A Thousand Cuts

#349 by Saminasha

Saminasha, your premise seems to be that the purpose of FGM is the male desire to deny women any pleasure from sex and to turn them purely into a child bearing machine in the interest of the patriarchal society.

This doesn`t appear to be so. Your thesis seems to point to complete infibulation which is only 15% even in Africa. 85% is cliterodectomy and cliterodotomy combined. I couldn`t find seperate figures for these categories.

The cited reasons for the above are:

... the perception in FGM-practising communities that women`s unmutilated genitals are ugly and bulky. In some cultures, there is a belief that a woman`s genitals can grow and become unwieldy, hanging down between her legs, unless the clitoris is excised. Some groups believe that a woman`s clitoris is dangerous and that if it touches a man`s penis he will die. Others believe that if the baby`s head touches the clitoris during childbirth, the baby will die.

Ideas about the health benefits of FGM are not unique to Africa. In 19th Century England, there were debates as to whether clitoridectomy could cure women of ``illnesses`` such as hysteria and ``excessive`` masturbation. Clitoridectomy continued to be practised for these reasons until well into this century in the USA.

However, health benefits are not the most frequently cited reason for mutilation in societies where it is still practised; where they are, it is more likely to be because mutilation is part of an initiation where women are taught to be strong and uncomplaining about illness. Some societies where FGM is practised believe that it enhances fertility, the more extreme believing that an unmutilated woman cannot conceive. In some cultures it is believed that clitoridectomy makes childbirth safer.

Now where is it a man`s fault in all of the above? It seems women concerns to me.

But doesn`t detract from the issue, I hasten to say. It has to be stopped, just as all other types of ignorance and jahalat.

Rgds

Re: # 352

Health benefits? Lol..........I remember the old khala bringing those tabeezs to be worn around our necks so that we remain in the pink of our health................thousands of such prescriptions get peddled by road side bengali doktar sahebs like Zeemax..............let`s hope they get a noble prize for their prescriptions............

Re: # 352

My thesis does not point to ``complete infibulation``, but all degrees of fgm. Again, all evidence points to the regulation and containment of transgressive female pleasure that might threaten to disrupt patriarchical systems.

``A global action against FGM cannot undertake to abolish this one violation of women’s rights without placing it firmly within the context of efforts to address the social and economic injustice women face the world over. ....``

Nahid Toubia, A Call for Global Action.

Abortion is another crime committed against the female body - more than half of its victims are women.

#347, Saminasha {``our power cut out ``}
It should have been cut out a long time ago.

{``...2. The concept of FGM, like virginity, etc. is based on the notion of patriarchical ownership of women`s bodies.``}

Now that makes no sense at all. When did virginity become FGM? Is male circumcision also ``female`` ownership of men`s bodies? How many Muslim (and Jewish) mothers will let their sons be as God created them?

{``3. The lack of patriarchical interest, and what I mean by this, is the actual reformation and criminalization of this crime by power vested men (from family fathers to ministers of state) is something I place SOLELY at the feet of men. Why the bodily integrity of women has become subject to legal policy that benefits patriarchy is something they have to answer to. ``}

Lady, please take responsibility for your own actions - or inactions. On the one hand, you emphasize female empowerment, on the other hand you cop out with this defeatist attitude. Don`t you agree that it is the women who enforce FGM in the first place? Men have much more important things to do than to keep track of which girls in which village have had the mandatory operation. There are other more serious things to occupy men - alcohol, politics, cattle, goats, bhang, camels, sports, concubines, and yes, additional wives. If women wanted to put an end to this cruel, ugly, and ruthless ritual, they could have easily done it by themselves. If you need help, you will find that the vast majority of men are willing to help and stamp out this disease.

Re: # 348

``Is male circumcision also ``female`` ownership of men`s bodies?``

It is even worse...........a sign of ownership of the male body by the male god...........much like the branding of the domestic animals...............that is what circumcision actually is..all in the name of covenant with the supreme........remember the slaves were always branded in order to announce their ownership to the world.............

#345 by Jawahara

“So, the only way to actually stop FGM is for religious figures to get involved.”

I am kind of confused with your reasoning throughout the article and the ensuing debate. Though people can get stuck and hit a mental block but unfortunately, your approach seems to be misleading.

First, again I would like to clarify so that you understand my position on this issue that I am not trying to defend the religion. I think many of society’s ill are due to excessive emphasis on the religion.

You first claim that a religion and its proponents help perpetuate this practice but then you turn around and ask the same people to take a lead in stamping out the problem. This position creates a contradiction plus it eliminates a good portion of the African population that does not cater to a particular religion.

You also don’t provide any reference to show that religious leaders have enough influence on Africans to change a social custom practiced all over Africa transcending many religions and geographical boundaries in the continent.

If something is practiced for thousands of years, religious figures and the leadership is probably as convinced as common folks are about the validity of the practice. So they are not the people to ask to take a lead in the issue. In fact, they would be a major stumbling block in overcoming this practice.

The best approach is for the Governments in Africa and the NGO or other international organizations to come forward and work on a plan to educate people as well as the religious leaders to understand the futility of the practice.

Something that has been practiced for more than thousands of years would not be simply removed by some sermons in the mosque. The right approach would be to make a concerted effort that co-opts religious figures.

Since it is not a life threatening or a hunger related issue, it may well nigh be impossible to throw tons of money on the issue. So the major players to reduce the problem would be the respective governments in different African countries and not some donors from the far away lands.

Thanks.

Now on to the Islam/hadith issue. Whether or not we agree that FGM is encouraged by Islam, the fact remains that the people doing it *do* equate it with Islam and they perpetuate it as a religious (and cultural) observance.

