I’ve been suffering from some sort of stomach flu for two days now, so sorry if I can’t quite get it together to write something of depth and/or wit. I have a lot of half-formed blogging thoughts to get out when I feel remotely motivated. With that in mind, I figured I’d put up pictures of the ads Amnesty International is running in protest of female genital mutilation.
There were some commenters at Feministing casting around for a reason to find these ads offensive (just a few, most were impressed by the ads), which I think is a shame. I realize that it seems sometimes we live in a world where no one gets it and almost any portrayal of the female body comes saddled with misogyny, but that’s just not the case here. You need a quick visual representation of female genitalia that conveys the message that it’s a beautiful thing that should not be carelessly mutilated, and while flowers are a bit cliched, in this case the cliche does the work for you, because it makes sure that you can’t mistake the message for anything else. Nor can we ask an ad campaign like this to get across the complexity of the issue in a single image. The point of advertising campaigns like this is, “Do they raise awareness? Do they interest people in learning more?”
Judged by the raising awareness and inspiring people to learn more standards, I think this campaign is a winner. After seeing that, you’re unlikely to be confused about the basic idea of FGM, even if you’ve never heard of the practice before.
214 Responses to “Amnesty International’s ad campaign against FGM”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
they could have made the image more ugly, maybe. there are a lot of sadisticly inclined people in a population that find beautiful things tied up sexually exciting.
but its not misogynistic.
I wonder if people have any thoughts on the circumcision of infant males. While obviously circumcision usually (unless there is a mistake, which can result in horrific, permanent consequences) isn’t the same as some of the terrible practices in FGM, there are some similar elements — there is some evidence that circumcision in men reduces sexual pleasure, and certainly an infant isn’t able to give consent, and in only truly rare circumstances is there any need (people are not usually born needing surgery). Any thoughts?
Yeah, but that’s possibly a stretch. You want the image to clearly state that female genitals are lovely things, and an ugly image would undercut that. It’s important, because I do believe there’s an aesthetic argument for FGM, similar to the one made for circumcision, which I also don’t buy.
“I do believe there’s an aesthetic argument for FGM, similar to the one made for circumcision”
I also have a touch of something that seems to be diverting all my precious liquids away from my brain –what do you mean by this statement?
that people who practice FGM find the sewn-up (de-clitted) vagina aesthetically pleasing? Ive seen photos of it & it is awful looking. with a circumcised penis, you dont usually see scarring, for one thing.
The flower is a bit of a cliche, but that is to the ad’s benefit. I’d hate to see ads that actually show genital mutilation, my stomach couldn’t take it. But these ads immediately bring that image to mind without showing anything explicit and obscene.
It still makes me a bit sick to my stomach, but fGM should.
Ugh, tourmaline, maybe I’m just the wrong demographic to need your suggestion implemented. The images instantly, painfully, and harshly conveyed their sentiments to me; I needed no help undestanding the concept. Genital mutilation turns off many of the higher parts of my brain and gives me an urge to hit perpetrators with sharp objects in the first place. For persons like myself, a more blatant image like you suggest could cause a great deal of unneeded pain.
God help us if there are people who need a stronger message.
Amnesty International is a great organization and I’m glad they are tackling this issue.
While I do think the roses could have reflected a bit more of the horror of genital mutilation by appearing infected/bloody/torn/wilted/what-not, they are pretty damn eye-catching without just being disgusting. IMO, we don’t have to resort to “truth truck” tactics to make our point.
I think it also makes the point that even if you exchange cheap tools and unsanitary conditions for proper surgical procedures carried out in doctors’ offices, mutilation remains mutilation.
I wonder if people have any thoughts on the circumcision of infant males. While obviously circumcision usually (unless there is a mistake, which can result in horrific, permanent consequences) isn’t the same as some of the terrible practices in FGM, there are some similar elements — there is some evidence that circumcision in men reduces sexual pleasure, and certainly an infant isn’t able to give consent, and in only truly rare circumstances is there any need (people are not usually born needing surgery). Any thoughts?
Woo! Two comments before “WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?” And had to be copy/pasted before the moderator could get to it, to make sure that we know how much more important the subject is. God forbid a single comment expressing concern about human rights of women got in before someone safely set the conversation back on the only sex that counts, which is men. Here’s what I think about male circumcision: ______________________. Translation: I’ll tell you on a thread that’s about men. Here’s a thought experiment for you: Try imagining that you care enough about women to say something thoughtful about the topic at hand, rather than changing the subject.
