boys. I come at it from a purely medical point of view. Can we allow cultural practices to abuse children? And what if a culture arose where they want to abuse a kid three times a day or cut off their pinky fingers? I think the issue Jews will be faced with?can you just come up with some new practice?like tattooing newborn babies' noses? Human rights and the integrity of the bodies of children are the key principle.
We're the last country on earth to do this circumcision to little boys. I come at it from a purely medical point of view. Can we allow cultural practices to abuse children? And what if a culture arose where they want to abuse a kid three times a day or cut off their pinky fingers? I think the issue Jews will be faced with?can you just come up with some new practice?like tattooing newborn babies' noses? Human rights and the integrity of the bodies of children are the key principle.
I think women in the United States have guns and are less
than amicable about some GUY
wanting to do stuff like that
to em. What a nut-farm of a
world we live in.
This illustrates the slippery slope of using gender politics as the primary basis for opposing FGM. FGM isn't just wrong because it oppresses women as women, and so it continues to be wrong even in a culture (maybe a hypothetical culture) in which (say) it celebrates and empowers women.
FGM is wrong because it's grievous bodily harm: a barbaric and bloody assault on children.
Opposing it because it oppresses women is not the strongest argument, because it allows this possibility, of a non-oppressive form of this barbarity. This is like opposing it because of the primitive instruments used or the risk of infection. Is FGM acceptable when conducted in a sterile operating theatre? Hell, no!
I also prefer opposing FGM on these basic fundamental grounds, of opposing grievous assault on unconsenting children, because that puts more people on the right side of the argument. If one opposes it on grounds of gender (or race) politics, the group of people opposing it is restricted to those who concern themselves with gender (or race) politics. Yes, we should all be so concerned, but the woman (or man) on the street is often not. Fight it because it's cutting off bits of kids, that's something which almost everyone feels very strongly about.
Of course, it puts you up against the male circumcision lobby, but I'm spoiling for a fight with them anyway.
FGM is plain wrong. Having said that, we are pretty smug in the western world on this subject, when, dispite the more hygenic conditions, male circumcision is also wrong. The theory that uncircumcised penises naturally are less hygenic has been disproved. Additionally, we are funnily smug when one considers that, of their own supposed consent, grown American women with higher incomes are now paying for surgery to reshape their post-child birth vaginas so as to have a pert appearance and tight fit for their men. This consentual procedure makes me feel sick inside for these women and they are GROWN UPS with CHOICE - so how can anyone not get behind an argument to end what is happening to these little girls in Africa and, to my understanding, other parts of the world? It is difficult to argue against the perspective that this is an ancient tradition that we would be fighting - I'd rather think that Africans would on their own re-think this position. After all, foot binding eventually become unpopular in China and I think that change was internal, not so much force from the Western world. I don't know all the facts on that [or even very many] but I think that foot-binding was seen as a hold over from monarchal times and was unpopular once Communism came into power and practice.
Was it the bible saying something about "Pagan" rituals.?
"Hey African Women, take a hint from white girls and get a clue." That's the nutshell of this post, when you cut through the wannabe critique.
These anthro folks may be right or wrong. But rather than engage with these "other" women, Dickerson pastes over women of color's perspectives with the age-old "Oh, we know better" rubric that white imperialists have used throughout modern history. She even invokes slavery from the black the perspective--something she can claim no authority to. Let's get this straight: Dickerson flippantly dismisses a narrative of African women and then colonizes another narrative of African people to use for her own purposes....
This post is just heinously misguided. It is a strong example of the limitations of white women's participation with people of color in feminist social struggle.
Just another Westerner trying to force her vision of the "perfect" world on the other 4/5 of the population. When will people learn that change is most effective when it originates from the main players in society? I am sure that there are many issues in your backyard that you could devote your time and words to rather than "dealing with the Third World". As if they're begging for your help.
Oh, TD, it must have taken a lot of time for you to think up that comment. You're amazing, taking the time out from building that Habitat for Humanity house in your back yard to comment here. Bless you.
Wow, ZS - way to answer the valid questions raised by Dickerson! Or rather, reinforce her point by calling her a white imperialist! From what part of "my career as a non-conforming black public intellectual" did you infer her white imperialist nature?
In the old days a woman would slap her daughter when the daughter informed her she had started her menses. This supposedly was rooted in folk wisdom - kept the girl rosy and from bleeding out. As an experiencer of said ritual I wonder how many young woman were shocked and startled and associated the slap with shame and wrong, which feelings were then compounded by a patriarchal society unreceptive to the young woman's way in the world. I surely did.