So, the only way to actually stop FGM is for religious figures to get involved. It doesn`t matter if ten of us sit here and frantically try to prove that it is or is not Islamic. Which is why I said ``hadith or no hadith,`` FGM has to stop. But since it is carried out by people who try to live by their religion and are religious, religious leaders are the only people they might consider credible. No western-style feminist or concerned organization can do anything. But religious leaders in these communities can and should make a difference. Obviously till now, religous leaders have either abetted or at least ignored FGM which is why it has survived through the centuries.

Saminasha, I really shouldn`t have to give punctuation and bibliographic reference lessons to a grown person but here goes. *sighs* Quotation marks are *only* use when you are directly quoting someone. So, the inaccurate, out-of-context and over-simplified statement you put in double quotes was wrong. You paraphrased me...and that too badly. Ok, that`s over.

Since you did quote in correctly in your last posting...I do stand by those statements which are actually mine.

Yes, it`s very tempting and very satisfying to make men the enemy. God knows I did that in my 20`s and it felt great. But as a feminist and a humanist I know that systems (patriarchial ones, in particular) are the enemy and not men. That, to me, is too simplistic and too knee-jerk a reaction for complex issues. That would be like saying that FGM should be blamed on women because they are the ones who plan, abet and perpetrate this heinous act. Men have no place in it and are shut out of the process, in fact, in some instances, the father is told to butt out. What is the problem is a system, with the complicity of men and women who allow this to happen, who encourage it to happen. Another example of this are dowry deaths in India, where the most awful atrocities (including burning the bride alive) are most often perpetrated by the women of the house, mostly the mother-in-law.

Women are not always victims. We are multi-dimensional people like men, and like men we too are part of the systems of violence and evil. I, for one, don`t want to take the easy way out, place the blame somewhere and move on. Ultimately, this is not for playing the blame game but to actually do something.

For actual change to occur, men and women need to work together. Making men the enemy loses us valuable and powerful (yes, they do have more power in most cases) allies.

As always, this is my personal opinion, borne out of my own observations and experiences. Others may feel and act differently....and of course, disagree.

Re: # 344

Jawahara,

I`d written you a rather detailed response and our power cut out so it has been lost. In brief:

1. My quoted paraphrase of your comment was meant ironically. In reading your response, I don`t think my paraphrase was off base.

2. The concept of FGM, like virginity, etc. is based on the notion of patriarchical ownership of women`s bodies.

3. The lack of patriarchical interest, and what I mean by this, is the actual reformation and criminalization of this crime by power vested men (from family fathers to ministers of state) is something I place SOLELY at the feet of men. Why the bodily integrity of women has become subject to legal policy that benefits patriarchy is something they have to answer to.

If I get the time, I`ll break it down for you. In the meantime, I am choosing to ignore the flippant and condescending tone with which you dismiss the fact that patriarchy is served everyday by men (and to a much smaller scale) who, with women, refuse to question and reform it.

Re: # 347

Jawahara,

Once again, I`m glad you`ve decided to research FGM, but in this case I agree with the interactor who pointed out that your research should have taken place before the writing of the article.

There are questions I have about the scenario you have raised-from the notion that girls who live in areas in which FGM is practiced are completely unaware of it to your actual depiction of the practice (the prose itself). Your piece itself seems to be directed at women or mothers who betray their daughters by ambushing them into the mutilation.

Which on one level is okay I guess, if you are aiming to point out that a community of women support the local practice of this crime. In refusing to flesh out the male complicity of FGM, this piece meanders around the sentiment of how bad FGM is.

No one disputes the evilness of forced fgm...I believe the most demonstratively outraged have exhausted their thesauruses for ``heinous``. What is not be acknowledged is the context in which fgm takes place.

Ultimately fgm is an extreme (not counting wife burning, honor killing) extension of patriarchical power over women bodies. It operates on the same notion that the body of a woman is valued for its ability to reproduce patriarchical heirs, an agent of consolidating patriarchical familial wealth and power, property that will not threaten the interests of the patriarch (father, husband, son, cousin, nephew, uncle, brother). What you havent pointed out is that fgm is that reality made indisputedly clear-there is no smokescreen, ``nice`` appeals to religious duty/cleanliness that can support it.

Jawahara, who benefits when their daughter, wife, mother, aunt, niece is rendered so that she will not want to have sex if she survives the fgm procedure?

Who benefits ultimately when her own body becomes a site for pain and childbearing only, whereas her husband is able to orgasm?

Who benefits when his daughter does not bring ``shame`` to the family for being damaged, unclean, uncontrollable goods passed on to another patriarchical family?

Who benefits when the male family members of these women do not see fit to use their vested power -at local and govt. levels- to protect their daughters from these communal notions of respectable womanhood?

Who benefits when yet another practice conducted on the bodies of women is not criminalized and the person who is punished for it through her own mutilated, regulated, fertile or infertile body?

Re: # 349

Also, Jawahara, when we honestly engage with what real power is, power that operates from the personal rights of the individual to his political rights-those rights that allow him to vote, work, consolidate wealth, reproduce his familial name-we are talking about men. We are talking about men whose power is so absolute, they no longer have to enforce their systems themselves because WE enforce them. They no longer even have to concern themselves with enforcing it.

#341

US is not El Salvador. Abortion for covering up should be illegal; only the cases with legit needs, and that too with the court approval. People have access to contraceptives here. Choice cannot mean different things to different people.

Re: # 342

Your opinion is just that-your opinion.

Criminalizing Reproductive Rights for Women:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html