Uh, theres a hygenic component to male circumcision. I had it done when i was an infant and everything works down there just great thanks. No problems with a sex life here!
Female “circumcision” (mutilation) is something entirely different.
And I imagine, Amanda, you’ve seen what happens when you try to dismiss a “but what about MALE CIRCUMCISION???” comment as not germane to the topic. Not even not important, but not the topic. Suddenly you DO NOT KNOW what a horror male circumcision is, and it is far, far too important to dare dismiss with, “that’s OT, and a dubious diversion from the topic.”
2 comments in ten already on male circumcision does not bode well for this poor topic.
On-topic: The images are very eye-catching. Even if people past a feminism 101 audience find them trite/cliche/not paying attention to this feminism 102 topic, for an audience that is dubious of even feminism 101, I think they’re quite effective.
My only complaint is from a design standoint. The images are not simple enough–they would be more effective if the roses had fewer petals and were presented on a plain background, so that the stitching was more prominent, visually. The roses are not really there to symbolize *roses* they are there as symbols, so the realistic garden background is actually a distraction.
A little Photoshop, in other words, could have made this a better ad. Possibily one that communicated the horror more effectively without being any more gory.
The images are horrific if you ask me. I didn’t read the text, and I didn’t get what FGM was (I’m tired), but instantly I was revolted.
Which is pretty much the point I think.
In terms of visual effectiveness the pale one is the more effective as the stitches are that much more obvious.
With the red one you notice its funny shape first, then the stitches.
Welldone AI
i notice that a lot of new mothers of young baby boys get obsessed with the issue of male circumcision & bring it up at every opportunity. either way, this thread is NOT about it.
I just read the comments over at feministing & my thinking still falls along the lines of , This is a good idea & campaign poster, but it could be better. The ads *are* too pretty & impersonal. there is no broaching the subject of a clitoris. That’s the horror of FGM; that is literally the heart of the horror & it’s not represented. They can always find a way to do it if they apply themselves.
Maybe a photoshopped photo of a woman & a man without a nose or mouth or eyes would get the picture across with short text.
a trussed up rose, still looks pretty, passive.
“My only complaint is from a design standoint. The images are not simple enough–they would be more effective if the roses had fewer petals and were presented on a plain background, so that the stitching was more prominent, visually. The roses are not really there to symbolize *roses* they are there as symbols, so the realistic garden background is actually a distraction.
A little Photoshop, in other words, could have made this a better ad. Possibily one that communicated the horror more effectively without being any more gory. ”
this was exactly my initial thought. why i couldnt get it out,i dont know :p i have so many things to say sometimes & just not the right words to convey them all at once, let alone coherently.
” wonder if people have any thoughts on the circumcision of infant males.”
Augh, derail.
“Uh, theres a hygenic component to male circumcision.”
Augh, misinformation in response to derail.
*
I have about zero response to these ads. As someone else said, they seem to work as feminism 101 material.
“there is no broaching the subject of a clitoris. That’s the horror of FGM; that is literally the heart of the horror & it’s not represented.”
This really isn’t true. These ads are clearly depicting infibulation which, in many ways, is much more horrible than clitorodectomy alone.
To add insult to injury, those comments about male circumsion are a cut-and-paste affair: that is, I’ve seen EXACTLY the same comment, word for word, attached to another post about FGM on another website.
Apparently, What About the Menz “Susette”, googles FGM and slaps the same damn Male Circumcision comment into the middle of any thread about FGM.
Doesn’t care enough about women or FGM to take into account what we might have to say about the topic, only thing that matters is the comment about much less dangerous and mutilating circumcision from What About the Menz! “Susette.”
(And why do I suspect “Susette” might not be female?)
I don’t get the opposition to male circumcision at all. Like I said above, it reduces infections and it hasn’t seemed to interfere with my sexy life.
For some weird reason we are the only non-Muslim, non-Jewish country that does it in large numbers though.
“This really isn’t true. These ads are clearly depicting infibulation which, in many ways, is much more horrible than clitorodectomy alone. ”
point taken. but if this were all about a penisectomy & the ad didnt convey the fact that the penis was clipped off, id say that was missing a BIG part of the picture–& of making the viewer think of the victim as less of a human being, actually.
Like emjaybee said, the background is way too distracting.
Also, why do all awareness campaign posters have to have teeny-weeny eye-strain-o distressed typewriter font? It’s difficult to read.