I had a sociology professor who said "outsiders" shouldn't get involved with the cultural topic of female mutilation. So on my way out of class I assured her that if she was being raped in the parking lot, I wouldn't intervene - in case they were doing something "cultural" that I just didn't understand.
I recently watched a documentary on this topic and, near the end, two of the women who perform these circumcisions stated that the reason they continue this practice is simply economic. If, in their village, there were other opportunities to earn an income, they would cease this barbaric practice, which, as shown in the documentary, sometimes leads to death from blood loss during the procedure.
FGM and MGM are the same damn thing; a violation of a child's body and a risky, dangerous and unnatural procedure. I grieve for women and men who feel the need to perpetuate these practices in the name of thinking it is some sort of cultural norm, because they don't want to delve into the horror that has been caused to them. :(
I'm afraid I'd have to agree with ZS. To a point! and without the dripping sarcasm.
When I read the post, I did detect pretty clearly where Ms Dickerson stood on the matter.
It wasn't objective at all.
But I respect it. Also, as much as I think the society should be left alone to be how they want to be. I do worry for the voices that are unable to be heard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Having said that, I just wanted to say Ms. Dickerson, I am glad to finally find you!
I once got an email about black/white issues and children written by you. At the time I was in an interracial relationship but no one to talk about it with. It was refreshing to hear you! I wasn't so blog savvy then as I am now (somewhat). But finally finally I FOUND YOU!!!! YAY! LOL
People in sub-saharan Africa actually want a lot of things that Americans have. Freedom from most childhood diseases, decent plumbing, access to an abundant variety of food, clean drinking water, regular electricity.
Let's not pretend that there's something admirable about female circumcision just because it has been part of their culture. It's really OK to say that mutilation of girl children is a bad thing, and it's not dependent upon our enumerating every other bad thing in the world.
Dear ZS:
I guess you didn't read the article very closely. The article is written by a black woman. I guess you proved her point when she predicted the stifling of debate with such dismissive comments as yours. As she says, 'now we find ourselves roped off in the pit of disapproval with The Man.'
OH MY GODFRY, the article was written by a BLACK WOMAN! Thanks, Pastor Jenn, that changes everything!
I think that political correctness is one of the most damaging concepts to come out of the, what?, 70's? 80's? It isn't possible to disagree or dislike without being called being phobic, or a hater. They seem to be trying to legislate opinions. Politcal correctness tears the heart out of any meaningful exchange and now it's being legislated? We're wanting to throw people in jail for saying words? I think people abhor this concept and that's why we got someone like George Bush. What a price we paid for the attempt to stifle dissent.
Considering the number of circumcised men that support the equally barbaric practice of male circumcision, it doesn't surprise me that circumcised women would feel that same way.
Problem with your comment, Lance: Male circumcision does not result in the loss of ability to have an orgasm. If you wish to compare female mutilation with a male experience; it's castration.
I would have hoped that my fellow Jones readers - not to mention writers - would be far more open minded than average.
Apparently not.
Before having such a strong opinion on one side of an argument, at least, just for a moment, TRY to consider the possibility that the opposing view may be valid.
By what grounds can we take it for granted that this pracitce is objectively "worse" than the male circumcision which is all but universal in our own culture? Would the author be as confident in psychoanalyzing the adult American men who choose to get the procedure, and who continue to support it even after it is done? I'm guessing no. Which is enough to show that this is unquestionably a case of Western imperialist bias. That the author is Black does not change that she is an American. Like most of us, a close minded American.
This is not to say I personally condone the practice. But hearing that there are Western educated adult women who have voluntarily undergone it, and continue to support it, does in fact make me think twice about it, as it should for any reasonable, intelligent, and objective person.
What, really, is the issue here? Sanitary surgery? How about an appendectomy using "jagged soup can lids and bacteria-ridden thorns", would that represent oppression, or just poverty? Loss of sexual sensation? Why is male circumcision ok (or at least tolerated). Procedures done on children to young to object? Again, male circumcision, not to mention young American girls who have their ears pierced before they are old enough to talk; besides, if it is an initiation into womanhood, obviously it is not preformed on young children.
Liberia, a country in which FGC is still - legally - practiced, just elected a female president. This is something the "advanced" United States has still not done and pretty well undermines the argument that the procedure is indicative of womens role is society overall.
Again: I am not saying I am in favor of female circumcision. Ive never had it done. I've never met anyone who has. I never lived in a place where its common. I am not qualified to make that judgment.
The simple thing I want to get across to whoever reads this is, no matter what your own personal background, whether liberal or conservative, progressive or traditional, please, try not to be so quick to pre-judge every issue. Consider both sides, remember that if there were not something to a particular idea, millions of people wouldn't believe it, and when you learn new information, instead of dismissing it out-of-hand, reconsider the opinion you settled on.
