Comments on: Female Genital Cutting, Sexuality, and Anti-FGC Advocacy

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I find it ironic that western women are hysterectomized routinely, which causes great physical , emotional trauma yet there is little or no outcry against it. In fact I believe this causes greater measurable harm than the mutilation of the clitoris. This is especially true when the ovaries are destroed or the blood supply is cut off, causing hormonal shock which is often debilitating. Injury to the bladder, bowel and urogenital track. Women are coerced into this operation routinely. 1 in 3 American women is hysterectomized by age 60/ If this isn’t a cultural phenomenon, 650,000 unnecessary hysterectomies each and every year what is?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Kate, I agree, and this point raises one of the issues I have with recommending medicalization (though the downsides in the case of FGC are ultimately outweighed by the benefits, I think). We practice an awful lot of unnecessary and often potentially harmful surgery on women, often for the same reasons African women cut their genitals: to have more attractive genitals, to look clean and pure, to enhance our sexualities, etc. One interesting thing I came across in my research is a sub-set of the S&M community that seeks female circumcision, claiming it enhances sexual response (this is separate from the similar group of piercers). A woman on “Dr 90210″ (the only time I ever watched it; I assume this is pretty common) had a labioplasty to “smooth” out her genitals after childbirth; the dr. went her one further and injected fat into her outer labia to “plump things up” in his words. Now, most feminists oppose these practices, from cosmetic surgery to unnecessary c-sections to unnecessary hysterectomies nad masectomies, but what I find interesting is the level of complexity and subtlety that arguments about these procedures are capable of, and how absent that same capacity is in arguments about FGC, which are just unmitigatedly Bad. I’ve seen blog posts with hundreds of thoughtful comments on whether feminists can wear make-up or high heels or whether Paris Hilton deserves to be mocked by Pink, but the same senstitivity is denied the families and societies of the 100+ million women who practice FGC.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

[...] I don’t normally cross-post here from my research blog, but I thought my recent post on female genital cutting (FGC) might interest some of Savage Minds’ readers. Drawing on anthropological research and first-hand testimony reported across the literature, I’ve tried to counter a lot of the ethnocentrism, racism, and sexism that characterizes anti-FGC arguments, especially in the mainstream. This is not an argument for FGC, by any means, but rather, in the spirit of Geertz, “anti-anti-FGC”. [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Well articulated and interesting piece here–thank you for the references which I am now off to peruse through. You allude to a shoddy state of affairs in the literature in terms of careful research; that’s wholly disappointing.

I understand what you’re trying to counter here with an “anti-anti-FGC” perspective, but I suspect that the subtlety of that distinction might be lost on all but the most anthropologically informed observers, and it is those observers who are the least likely to be using moral/racist/ethnocentric terms in their discourse anyhow. I had my hackles up reading the first few paragraphs, thinking “but I’m a *good* cultural relativist! I don’t need to be told off for realising that women in cultures that practise FGC have their own perspectives!”

However. I think it is possible to recognise these alternative perspectives, to realise that FGC is deeply embedded in the symbolic and social organisation of cultures that practise it, that for many women it is a requirement to become marriageable and that if one is not marriageable one’s future is very bleak–and yet still to see it as undesirable for individual women, and something . I was intrigued by your discussion of the Sabaots, with the conclusion that FGC might stimulate (pardon the pun) women’s sexual agency and initiative in some way. A ripe topic for careful research for certain. I don’t think you were arguing this as a benefit for FGC, but I could see it being construed as such, and what an impoverished compensation that seems to me.

Getting these contradictions through to the mainstream without diluting the message looks to me like a dreadfully difficult task. I’m not entirely certain what the “disastrous consequences that can’t be undone” in your final paragraph refer to, and would definitely prefer not to see modern feminist advocacies lumped in with 19th century colonialism, but thanks for the thought provoking piece.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Er, that unfinished sentence should read:

… and something feminists might advocate the end of.

Oops, sorry.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Thanks for the comments Fiona — I plan to revise and expand this when I have the time, and I’ll keep this in mind. While I agree that some of the issues I’m raising may be very subtle, I think they can be expressed in a way that engages non-anthros, but it may take a lot of work to make that argument without losing that subtlety. But I think it’s important, because I think a lot of the way FGC is discussed in the West actively hurts women in Africa and elsewhere that practice this, both by adding yet another negative stereotype to our storehouse of false images of Muslims (which FGC is generally perceived as being) and by guiding foreign aid policies that withhold aid from some of the populations that could benefit most from it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

[...] Dustin Wax’s response to the Feministe article (in his research blog), cross-posted to Savage Minds. (You’ll need to read both for the full discussion.) [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

please remove my name and e-mail address from your blog-thanks

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Kate, as you can see, your email address isn’t posted here. I stripped your last name from your comments, though I don’t see what purpose that serves. Actually, the whole comment is kind of a headscratcher…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

In terms of your arguments being overly subtle for a wider public to appreciate, I would just contribute that as an anthropologist and an africanist, I have successfully taught my (community!) college students the balanced perspective for which your piece argues. I have even been able to get them to share a, no-doubt twisted, laugh at the image of Calista Flockhart chastising west African women for “FGM”. However, when one of my students requested I speak to one of our psychologists teaching the Human Sexuality class to discuss with her our different perspectives (she, apparently favoring the FGM as moral atrocity argument), I was greeted with open hostility. Righteous indignation is a ‘”safe” place for many in our culture. I share your concern that our wider society might do well to listen thoughtfully to the lived experiences of others and put down that heavy bat of righteousness.

I am curious as to why you did not bring into your discussion the whole complexity of male circumcision practices. Saving that for another day? Or was that a previous topic which I missed?