Which is why the poster above was making a derail attempt by bringing it up. Even if people disagree about the hygine value, no one thinks it hurts male sexuality or personhood. You may as well bring appendectomy into the discussion, for all the sense it makes.
I don’t think that female circumcision should be called circumcision at all. I was astonished when I heard it called that. I react in the same way when I hear genocide called ethnic cleansing.
Replace the garden with flesh tones.
Go a step further and replace it with a lower torso, which has been done in art before.
Ugh. Seriously, the image makes me nauseus thinking about it and it’s not even real mutilated flesh.
But since most people don’t have the viscereal response I do, emjaybee’s idea is probably a good one.
I can take all manner of bizzare shit on the web, but this is my limit.
In terms of visual effectiveness the pale one is the more effective as the stitches are that much more obvious.
Yes.
“Like I said above, it reduces infections”
Augh, continued derail — from “ally” this time — continuing to spread misinformation.
AF, want to talk about male circ, and in so doing make sure that we all know how awesome and sexified and clean your penis is? May I suggest find a thread about male circ?
Here’s one on Alas: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
“Like I said above, it reduces infections”
Augh, continued derail — from “ally” this time — continuing to spread misinformation.
AF, want to talk about male circ, and in so doing make sure that we all know how awesome your genitals are? May I suggest you find a thread about male circ?
Here’s one on Alas: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
AF, want to talk about male circ, and in so doing make sure that we all know how awesome your genitals are? May I suggest you find a thread about male circ?
Sorry, I’ll stop feeding the troll.
Amanda: Sorry for the double post. I did not know if your website had accepted my comment or not because it gave no indication that it had. There is a different name on the first comment as you see. I had forgotten to clear the name boxes of whoever was using this computer before me. Please try to assume the best. I also see people accusing me of just copying and pasting from others. If I have typed the same words exactly as someone else that is a remarkable coincidence. Once again, please try to assume the best. Screaming and pointing fingers does not make you look more intelligent or right, just like an invisible internet bully.
Of course I care about female genital mutilation. You think that just because I am a man all I care about are men? Of course not. Of course I support Amnesty International campaigning against these practices. Does that make my question any less valid? We can talk about one thing being bad without it making another irrelevant. Circumcision and female mutilation can both be bad things. You of course COULD dismiss my question out of hand a second time. I guess that’s easier than just answering me. Maybe you’ll tell me again to stay on the topic at hand. This doesn’t really seem fair. I’ve seen plenty of other threads on this website go onto related topics that are not exactly the same. I think the topic of whether or not male children below the age of consent should have bits of their sexual organs removed or not is along the same lines as this discussion.
I’ve also seen people saying that they experience no sexual problems, even thought they were circumcised when they were young. This is great. Of course, they wouldn’t know if their sex life could have been even better otherwise. And the question of it being a hygiene issue is pretty well medically refuted. Again, people aren’t born needing surgery. It isn’t that hard to keep an uncircumcised penis clean.
I have a hunch that I’ll be shot down in an inferno of knee-jerk reactions soon. Of course women have plenty of problems in the world. That doesn’t mean that men can’t have their share of problems as well.
Fixed somewhat, five minutes in Photoshop:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=6phh3kj&s=1
I think the images work fine as they are. the ground around them is not a typical garden backdrop. Under the pale rose, it’s gravel, under the red, it’s very dry, cracked soil. There a nice hint of barrenness, sterility without it hitting you over the head. I winced when I saw the images before I even knew what the ads are for.
And whoever wrote flesh tone? You may want to rethink that.
oh and the fallen petals hint at blood.
nice touch.
“there is no broaching the subject of a clitoris.”
I think the little round petals to the right of the rose may be there to represent the removed clitoris. But I don’t know for sure - and really, it’s subtle.
“That doesn’t mean that men can’t have their share of problems as well. ”
It does mean that perhaps they should talk about their problems when their problems are the ones under discussion.
Here’s a thread on male circumcision at Alas: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
I guess these ads aren’t intended to actually change anyone’s mind, just raise awareness for people who aren’t cognisant of the practice. I just don’t see someone who believes that girls are just going to be horrible sluts unless you chop off their clitoris and sew together their labia having their opinion changed by thinking of a woman’s vulva as an “open flower.” It just gets back to the sluttiness they’re trying so hard to prevent.
“Of course women have plenty of problems in the world. That doesn’t mean that men can’t have their share of problems as well.”
