Feminism... grr

[tammylsmith]

Well I should start by saying that I consider myself a feminist, so this isn't me just saying feminists are bad, but that some feminists are so frustrating. There is an article in the huffington post "Impact" section on FGM:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bessie-a-winnafeku/female-genital-mutilation_b_840651.html

That sparked a discussion with a couple of friends. Both are highly educated and consider themselves progressives and feminists as well. They seemed outraged that I even attempted to point out that we practice genital cutting here in the states too. The article is a question about whether or not it is our business to be pointing out cultural practices that are wrong elsewhere... whether those in other countries who practice FGM will even listen to our Western outrage. The general point is that change has to come from within.... from the women themselves... to have power.

Well my point is that we can't throw stones from our own glass house, and that we can learn a lot about their cultural meme from our own... how difficult it is to overcome and how to change people's minds. Well it was as if I was comparing FGM to a haircut. I know there is no monolithic "Feminism" movement but many different parts to it. It just seems to me that genital integrity should not be about gender or degree of severity. Cutting is cutting, don't you think?

[Lory]

I agree that cutting is cutting, no matter what gender. Although I understand where you're coming from about some feminists (or people in general who are anti-FGM but pro MGM), they are not all that way - in fact, the first online circumcision debate I saw, most of the people against circumcision were male and female feminists. One feminist mother didn't even pierce her daughter's ears because she said she regretted her parents having her ears pierced, and didn't like the holes, and said if she had a son she likewise wouldn't circumcise him. I had never even thought about the ear-piercing thing before and I'm not passionate about that like with circ, but I think she had a good point and it made me really think about the choices that parents make for kids, and what's necessary and what isn't.

I also agree that genital cutting shouldn't be about severity, but even if it were, female circumcision can be "equal" to male circumcision in the sense that the girl's prepuce can be removed, but her clitoris left behind; in the same way, the male's prepuce is removed and the penis is left behind. When people who oppose FGM but support MGM say that "female circumcision is worse", I think they are usually referring to the drastic total clitoris removal where the whole thing is taken out and the labia is stitched together; it isn't always that extreme, though. I would much rather have my clitoris pricked with a needle (one of the lesser forms of genital cutting) than let my baby boy have the entire skin removed. (Sorry if this is graphic! I don't know how else to explain it, though.)

Edited by Lory - 3/28/11 at 7:41pm

[motherhendoula]

Well what immediately comes to mind is WHY babies of different sexes and cultures are cut.  Baby boys are 'supposedly' cut to help with cleanliness and although today we have access to baths and showers, when circumcision first became popular and widespread - we didnt.  The reason WHY girls in Africa are cut is to remove pleasure from sex.  Clitordectomies are performed to make sure women do not experience pleasure during sex - and therefore would not be motivated to cheat on their husbands.  There are other types of FGM as well and most of them revolve around keeping women 'pure'.  There are cultures where the wedding guests do not leave until they hear the screams of pain from the bride as the marriage is consummated. 

I did not circ my youngest son, and i dont think it needs to be routine - but it got its start from a position of helping....not hurting, therefore i can see why FGM is more of a feminist issue and cutting, is not always cutting.

[zinemama]

I actually don't think cutting is cutting. I consider both to be wrong, but I think it's disingenuous to claim that they are on an equal plane, when the (not just sexual) health consequences to FGM are routinely so horrific.

[tammylsmith]

Yes, I do agree that cutting is not cutting in that sense. You have a good point. I guess I was looking at it from a cultural perspective. We live in a culture that supports cutting children. While FGM ranges from slight to horrific, FGM opponents are opposed to it all. MGM is not, in my opinion, generally the same level of disfigurement as the FGM (especially the worst forms). However, I feel that there is more power to the argument against FGM from those who consider cutting all children horrible. How can we say one is fine? To me, the hypocrisy undermines the argument. My feeling is that we as feminists (and humans in general) need to be opposed to the oppression of those without a voice. It riles me when someone so against FGM waves off MGM because it "isn't even comparable" and besides "it has health benefits." I supposed I am especially frustrated, because the feminist movement has been about human rights from the beginning, so I feel like someone who is so focused on human rights should be primed to understand what I'm saying about cutting baby boys.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by motherhendoula 

Well what immediately comes to mind is WHY babies of different sexes and cultures are cut.  Baby boys are 'supposedly' cut to help with cleanliness and although today we have access to baths and showers, when circumcision first became popular and widespread - we didnt.  The reason WHY girls in Africa are cut is to remove pleasure from sex.  Clitordectomies are performed to make sure women do not experience pleasure during sex - and therefore would not be motivated to cheat on their husbands.  There are other types of FGM as well and most of them revolve around keeping women 'pure'.  There are cultures where the wedding guests do not leave until they hear the screams of pain from the bride as the marriage is consummated. 