Otherwise, you end up riling the people who already agreed with you in the first place, but sounding like a biased idiot to everyone else.
This same "culture" mandates that a virgin cannot be put to death. So they rape her, then kill her.
Keep that open mind...
Rog, that is debatable since the removal of the foreskin does remove a number of key pleasure centers and CAN lead to an inability to reach orgasm in some men. It also has been shown to lead to problems with irritation of the glans. Further, mistakes can and do happen.
Ultimately, your argument is immaterial: both of these barbaric procedures are done without consent.
"Consider both sides, remember that if there were not something to a particular idea, millions of people wouldn't believe it."
Yes, remember the good ol' days when we all believed it was OK to bring Africans here against their will and use them as slaves.
Now there was an idea that had something to it.
Hi Lance, let me be clear - Male circumcision is without a doubt a sick cult ritual without any medical merit. It is performed on infants because they cannot disagree and the sole purpose is to mark little boys as having received the covenant of Jehova. (Jeremiah 11:13, Genesis 17:13, oh hell just read the whole damn bible.)That being said, it still is not comparable to the vicious restraining of a twelve-year-old girl and the slicing off of her genitals by women who resent the fact that she might enjoy her sexuality while they can't, much like the millions of Catholic women in this country who have had abortions who now stand outside clinics and take pictures of girls to shame them in an attempt to appear more godly to their peers.
I'm ecstatic that a person will be prosecuted in this country for FGM. It's a terrible thing to remove a girl's natural sexuality, her pride, her independance and turn her into an object of male sexual fantasies. We would never do that in this country. Would we? Look at adolescent dieting, fashions, Barbie, elective plastic surgery... Women are circumcised in this country mentally and emotionally before they hit puberty and continue to punish their bodies in order to fit a cultural ideal. I hate to sound like a cranky, old retro-feminist, but until I see sales for diet fads go down I think we ought to look at African FGM as just a major symptom of a deep and hideous illness that infects 99% of our world.
That's the beauty of it - get women to mutilate themselves, then everything's hunky-dory.
"Look at adolescent dieting, fashions, Barbie, elective plastic surgery... Women are circumcised in this country mentally and emotionally before they hit puberty and continue to punish their bodies in order to fit a cultural ideal."
While I agree with you I must also say that Elective plastic surgery is a bit different from forced bodily mutilation. Women in the US may punish their own bodies but at least they have a choice. They are not held down and cut.
"...if there were not something to a particular idea, millions of people wouldn't believe it." - Bakari
Just like the millions of Nazis that thought it was a good idea to gas Jews. How could THAT MANY people be wrong?
Just like the hundreds of thousands of Xians who tortured girls and women. How could THAT MANY people be wrong?
Just like the 31 percent of the US that agrees we should use torture on our POWs.
"I've never had it done. I've never met anyone who has. I never lived in a place where its common. I am not qualified to make that judgment." - Bukari
So here we sit on a cozy December evening, knowing that no one is going to break in to slice off any parts of our bodies and let's roll our eyes at those close-minded girls who thought they had a right to not be in pain tonight.
Bet your doors are locked, Bukari.
I hate to muddy the waters, but are you sure you're all even talking about the same thing? "Female circumcision" can refer to anything from removal of a "hood" from the clitoris--an operation designed to increase sensitivity and pleasure--to infibulation, and everything in between. Some of these operations do not destroy the ability to have orgasm. Nor are they always done with jagged tin can lids. Yes, I do know people who have had such operations. No, I don't approve. But I do think we should realize that we could be talking about different things.
I do know someone who has sufferd FGM. She now lives in France. She has blogged aout her experience in French at http://survivance.blogspot.com and her road to recovery, which has involved reconstructive surgery, and which I have translated on the early part of my own blog at http://travellingspouse.blogspot.com/2006/02/my-path-to-renewal-translat.... In her own words "It ruined my life".
With Billeen.
Female circumcision is not like castration. It is comparable to removal of the penis; castration is removal of the testicles. However, the clitoris extends inside of the body and I am wondering if in FGM, the entire clitoris is removed--or just its head?
Circumcision is barbaric. It came from ancient Egypt. We are in the 21st century folks. Hear that brother Jews. Stop acting like a tribalist.
Circumcision is wrong and shouldn't be performed on anyone unable to agree to it. And that includes baby boys in America.
What an insane world we live in indeed. The writer raises a brilliant
point about how festivities and rituals
are privileged and the oppressive structures fade into the background.