Translation: BUT MENZ PROBLEMZ ARE SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY AFFECT TEH MENZ WAAHHHHH WOMEN BITCH TOO MUCH
You are aware that you are on a feminist blog, yes? So stop dismissing the problems that affect women.
I don’t know — I have no problem with the image per se, but I do think the whole FGM thing: like how is it VASTLY worse than breast implants (I understand how it is “worse”: the clitoris is more sensitive than the breast, the people in question are usually girls rather than usually women) — but the same exact issues of socially forced “choices”, a hateful, punitive approach to the female body and how to make it presentable come up in both and the focus on FGM can be so easily hijacked by the “let’s save the delicate flowers of muslim womanhood from their beastly demonic menfolk” crowd.
So the image is striking, sure, but yeah — I do have mixed feelings about it cause, like, how could any globally-minded feminist not?
Don’t feed the trollz please
Just because I was fortunate enough not to be subjected to FGM, Kathleen, does not mean I cannot fight it.
FGM is NOT a religious practice. It’s an evil, horrific tool used to subjugate women and, frankly, I do not think cultural relativism should in any way excuse it. In fact, I think cultural relativism shouldn’t even give us pause in this case.
Bringing up plastic surgery is just as much of a derailment as male circumcision is, Kathleen. This is not a case of casting stones in glass houses, it’s a question of fighting for the basic human right to not be mutilated.
I thought that I posted something here. Was it deleted?
PinstripeSuit: is it easier to set me up like a strawman and then knock that down again than honestly considering what I’ve said? Nowhere did I say men have worse problems than women. But I don’t think women have worse problems than men either. I don’t think it’s possible, and certainly not helpful, to put a value on “who’s got the shorter end of the stick.” Why can’t you acknowledge that it’s possible for two separate groups of people to both have problems without having to make one more worthy than the other?
As for if I’m aware of where I’m writing, of course I am. Please don’t treat me like I’m stupid. Maybe I have used a wrong word because English is not my first language. But I don’t think I’ve dismissed any female problems.
I have seen feminism get a bad wrap and it seems too bad but sometimes I can see why. If you blow people off because they do not immediately agree with you 100% it is going to be hard not to be seen as a bunch of angry whiners, and that’s quite close to ball breaking man haters.
Kathleen - while some people may use talk of FGM as an excuse to Muslim-bash, those people are ignorant. FGM happens where it is a tribal practice - among Muslims, yes, but also among Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.
That said, you’re right that there are right and wrong ways to go about fighting the practice. Working with local groups is good; charging into a community and saying that (or acting like) they are all barbarians is generally counter-productive.
Mael, i really disagree. I don’t want to disrail the discussion, at all — but I never said anything about “cultural relativism”. I think genital cutting is just plain awful. But I also think opposition to that variety of “just plain awful” is not served well by isolating this one practice as the! worst! ever! , especially when we know from the past 6 years’ experience that rabid anti-feminists will jump all over this one issue in order to serve causes that are basically racist (muslims oh noes!)
the real point is that there are a lot of varieties of “just plain awful” out there when it comes to women’s experience.
I think our job as globally minded feminists is, rightly, to say female genital cutting is awful. But I think if we are going to call it “mutilation” we have to call breast implants “breast mutilation” and protest them, too. If we aren’t willing to do that, or it makes us feel oogy or hesitant to do that when it comes to people we know in our own backyards, maybe we need to reflect on these kinds of self-righteous campaigns undertaken on behalf of delicate flowers living in poor elsewheres.
I posted somewhere else that the comparison to breast implants only holds if a woman voluntarily undergoes FGM as an adult. And I wouldn’t stop any women from doing so. But once you involve women in a coercive society or for Jebus’ sake children, we are on a whole different planet.
There are enough women that don’t get breast implants in our society that you can make the case that while there’s pressure on some women to get them, there is not coercion. A woman in a tiny village who needs a marriage to survive, and who can’t get married without first being horribly mutilated, is not in the same position.
A child being mutilated by her family is simply a victim, not somoene undergoing a meaningful ritual, no matter what pretty language is used to discuss the practice.
I think the ads are better than all the other ads, which would be no ads at all, as far as I’m aware. If this creates acknowledgment of an issue that hasn’t been widely acknowledged, so much the better.