I did not circ my youngest son, and i dont think it needs to be routine - but it got its start from a position of helping....not hurting, therefore i can see why FGM is more of a feminist issue and cutting, is not always cutting.

Do you have any sources that indicate that male circ came from a position of helping? I know that's what the doctors who profit from cutting healthy body parts off of infant boys say now (except for those who don't agree with it, and don't think it's warranted, but do it anyway)...but I've never seen any proof, whatsoever, that it started as for purposes of hygiene. There have definitely been proponents of male circ who advocated it to prevent masturbation, which clearly isn't about hygiene.

Clitorectomies are appalling, but they're also not the only form of FGM. I've talked to plenty of people who find it barbaric to do anything of a surgical nature to the genitals of a baby/young girl, but who are totally onboard with cutting foreskin off the penis of a day old baby boy. I'm certainly not saying those people are necessarily feminists, but there's clearly a gender bias on this issue. Male foreskins are disposable, and female genitalia are sacrosanct. Ick.

[mntnmom]

 Actually, if you talk to women from the countries in question, FGM is maintained by a lot of the same myths that maintain MGM. It's thought to be cleaner. Women who aren't are dirty and at risk for disease. No man will want them because their uncut labia is so ugly/smelly etc. It's thought to be mandated by community, god and ancestral spirits(depending on the area in question).  It is not done so much to remove a woman's pleasure per se, (there is debate in the indigenous medical communities as to whether or not it actually does. Sound familiar?), but to keep her "pure" in the sense of a spiritual version of cleanliness. But don't forget, historically in the US male circ was supposed to prevent sexual excesses in men, for their own health and well being.

     I agree that some forms of FGM are absolutely horrific. From a medical stand point, if it would stop the worst types, I would almost encourage the lesser types. But from a human rights stand point, cutting another person's genitals without a medical reason or their informed consent is ALWAYS wrong. Our own cultural blind spot and gender bias makes me want to pull my hair out some days!!

[Lauren82]

I really hate this argument:
FGM is done to take pleasure away from women but MGM does not take pleasure away from a male. So they are not comparable.
Tell that to the scores of men that suffer pain, disfigurement and anguish from their circumcisions. What a craptacular slap in the face to men. Rant over.

[Galatea]

No, you are wrong.  They give exactly the same motivations for FGM as we give for MGM - google Lightfoot Klein.  "Men will find it unattractive if she isn't circumcised, it's cleaner, healthier and easier to care for..."  And, BTW, MGM was also popularized in order to lessen male sexuality.  Google Kellogg.  Exactly the same, and anyway, it is red herring - everyone has the right to their whole body, no matter why the cutting is done.

[prothyraia]

I find that the more we talk about the details, the easier it is to get bogged down and tripped up on our own cultural expectations and experiences. 

It boils down to this:

Knife + genitals - consent = human rights violation

It's sort of hard to argue with.

(okay, maybe I need to throw in a (- immediate medical necessity) to fend off some straw men, but still.....)

[CatholicBFMama]

Our first son (after 2 girls) was born in January, and I knew I would have a fight on my hands when we found out he was a "he". I gave DH some reading material and some websites to check out, and he didn't really take much of an interest in reading up on it. I took that to mean that it didn't mean that much to him, so I made the decision on my own, and our son wasn't circ'd. 

I also haven't pierced either of our daughters' ears, for the same reason. I'm sure they'll choose to get them done when they're old enough (which, for my oldest, will probably be within the next year), but it will be THEIR CHOICE. It's the same thing for my son--if he chooses to be circumcised when he's older, that will be his choice. Either way, I don't feel it's my decision to make.

For the record, I don't consider myself a feminist in the traditional sense, so I guess mine is a viewpoint from the opposite end of the political spectrum. 