In Egypt, for instance, women who perform fmg tell you they have no choice. If they fail to perform this
Barbaric procedures, their daughtters
will not find a husband. SHe hit the nail on the head when she said loyal
slaves doing the master's bidding by
taming the rebels.
With Billeen, too.
Bless you. These arguments , the double handcuffs and silencers of black women, I heard thirty years ago, and it's STILL not clear??? We are first human beings and women together, then we look and judge ALL the rest from those needs. Period. Good for you for saying the truth and well said too. Keep at it, Godess that you are!
I'm with Bakari Kafele. Rog, genocide is not comparable to FGC. Genocide is an intentionally malicious act, perpetuated for the extermination of a group. Women who choose FGC for their daughters are not doing so because they want to hurt them, and they are especially not trying to MURDER them. And it is highly debatable as to whether FGC is considered torture. Before you respond to my comment, try reading up a bit on this topic. I recommend Female Circumcision in Africa: Culture, Controversy, and Change by Hernlund and Shell-Duncan.
I disagree with this doctor. I think her right to have genital cutting of her own choosing is fine, but bears no resemblance to what is done to children. Respect for other cultures is essential to a rational view of the world, and so are fundamental rights that apply to all people. There is a line past which cultural difference do not override fundamental rights, and mutilating sex organs of children crosses that line. That applies just as much to males in the USA as females in any African country. Enlightenment thinkers would be turning over in their graves if they could see us cutting parts off the genitals of children! Grow up humans. And shame on any American smug enough to quietly tolerate the genital mutilations going on all around them with while unconditionally condemning any genital cutting on females.
Stop all the damn involuntary genital cutting.
Granted it should not be forced.
Granted 12 is to young.
When you feel just as strongly it is inherently wrong, with nothing possibly redeeming about it even when it is voluntarily done by an adult - a western educated adult at that - well, I just don't know
The easy way to not consider any viewpoint but ones own is to say "anyone who feels different must have a psychological problem"
This article was not about 12 year olds being held down and their clitorises completely removed without consent. It was about an adult, who knew the arguments on both sides, and choose to do it.
What educated adult ever choose to be a slave?
Who ever volunteered to go into the gas chambers?
In some countries, the veil is voluntary. Some choose to wear them. Others wear jeans.
What right do any of us have, as westerners to say to her "by wearing the veil, you are subjugating yourself, and assisting in the oppression of all women"?
Maybe they prefer not to be judged on their looks? Maybe they don't want the cat calls that women here are subject to? Maybe they feel strongly about their own religions and traditions.
I have met men who felt circumcision (male) was a travesty. I have known others who had it done as an adult, who said they got fewer UTIs, and that sex was much better after.
Does that mean it should be done to infants? No.
Should the practice be outlawed? of course not.
This is exactly equivalent American plastic surgery, in that this article is about an ADULT who CHOOSES to undergo it.
Where it differs is that, say, a breast implant is purely about being sexual, about appearance, and about its affect on the males who enjoy it.
While obviously many people are unwilling to believe it, apparently people who have more reason to know believe that there is a deeper cultural significance and meaning in the rituals that go along with the surgical part.
I find it more compelling to hear from someone who actually knows from first hand experience what is involved as opposed to people who know about entirely from reading other western journalists opinion, which was made up in advance.
I should be asleep, but you guys have got me to thinking.
First, to address a couple comments on my first post: slavery and the holocaust were both perpetrated by one culture upon an independent other culture. That is what makes those irrelevant to this discussion. Outsiders are not coming into these countries to tell them to preform FGC, (in fact, just the opposite is happening).
-
Can we all agree that the issue would be put to rest if every culture which practiced this a) outlawed it being preformed by force or threat of force and b) outlawed it being done on anyone under the age of majority (independence, voting, whatever defines it in a particular culture)?
I suspect not.
So what, really, is the underlying issue?
If it is the age and lack of consent, why not an equal uproar over our own common male circumcision?
If it is the loss of sexual feeling, why the total lack of distinction between Type I, Type II, and Type III FGC, each of which have drastically different affects; and why also the consistent ignoring of evidence that women - even with type III - can and do still experience orgasms?
Is it because of the degradation of women, due to its implication of their role in society? My point last time that a country which still practices this just elected a female president (while the US still hasn't) went unanswered.
It is because of the implied sexualizating or objectifying of women? Why not an equal uproar over western breast implants?
It is the knee-jerk reaction of total revulsion which seems to transcend facts or reason which implies to me it is at least partially an issue of culture shock.