Related - I caught a Golden Compass sneak preview last night, and while I didn’t notice it while reading the first book, it came to me watching the movie that I was seeing, arguably, an allegory for religiously-motivated FGM. “Just a little cut” they kept saying, and I was like, wow. Even the motivation is the same - religious ideas about choice, and desire, and sin.
Maybe the FGM angle is how they got a prominent Catholic (Kidman) to be in a movie based on a book that attacks Catholicism.
FGM is NOT a religious practice.
Of course it’s a religious practice. It’s just not specific to any one religion.
They’re not doing it for medical reasons; they’re doing it because of superstitious beliefs about what happens to women who don’t have the “maleness” cut off of them.
But I don’t think I’ve dismissed any female problems.
In a thread that’s about female problems, isn’t that kind of your problem?
It is my understanding that many victims of mutilation are children and cannot consent to it. (Further, the health problems of genital mutilation are far greater than those caused by implants, but that’s actually an extremely minor point.)
How can you ignore the consent issue implicit here, Kathleen? We aren’t comparing, say rough sex to bondage play. We’re comparing rough sex to rape. One may be problematic, but the other is evil.
Breast implants are another derail.
I think the “consent” issue is exactly where the whole thing turns, in fact.
Women “consent” to self-harming dicta *all the time*. You can interview (lots of people have) female enthusiasts of genital cutting just like you can interview (lots of people have) female enthusiasts of breast implants.
I am not trying to derail — you did ask me a question. But if people want to return to lamenting the specific and exclusive awfulness of genital cutting and how mounting a campaign in the West to save the (delicate flower) vicitms of it in the East is totally unproblematic and doesn’t involve *any blind spots at all* about slicing up Western women’s bodies, have at it.
Of course it’s a religious practice. It’s just not specific to any one religion.
They’re not doing it for medical reasons; they’re doing it because of superstitious beliefs about what happens to women who don’t have the “maleness” cut off of them.
No, it is not a religious practice. It is embedded in specific cultural practices, sometimes and mistakenly justified by religion. In Africa, it tends to be inflicted by the women of the family on girls in order to control their sexuality. I don’t know the context for the Middle East.
I can’t find a record of the text I read on it quite a while back, but this seems like a good guide.
The use of flowers is a bit of a cliche, but I think the ads are effective. It certainly is a human rights issue and needs much more visibility. And then, after this horrific practice is ended, it will be easy to justify honoring the same human rights protection to male infants.
I still say to any woman who says a male circumcision is no big deal: get the equivalent done. Simply remove the hood from the clitoris by either crushing it or cutting it off. If there is a refusal to do so, then I hope the woman will shut the hell up. But I also say to any man who says his circumcision is the same as female genital mutilation: you are a fool, or you had one seriously-botched procedure.
Chet, it’s not a religious practice in that it is not mandated nor encouraged by any religion in particular. It’s a cultural phenomenon, that affects women of many nationalities and religious beliefs.
That does not mean there are any medical reasons behind the practice. It’s patriarchal, pure and simply. Control of women’s sexuality through control of women’s sexual organs. Control of women’s right to reproduction through control of women’s sexual organs. Control of women’s relationships with other women through control of women’s sexual organs.
Religion is only tangentially related to FGM; the patriarchal imprint of the practice is stronger than any religious input on FGM. Of course, a patriarchal religion that encourages the oppression of women is not going to help the banning of FGM in any way, but taking the religion out of the equation will not end FGM.
Kathleen, “anti-feminists” who use the fight against FGM as a mean to attack Islam or Muslims are just that: anti-feminists. They are also bigoted idiots.
The feminist fight against FGM is not equatable to the anti-feminist fight against Islam. In much the same way, the feminist push for emancipation of women in all cultures is not the same as the bigoted attempts of some to attack Islam as whole while pretending they’re saving the poor women from the evil burkas.
One can aid those in need without being imperialistic. One can work within local communities to end FGM without imposing a Western perspective on their culture. One can help those suffering after FGM without condemning their culture as barbaric.
I agree with you, it’s possible to be arrogant and condescending when dealing with FGM. That should not, though, mean that we should ignore the atrocity of FGM lest we are guilty of arrogance and condescension. We can think about what we are doing to help, and make sure that it is through their community and not over their community.
Sorry, Kathleen, breast implants are STILL A DERAILMENT of the issue. No, calling the procedure that removes the clitoris and sews the labia shut causing impeded sexual function for the rest of the woman’s life a mutilation does not mean we should call elective surgery mutilation also. There’s a patriarchal hand in both, but they are apples and fucking oranges.