[tammylsmith]

Originally Posted by CatholicBFMama For the record, I don't consider myself a feminist in the traditional sense, so I guess mine is a viewpoint from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Definitely nothing wrong with that. I'm just grumbling based on a feminist theory discussion that left me feeling frustrated (hence the "grr," lol). You add a good point that FGM and MGM are in no way limited to one political end of the spectrum.

[A&A]

Here is a great article about intactivism a a feminist issue:

http://www.noharmm.org/feminist.htm

[AXEius]

Originally Posted by Lauren82 

I really hate this argument:
FGM is done to take pleasure away from women but MGM does not take pleasure away from a male. So they are not comparable.
Tell that to the scores of men that suffer pain, disfigurement and anguish from their circumcisions. What a craptacular slap in the face to men. Rant over.

wooo!, i almost ranted you because i thought you were stating the first part of the post as your own words. I think quotations there would have reduced confusion or perhaps i am just easily confused lol. now that i read that correctly, i completely agree. I can't fathom the argument that "cutting is ok if reduces sexual pleasure as long as you don't intend to reduce sexual pleasure" WHAT! the outcome is the same if you cut somebody's genitals regardless of your motivation. oh, and you're right, men do get horribly disfigured all the time from circumcision and even loose their penises.

[Sarah]

I read a book about a tribe in the Amazon- the Hourani. When the author arrived in the jungle- he had tried to pack enough provisions for his adventure. The Hourani, being a tribe who hunted daily and lived hand to mouth from their jungle home- thought this was absurd and did not respect this man at all. after all- all a person needs is a weapon...and even a weapon could be made from the stuff of the jumgle. His big pack of stuff was like a billboard of his helplessness. His preparation for a week ahead was like carrying a sign that said, "I have no faith in my ability to hunt, I am a failure as a man"

In our culture, amassing stuff and wealth is a sign of strength, in their culture- the ability to walk naked with the skills to feed your family is a sign of strength. We look at them and think, "They are poor- they have nothing!" they look at us and think, "They are helpless, they can not even walk."

So- why I mention this is because taking the morality of one culture and comparing it to something going on in another culture is an apples to oranges comparison. "Oh- FGM is done to hurt a woman's sexuality- it's so bad. We do MGM to enhance a man sexually- not to opress him!" Well... is that a fair analysis of what is going on? What if your culture holds you in higher regard for having a supressed sexuality? Our western idea of the importance of sexual pleasure may be the opposite of what their idea of it is. While we may feel the it's a blessing, they may feel it's a burden. So their motivation is not springing from a desire to do harm to a girl- it's entirely plausable that their motivation is to help a girl be free of this awful burden of the untamed sexuality. Let's say that our motivation to do MGM is based on ideas that it enhances male sexuality... "women like it" "he won't ever get a BJ if he's not cut" "It's normal!" "I would never be with an uncut guy- that's gross" "when word got out in school that he wasn't cut the rumors flew" etc. We have heard these things from people in our culture. So- think carefully- it's it any worse a sexual repression if a person has to be sexually uplifted through surgery to be socially acceptable (marriagable or whatever)- as it is that a person has to be sexually toned down to be socially acceptable?

Even if our motivation is entirely to enhance and not to harm- isn't our cultural mindset that enhancing needs to be done- as unethical an imposition on human rights and a harmful belief coming from our society towards males? (by the way- the original intention of medicalized circumcision in the USA was unabashadly to sexually harm and diminish- and at that time in history, as if a time period could be viewed as a different continent from our current time period, that culture valued sexual restraint as a virtue and a health measure for a better life- they were "helping by harming")

If we were to model a version of FGM that mimics what we do to males in the USA, it would not be analogous to any of the common forms of FGM. We would preserve the clitoris entirely, because we think it's important. We would strip away the labia and the clitoral hood because they are ugly and dirty cause infections and problems and a girl would need to be taught to wash there very carefully..and that would be awkward. People who work in nursing homes would tell stories about the horrors they have seen in old women who can no longer care for themselves. We would feel very happy to see a little pink button clitoris exposed in plain sight as soon as we opened a baby girl's diaper- and call it "a good circumcision" and would think that her peers would now accept her and never tease her because they can see that her clitoris is exposed and hygenic and dry just like theirs. Women who had their clitoris exposed since infancy would declare that they were happy they were circumcised and that no sexual harm had been done to them because their clitoris functions just fine, that they are glad they don't have an ugly camel toe down there, and it's cleaner.