Let me point out somethings which no one, on either side of the issue (at least here on this article and comments) has mentioned:
Consider what our culture may look like to a more conservative one. They may well look at our 50% divorce rate, our fairly high unwed teenage pregnancy rate, our prevalence of single parent homes, our extremely high crime rate; this would serve to confirm our lack of morality and its consequences on society. Even without using religion or tradition as a basis, there is still some valid points to be made there.
Another issue, hidden from us because of our view from our wealthy, modern, first world home: We can all go to the supermarket or doctor and buy an unlimited supply of cheap birth control. That allows a tremendous amount of sexual freedom which we take for granted, but which is no where close to universal. As it is we have government mandated "abstinence only" sex-ed classes, and people are working hard to outlaw abortion. What would it do to YOUR sex life, and by extension your relationships, if you had no access to any form of birth control. Before you answer that, try it for a few years. How would you feel about your own teenage children, growing up in modern America, if birth control and safe abortions were simply not realistic options? Of course you would talk to them, but they don't always listen.
-
We seem to think we have no cultural bias, no preconceived notions, that we don't do anything irrational as a matter of course. Since the issue seems to be largely about women's role in society, and a percieved lack of respect or value of women given to a particular custom, return to another analogy, one which the author mentioned as well. While there are plenty of women who wear the burka by choice, who defend it, there are also many westerners who insist it is an insult to them, that it is degrading, or something of the like.
Consider:
Why do you wear clothes?
On a hot day, out in the park, or taking a walk around the neighborhood, why are you dressed? It is legally mandated, but chances are that isn't why. It is something you have internalized. Yet - do you feel oppressed? Do you feel imposed upon? Does the lack of those feelings imply a sort of Stockholm syndrome, or "nigger" syndrome (forgive the word, you know what I mean - and yes, not that it matters, but I am Black. And Jewish. And male. figured I may as well get that all out there).
Is your quality of life destroyed because you prefer not to be naked in public most of the time?
Did you know that by law in New York state women are not required to wear tops? Just as men can go shirtless, so can women. Only exposing the genital region, (or displaying another part in a deliberately sexual manner) is cause for an indecent exposure citation. Yet, women in New York still wear tops. This is a self-imposed limitation. And, as women may feel that exposing their breasts on a hot day may leave them vulnerable or open to unwelcome attention, so might Islamic women feel the same about the burka.
Where we draw the line is totally arbitrary.
Is it not sexist and oppressive that in almost every other part of the country women are required to wear tops, but men are not?
Is it not oppressive to us all that we are required to wear any clothes at all?
-
Among modern first world countries ours is one of the more restrictive socially / sexually (second to Australia it seems). It takes far less sex for a movie to become 'R' than it does violence. We have sex-ed based as much on religious belief as on science or statistics. Sodomy is still technically illegal in a few states, and was only officially overturned by the supreme court a few years ago. That includes not only homosexual sex, but in some places also anything other than vaginal intercourse between a married couple.
There is the aforementioned ban on nudity, or even partial nudity. There is our sever lack of women in powerful political roles. And at the same time we ostracize promiscuous women as sluts, we teach females from the time they are babies that what makes them valuable is being beautiful.
I think being sheltered from sex creates generation after generation of citizens - once children themselves - who have unhealthy internalizations about sex.
-
Is cultural tradition important? If not, that open a whole area of what is justifiable on the grounds of religious freedom. What level of personal restriction is acceptable for the good of society? Remember, this article was not about pre-teens being held down despite their screams, it was about an adult who did it voluntarily.
Would it be reasonable to classify "gender re-assignment surgery" as genital mutilation? Why not? How about altering an infant born as a hermaphrodite? Surely there will be repercussions for that child growing up, in grade school when kids learn the difference between boys and girls, in middle school, when you have to change in the locker room, in high school when peers start dating seriously.
Is it reasonable of a parent to want to spare their children those hardships?
At what age could that child be deemed responsible enough to make that decision on their own?
It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world where everyone was accepting of everyone else, everyone had enough of everything, and everyone could be happy all the time. Given the world we live in, what is the single "right" answer of how to deal with a hermaphrodite baby, and how can you be sure that the answer is better than all of the alternatives?
-
What is sex for? Is it a tool for society, for reproduction, related to relations, to relationships, to who is a relative, or is it purely personal, primary for pleasure, and if one chooses, for controlled reproduction.
I, personally, am inclined to the second answer. I prefer it. I am none-the-less aware of its naivety, of a bias stemming from a new phenomenon in the world, one which is not universal, even though it is all I personally have even known. We live very sheltered, isolated lives, with less contact with both our communities and our extended families. If we are in contact, it is by choice, not necessity. We can earn an income, pay rent, buy food, stock up on birth control, and not interact with anyone but spouse and co-workers if we so choose. Never before in time could this be so, and in the majority of the world it still isn't. Of course we have a cultural bias when we look at something like, say, arranged marriages, initiation rites, or, really, just about anything.