“They’re not doing it for medical reasons; they’re doing it because of superstitious beliefs about what happens to women who don’t have the “maleness” cut off of them. ”
You are wrong. There are different reasons in different cultures.
“In Africa, it tends to be inflicted by the women of the family on girls in order to control their sexuality.”
You are wrong. There are different reasons in different African cultures.
Chet: I find that pretty ironic considering feminism is supposed to be about equality for men and women. One would think such a group wouldn’t be so dismissive of half their target audience.
“Religion is only tangentially related to FGM; the patriarchal imprint of the practice is stronger than any religious input on FGM. ”
Well, the relationship here is subtle.
1) Many FGM-practicing people believe that FGM is mandated by their religions. You can’t really tell them that’s not true, unless you think your judgment of what their religion is is better than theirs.
2) While FGM does not appear to be textually mandated by something like Islam, that doesn’t mean that FGM isn’t correlated to other forms of traditional African spirituality. That’s hard to sort out in a post-colonial world — especially since most indigenous cultures don’t share a Western concept of isolatable spheres in which some things are “religious” and some are “not religious” — but there’s still a whiff of connectedness there.
However, Chet’s original assertion is clearly ignorant, and I agree with you in the main.
Fred,
We’re waiting at Alas to talk to you in an appropriate context.
Here, again, is the link:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
jon: I think you raise some good points here. I never said circumcision = female genital mutilation, although you are right on that removing the clitoral hood would be pretty close, and someone who argues against that shouldn’t turn around for circumcision.
But you are right on, it is a human rights issue. Is the person a grown adult, mentally sound and legally able to give consent? Then by all means, cut off or modify whatever parts you want! It’s your body. But is the person a child, someone mentally handicapped, or someone who can’t consent? Then it’s a human rights issue, spot on.
The only place I disagree is saying we need to conquer one before the other. That’s like saying we need to fight AIDS before cancer. No, we need to fight them both, at the same time!
“The only place I disagree is saying we need to conquer one before the other. ”
Hey, Fred, want to talk to people who want to talk to you about this?
Try following this link: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
If you don’t, I’ll have to conclude that your goal is to harrass people here — not to actually try to help infant American boys.
Of course I care about female genital mutilation. You think that just because I am a man all I care about are men?
Not because you’re a man. Because your first response, when presented with a topic that pertains mainly to women and mainly to women of color that are non-American, your first reaction is to change the subject to something that affects white American men predominantly. Do you think it sends a good message when you’re talking to someone about problem X and they say, “Yeah, yeah, that’s great, now LET’S TALK ABOUT ME!!” Does that say, “I care about your problem sincerely.” Of course not. It says, “You are beneath discussing, and I’m the only person who counts.”
Mandolin: Thanks for that link. It looks like it sure was a lively discussion, but has been dead for about a month. It is pretty unfortunate that you are trying so hard to get me to leave however. I imagine that if you were a woman in a message board full of men and were similarly silenced, you would have a lot to say about men trying to keep women silent once again.
Amanda: you raise some good points, thank you for pointing that out. I apologize for seeming inconsiderate. I only wish people here weren’t so wholeheartedly against my writing anything here and were more open to having an honest discussion than trying to get me to shut up.
Actually, Alas is a message board in which nothing ever really dies — that’s why we have the conversations on the right hand sidebar.
And, contrary to popular belief, I don’t google “male circumcision” and show up and troll other people’s conversations.
Come to Alas or reveal yourself as only actually caring about making sure that people don’t tlak about the mutilations done to women.
Here’s the link again:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
But what separates ‘cultural issues’ from ‘religious issues’ in countries where the whole society is based on laws from their religion? I’m not the best sociologist but have been curious about other cultures and religions.
I have been incredibly shocked by the practices of various societies. We had a man here a few years ago who threw a huge pot of boiling hot grease on his wife and thought that he shouldn’t be charged because she wasn’t ‘an obedient wife’ and that the disfigurement was an ‘appropriate punishment’ for her ‘crime’ and she flatly didn’t want to prosecute him for it. Huh? He ended up being prosecuted anyway because in our society throwing hot grease on your wife isn’t appropriate at any time.
And how do you separate cultural enforced actions from religious enforced actions and those based on superstition? (Especially when you consider that much of religion is based on superstition at some level) It seems that it’s all a chunky stew where there are potentially many different reasons for nearly any action.