[PuppyFluffer]

Oh, I really want to read and participate in this discussion but I must actually educate my home schooled kiddo now!  I'll be back!

[tammylsmith]

Interesting food for thought and discussion Sarah. I really like the way you framed the argument and it does make so much sense. This idea of sexual "enhancement" through cutting is not just for MGM, in the opinion of African scholars. Take a look at this piece I found from an African feminist who underwent genital cutting: (excerpt from a NY times article http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/a-new-debate-on-female-circumcision/) "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.”

Obviously, this woman is well-educated and at the same time proud of what she considers a cultural tradition that, in her opinion, enhanced her physically. You are right that the morality of one culture might be different because of different points of emphasis. I don't know if it is entirely apples to oranges though, given that both traditions are rooted in our sexuality and perhaps an innate desire to separate ourselves from "animal nature". Still, the glaring red flag in my opinion here is that the procedure on Ms Ahmandu was done as an adult. I think the idea that sexual enhancement needs to be done is not the problem.... but on a child or baby? I know in common Western thought, it is assumed that a favor is being done since we circumcise newborns (i.e. I think people realize down deep that it is an awful thing to do... but the rationalize it because the baby has neither the strength nor the body control to offer up even the slightest protest.... this is seen as an act of kindness "to avoid having to do it later")

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by tammylsmith 

 Still, the glaring red flag in my opinion here is that the procedure on Ms Ahmandu was done as an adult. I think the idea that sexual enhancement needs to be done is not the problem.... but on a child or baby?

This. I find the idea of unnecessary genital surgery beyond creepy (whether that's the "female circ" that Ms. Ahmandu went through, or a labioplasty, or that "build a new hymen" thing I saw a few years ago, or male circ, or whatever). But, that's my personal take, and as long as I don't have to have it done to my genitalia, I think any adult should be able to have this kind of surgery if they want to. (Breast implants creep me out, too - doesn't mean I don't think women should be allowed to get them.) Performing these things on an infant or child is a whole other ballgame, imo. That kind of decision should belong to the person being operated on.

[PuppyFluffer]

Lots of great stuff here.

This site is interesting:  http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/ 

One cannot deny the cultural and social pressures to continue a practice.  Often long entrenched practices are not fully understood by those who do them, they just do them because their ancestors did them and it's just what you do.  Our culture is exactly the same in regards to male genital mutilation.  The idea that it is just what you do with boys is so deeply entrenched in our culture and many people here do not wish to expose their deeply buried discomfort with this.  Men will often say they are happy they were circumcised but they certainly do not wish to learn about what was actually done to them or what they have lost.  At the mere implication of scapels and penises, they cringe and try to change the subject.  Many mothers of circumcised sons are the same way - total denial and refusal to look at facts and learn something different than what they did was perfectly perfect.  (I speak personally of this because I have attended the annual Genital Integrity Awareness Week demonstration in Washington DC for the last 5 years and talked with people face to face.)

I absolutely think that our culture can not speak out against the trauma and horror of female genital mutilation of minor girls without looking at our own genital mutilation of male babies.  PERIOD.  The more that this is hypocrisy is brought to light, the better it is to open people's minds.

[ElliesMomma]

i've always read that the original reason for male circumcision in our country was to discourage masturbation (ie, remove pleasure from sexual activity). and the "helping with cleanliness reason" was made up more recently. i think that when it comes to circumcision, the "reasons" for it are always changing. but the reasons to NOT do it remain the same.
 

Originally Posted by motherhendoula 

Well what immediately comes to mind is WHY babies of different sexes and cultures are cut.  Baby boys are 'supposedly' cut to help with cleanliness and although today we have access to baths and showers, when circumcision first became popular and widespread - we didnt.  The reason WHY girls in Africa are cut is to remove pleasure from sex.  Clitordectomies are performed to make sure women do not experience pleasure during sex - and therefore would not be motivated to cheat on their husbands.  There are other types of FGM as well and most of them revolve around keeping women 'pure'.  There are cultures where the wedding guests do not leave until they hear the screams of pain from the bride as the marriage is consummated. 

I did not circ my youngest son, and i dont think it needs to be routine - but it got its start from a position of helping....not hurting, therefore i can see why FGM is more of a feminist issue and cutting, is not always cutting.