-
Again, let me be clear: I am not in any way trying to prove there is in anyway anything good about this practice. I whole-heartedly agree that type III FGC should be illegal to preform on anyone not old enough to be independent or married, and that any form of body alteration should be illegal to be forced upon anyone against their will.
The point of my several long posts is just that I want all of us to acknowledge that we do in fact have our own cultural bias, and to try to be open minded.
When one insists on using terms like "mutilation" or "victim", it feels to me like the political doublespeak and emotional manipulation which we usually ascribe to republicans and fundamentalists. It doesn't matter if that is not the intention. Let us be objective and balanced and unbiased - and if we end up coming to the same conclusions in the end, so be it.
But take a step back and a moment to calm down first.Because some issues are just too important to be decided by emotion alone.
Bakari, you are eloquent in your points and I agree with much of what you have to say. Obviously we have social biases, yet I cannot imagine how this can be avoided. It is a fairly natural reaction; the most productive reaction would be your kind of thoughtful consideration of the points.
Where I disagree with you is regarding your comment that by using words such as 'victim' we are guilty of fundamentalist doublespeak. This seems to fall under what Dickerson referred to as being guilted out of our perspective on this matter. I for one cannot think of a better term than victim when, in my mind's eye, I see a young girl's face, contorted with fear and pain, framed in the fingers of hands that are holding her down, preventing her flight. She is beaded in sweat, her eyes are wild. Her body as formed by nature is being changed, her blood spilled, all without her consent.
How many people regret their decision of a tattoo or piercing only a year or so after getting it? Can any twelve year old [or younger or older] understand the procedure and what she will value as a grown woman, enough to give consent to this? If an educated woman wants to return to her homeland in her twenties, thirties, forties, and undergo the procedure, she should have that right. However, she should also remember that she is privileged to be able to make that decision from the safe remove of her age, education, tenure in the western world and the personal power these things give her.
At the end of the day, I think your intellectual approach is admirable, although, as someone who is safe from the pain and fear of this custom, you can afford to be so objective. I prefer my more emotional reaction, knowing that I can reason it out later without removing myself from the empathy and compassion these girls might benefit from ultimately.
Bakari do you hold the crystal ball of the rightly world perception. Your post is hypocritical and condescending for those who are expressing thoughts, suggestions, and opinions. Right after you demand the rest of us to either recongize or take off our cultural sun glasses you then rant against our points by pointing to suppose or real contradiction for lack of "widespread" application. THe post is about a specific issue that are driven by single or multiple general or universal justification or logic or reason. To demand us to be objective and put aside our emotions but then to fill the rest of your post of your own prejudice arguements and reasons and pass them on as objective and pure logical anaylsis of the bloggers' posts is hypocritical and smug. Most people who have posted have stated their limited or expansive experience. Some have offered documentary references and website of survivers. I find it ironic that you state that you have never experienced nor known anyone who has been through FGM and you lack knowledge about FGM and therefore you state that you aren't qualify to judge the topic at hand yet you seem to deem yourself worthy to judge those who have taken the care to educate themselves and known others who have undergone FGM. Some how you in your logical mind justify your position to judge others for not being open or open enough to see the opposing view even you admit you are not knowledgable about the topic at hand. How can you judge the validity of an opposing arguement when you don't know adequately about the topic at hand. But you later admit your position which is you don't condone FGM but you don't state your reason like every one else has. So every one elses reasoning becomes an easy target for you to find fallacies yet you don't offer your own reason because you lack knowledge but obviously you don't lack enough knowledge to judge others' reasoning and justification.
The post is about expressing your thoughts and adding to inform not chasten but Inform. Stating the reasoning for WHY you oppose or agree along with stating your position. Trying to play the game in positioning yourself to find logical fallacies in other's arugment while not stating your reasons is pompous. This is a blog. Contribute fairly. So, like everyone else state your reasons and state the logical argument why you we should heed your criticism of our arguements with your lack of understanding or knowledge of FGM as you stated. let us have the chance to decipher the color of your cultural sunglasses since you are so quick to call our colors.
Why are you calling this circumcision? It makes it sound like it is an acceptable practice that is done for a legitimate reason. The practice of sexually mutilating female children is just that - mutilation. Call it what it is.
(Quoting from Wikipedia here, sorry)... "The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions"
In other words, women are faced with a choice (not generally conscious) between living with the anger and anguish at having had something they consider awful done to them, or converting their negative feelings to positive ones, in order to be able to reconceptualize their experience as beneficial rather than unbearable. In fact, I think this is one of the points the author of this article is trying to make.