And why do women seem to always be on the receiving end of so much of this. If it weren’t for women, where would we be.
Fredmercury:
you are not being oppressed. Let me reiterate that: YOU ARE NOT BEING OPPRESSED. You are not being silenced. You have not been asked to leave.
You have been asked to stick to the subject at hand, FGM. That, sir, is not a hardship. It’s not infringing on your rights, your opinions, or your feelings.
You are more than welcome to join the discussion here, provided that you talk about FGM.
If I were a woman on a message board dealing with prostate cancer and I continuously questioned why we weren’t talking about breast cancer instead, I would not think the men were silencing me if they told me to either keep it on topic or shut the fuck up.
Your choice, fred.
“I only wish people here weren’t so wholeheartedly against my writing anything here and were more open to having an honest discussion than trying to get me to shut up. ”
Gee, isn’t it frustrating when you want to talk about something, and people won’t let you because they only want to talk about something else? Huh.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
As always, I get to the party too late.
But, I just wanted to say to No One of Consequence:
Thank you. You’ve echoed my thoughts exactly.
I teared up just seeing the initial image. I’m also glad that you brought up the obvious ridiculousness in one DARING to compare breast implants to FGM. I was about to lose my lunch.
FGM is NOT a religious practice.
If you feel X is part of your religion, than it is. The holder of the belief is the person to say whether it’s “religion” or not, imo. When you start with the “not a religious practice” stuff, you start to imply that as long as someone can legitimately characterize vicious assaults on human rights as religion, that’s somehow more excusable.
I’d argue that this attitude of immunity for religion is precisely why religion is a favorite tool for oppressing women in many parts of the world, including and especially America. Keeping the bitches and fags under control appears to be the major theological belief of a solid 25% of Americans, in fact. Religions are as eligible for criticism as any other belief system.
Now, if you mean that the Koran doesn’t endorse FGM and nor does any other holy book, I do believe you’re 100% correct on that, and that could be a useful believer-to-believer argument for halting the practice.
I think our job as globally minded feminists is, rightly, to say female genital cutting is awful. But I think if we are going to call it “mutilation” we have to call breast implants “breast mutilation” and protest them, too.
Well, I personally do argue that they’re pretty similar in a lot of respects. But you’re not going to get very far with that because there’s one huge difference, which is breast implants pretty much have to be performed on a consenting adult, and FGM is generally performed on young girls who don’t have a full understanding of what’s about to happen. But yeah, they function the same, as ways to mark female bodies as the property of society and of men.
I don’t think the comparison is illegitimate. I can easily see believers in FGM curtailing the most medically damaging parts of the practice and sticking just with clitoral removal or some scraping in a doctor’s office. Then it’s another form of plastic surgery, just aimed at curbing female sexual pleasure and function instead of boob inflation. Is the practice less appalling if they control for the lifelong pain and misery? Only a little.
Fred,
I didn’t say and don’t think you shouldn’t speak out against male cutting until something else happens. I just think that this is an important human rights issue that needs support, and that support will make other issues more easily supported, and I generally think it’s easier to use victories to build up the cases for human rights than to demand total change. Keep advocating for an end to male circumcision. It’s generally unnecessary, can lead to complications, and is a human rights violation even if some people decide it’s not a big deal. We’re all better off every time a human rights campaign succeeds, since there’s always another cause that is helped by the last success. And the more body integrity gets support, the more support there is for body integrity.
Take it from me, Fred, from someone who has been the mocked and maligned “What about the MENZ!?” guy myself on occasion: it’s better to support the cause that doesn’t immediately affect you than to fight–even if it’s just rhetorically–those who are or will be your natural allies in your cause. Plenty of feminists know very little about male circumcision, and I haven’t a magic formula to get past that, but I do know that what you did doesn’t work too well.
Oh, and a memory just sprang to mind:
Not too many years ago, Kansas City had an issue where a family attempted to get FGM performed here. So, just to reiterate the point that this is not even restricted to “other countries”, or whatever. And, I am pretty much a cultural relativist. I also know when something is just plain wrong, and we have to take a stand against certain practices.
I had this “not here you don’t”, instant reaction to this situation (the KC situation)- and one could certainly not call me a nationalist, by any means.