By the way, as an anthropology student, let me just say that not all of us are ok with this practice. Cultural relativism is a characteristic of the discipline; some of us take it farther than others, however, and cross a line into moral relativism. All that cultural relativism, in its pure form, demands, is that we consider practices in the light of their context and realize that what may seem bizarre or nonsensical often is internally logical from the point of view of a member of that culture (I'm sure someone else would be better qualified to present an argument on the internal rationale for fgc/m); it does not unequivocally bestow moral acceptability on practices such as this.
Paul: I was referring specifically to the author's instinct to refer to Dr. Ahmadu and others in her position as 'victims'. I had hoped I had made clear a distinction between it being forced vs voluntary, and children vs adults. I don't disagree that under some circumstances it is harmful and un-justifiable. This article was not about those circumstances.
Indeed people may regret a tattoo or piercing some day, (or more significant, an abortion - I'll come back to that). That doesn't make them victims.
Siri: It seems to me that your response is more a personal attack than it is related to any of the points I raised. I did not mean to sound that way myself, and I apologize if I did.
Much of my point was that I DON'T hold the crystal ball on rightly world perception; that none of us do, and yet we each pretend to anyway. I pointed out other sides that complicate the issue, which we might not initially consider, especially if our mind is made up in advance. Statements are not made in the form of thoughts, suggestions, and opinions, they are made as though they were undeniable fact. Even the title suggests that anyone who has had this done to them and still supports it is crazy. How is that respecting opposing viewpoints?
I'm not sure which arguments you are referring to. I don't think I said much or anything which has a definite or concrete "right" answer. All of these issues are complicated. I'm not insisting that everyone else agree with me on everything. I'm just asking that we all be a little more open minded. Perhaps that applies to myself as well. In fact, I'm sure it does, but that fact does not invalidate what I'm saying.
Offering individual anecdotal evidence is no more proof of a universal wrong than the experiences of the pro-FGC women who inspired this article are proof that it is ok. It does offer strong evidence that in at least some cases, and perhaps in a great many, something is being done which is very wrong.
When I say I don't know enough, I don't mean I haven't heard all the same horror stories and testimonials and statistics that we have access to here. I mean I haven't read the entirety of Dr. Ahmadu's writing on the subject, I haven't lived in a place where this is done, I haven't learned exactly what goes on during the weeks leading up to the actual procedure (due to it's being secret). I can not judge it with certainty because I am a westerner.
I think that the women this article was inspired by are more qualified than any of us to make a judgment, and I think that it is unreasonable of us to write them off as having no valid opinions, beliefs, or information, on the very basis of disagreeing with our view.
-
I think my reason is irrelevant, but personally I don't value culture, tradition, or religion at all (but I recognize that some people do). From what I have read, statistically it is done in a manner which is unsafe, unhealthy, not voluntary, or otherwise physically or psychologically damaging often enough that it likely warrants banning even if it is not universally wrong. I also believe the body is exquisitely designed and should not be tinkered with except in rare cases to correct deformities. As such I also am against tattoos, and piercings, and while I am still undecided on the issue, to a degree sex changes as well. I none-the-less respect individuals rights to have these things done to themselves if they so choose, and I am not going to claim that a woman who gets implants - even if the underlying reason is to fit in, or be beautiful, or get a good husband, is crazy or is a victim. Personally I feel that people have more control over their children's lives than would be ideal, pushing their own religion, interests, values, deciding what health care they do or don't receive, but I realize it can not be any other way, and that exactly where we choose to draw the line is somewhat arbitrary. I am against it not because it is universally and unquestionably wrong, but because I am unaware of any valid reason to do it, and because I know that there are many instances where the overall effect for the person it is done to is negative.
In fact, until I read this article, I was entirely against the practice, and without any doubt on that stance. This was the first time I had heard a dissienting voice from the ONLY person who has enough information to make a judgment - someone who has gone through it.
"She has argued that the critics of the procedure exaggerate the medical dangers, misunderstand the effect on sexual pleasure, and mistakenly view the removal of parts of the clitoris as a practice that oppresses women."
Who are we to tell her she is either lying or crazy?
Laura: there are several different versions of FGC, with widely varying degrees of tissue removal. I can understand the usage of the word "mutilation" in regards to type III where the majority of the external genitalia are removed and what's left is basically sewn shut. An alternate, and common, version , type I, is fairly equivalent to male circumcision. Physiologically the head of the penis is equivalent to the clitoris, and the foreskin equivalent to the clitoral hood. What reason is there for insisting on referring to a hoodectomy as "mutilation" rather than "circumcision". Is the goal to blur the lines and make them all seem equally bad? The term circumcision in no way implies that it is acceptable, justifiable, or otherwise legitimate. Is not removing tissue from the genitals of infant boys without their permission mutilation as well? Why no campaign to change the term circumcision to Male Genital Mutilation? There are plenty of people who oppose male circumcision, who feel it is medically unnecessary, should not be done on young children, and/or believe it causes a loss of sexual sensation. Yet, they argue against the practice with out changing the term itself to something that will stir up intense feelings in order to further their cause.
Changing a term for the purpose of getting people to agree with you is no better just because of being on the morally superior side than calling late-term abortion "partial birth" or calling Iraqi rebels "terrorists".
-
Alright, one last analogy, then I give up:
Small town, mid-western America. Prayer in schools, abstinence only sex-ed, very few minorities, 90% republican.
A young girl ends up getting pregnant.
Her father genuinely cares for her, he is concerned not only with his own reputation, but with her future. He doesn't want to go to the family doctor, because everyone will find out. He can't afford to go all the way to a big city hospital where his insurance won't cover non-emergencies. SO he ends up bringing her to a unlicensed back-alley facility somewhere.
The girl is frightened, confused - she doesn't want to go through with this, but she doesn't want the consequences of being a unwed teen mother either. So she goes along with what she is told. She isn't happy about it, but she doesn't fight it either.
This place is unsanitary, and the medical tools include wire hangers.
It is terribly dangerous for her, physically.
She may very well regret this one day.
Things like this really have happened, really do happen, and it is a travesty.
However, this is not a reason to outlaw abortions.
This is a reason to educate people, young and old, and to remove societal stigmas little by little. Simply outlawing abortions would only serve to increase the prevalence of that scenario, as those who wanted to go through a real doctor would no longer be able to.
The existence of abortions is not what causes the situation, it is a symptom of a larger societal view on sex.
In this example the father really is doing what he believes is best for his daughter. The vast majority of times she will end up ok. There will be many individuals who end up regretting going through with it, but there will also be many who did not, who regret not having done it.
Does this father deserve jail time? Has the girl been subjugated? If she ends up one day a parent, with her underage daughter in the same place, and she makes the same decision, is it automatically out of spite?
It is a reality that young girls sometimes get pregnant. If 14 is too young to make decisions about abortion, who is to make that decision for her?
Similarly, if the west attacks the actual practice of FGC itself, instead of providing alternative methods of social stability via reproductive control (how about massive birth control aid, instead of just food or money?), what may be accomplished is just driving it out of the relatively safe, registered, schools staffed with trained nurses with medical instruments and into the outdoors with whatever sharp items are handy.
One last thing, while I'm on this tangent: People who are against abortion are not anti-women, they are not in favor of women being submissive, the many women who oppose it do not all have an internalized subservient mentality. They honestly believe, right or wrong, that humans have souls, and that individual life literally begins at the moment of conception. They are not using their slogans as a guise to try to hold women down. They feel that abortion is literally murder. Most, but not all, have beliefs about the world based on what is written in the bible. We may see it as just some book, written by people trying to make senses of a confusing world in a time before science, and altered countless times by self-serving men in power, but they believe it is literally the word of God. We can consider their viewpoint without agreeing with them.
-
That then, is my summary, my conclusion:
We can consider another's viewpoint with out agreeing with them.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that both in terms of personal growth and fulfillment, and in terms of the practical ability to influence others, that consideration is always a valuable thing.
I know you're angry. Just realize that on the other side, the people is support feel just as sure of themselves, just as angry, just as horrified of what you do as you feel about them.
If we look at this issue and say "these people are horrible barbaric people who use their children as a commodity and have no respect or value for human life" we have no hope of ever reaching them. If we want to get through to them, and change mindsets in order to change behavior, lets start from a place of understanding, so that they don't block us out after the first use of the word "mutilation".
Read the Bible. You might get it right.
Jeepers! Shorter posts, please.
A person's cultural or life-experience background does not provide adequate content to prove an argument. If one person says 'I was there, so I know' that doesn't make what they say true. It makes what they say a subjective account. Moreover, one person cannot replace the voices of all people, and say 'this is how it is'. Whether or not an African woman wrote the anti-FGM article, and two other African woman are pro-FGM, doesn't mean that all African women think one or the other. Neither does it prove that all African women will always think one way or another. Perhaps one is being coerced, perhaps one has internalized oppressive values and beliefs about a harmful practice, or perhaps one really enjoys and finds FGM important to her life. To understand whether FGM is oppressive will likely take lots more time... In the meantime, the conditions for FGM should be sanitary.