Kathleen, yes, there are ressures in any society- many feminists can and do protest the pressure on western women to conform to a beuty standard that embraces breast augmentations. But by and large, we feel less pressure to get our breasts done than women in certain countries do to getting their genitals mutilated, assuming they even get a choice. We aren’t considered much less ‘marriageable’ if we don’t have a breast op. We aren’t considered dirty, dirty whores if we don’t get it done. We aren’t physically forced or coerced into getting it done whilst a child. We generally have hygienic conditions if we have it done. That’s assuming that FGM victims are left to make a choice, even if it is a pressurised one. We know in reality, they don’t have even a pretend choice most of the time.
It’s simply a matter of human rights, and human rights are supposed to transcend cultural divides. It’s against a person’s human rights to force any procedure on them, especially to do so without anaesthetic with some piece of glass. It’s against human rights to do this to children who have no choice. It’s against their human rights to be coerced into anything by a society which would not give them any other choice.
Now, if a woman makes a choice to get a breast op, or FGM as an adult, and is not coerced (ie would not suffer harm if she did not do it), then it’s her choice. I dont’ think you’d find many feminists who disagree with this. What we do agree on generally, is that since girls who undergo FGM do NOT have a choice becuase of societal pressure
I’m sorry, I don’t buy the cultural argument. Practices we find distasteful today, such as child slavery or cannibalism have also been practised around the world. Happening in a non-western country does not mean that a practice cannot be criticised, or denounced. Human rights belong to any human around the world. Whilst it is also importan that we geniunely try to make it clear that we do not fear or resent the religions and cultures who practise it, and should be mindful that we are speaking from a Western viewpoint, that is not to say that we shouldn’t try to rimprove the level of choice all women in the world have.
I find it more eloquently put here:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/
(scroll down a few entries)
Sorry to derail, but I really couldn’t let the idea of elective breast operations somehow being as bad as forcing a child to undergo botched surgery pass.
Back on topic: I think they did a farily good job with the ads. Which is to say that they could have been better, but it is also a hard thing to get accross in an advert. I think the stitching should have been with thicker, more noticeable string, though, and the roses look a bit more mutilated.
I hope this isn’t a double post, but I always seem to have trouble posting:
Kathleen, yes, there are pressures in any society- many feminists can and do protest the pressure on western women to conform to a beuty standard that embraces breast augmentations. But by and large, we feel less pressure to get our breasts done than women in certain countries do to getting their genitals mutilated, assuming they even get a choice. We aren’t considered much less ‘marriageable’ if we don’t have a breast op. We aren’t considered dirty, dirty whores if we don’t get it done. We aren’t physically forced or coerced into getting it done whilst a child. We generally have hygienic conditions if we have it done. That’s assuming that FGM victims are left to make a choice, even if it is a pressurised one. We know in reality, they don’t have even a pretend choice most of the time.
It’s simply a matter of human rights, and human rights are supposed to transcend cultural divides. It’s against a person’s human rights to force any procedure on them, especially to do so without anaesthetic with some piece of glass. It’s against human rights to do this to children who have no choice. It’s against their human rights to be coerced into anything by a society which would not give them any other choice.
Now, if a woman makes a choice to get a breast op, or FGM as an adult, and is not coerced (ie would not suffer harm if she did not do it), then it’s her choice. I dont’ think you’d find many feminists who disagree with this. What we do agree on generally, is that since girls who undergo FGM do NOT have a choice becuase of societal pressure
I’m sorry, I don’t buy the cultural argument. Practices we find distasteful today, such as child slavery or cannibalism have also been practised around the world. Happening in a non-western country does not mean that a practice cannot be criticised, or denounced. Human rights belong to any human around the world. Whilst it is also importan that we geniunely try to make it clear that we do not fear or resent the religions and cultures who practise it, and should be mindful that we are speaking from a Western viewpoint, that is not to say that we shouldn’t try to rimprove the level of choice all women in the world have.
I find it more eloquently put here:
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/
(scroll down a few entries)
Sorry to derail, but I really couldn’t let the idea of elective breast operations somehow being as bad as forcing a child to undergo botched surgery pass.
Back on topic: I think they did a farily good job with the ads. Which is to say that they could have been better, but it is also a hard thing to get accross in an advert. I think the stitching should have been with thicker, more noticeable string, though, and the roses look a bit more mutilated.
jon: Thanks once again. It is nice to encounter someone who is willing to talk reasonably. I have noticed that a lot of people seem to have risen up against me, and that there seems to be a lot of anger floating around. It’s too bad, because I think it hurts the cause of feminism overall. For example I read on another feminist website a series of comments of people advocating going out and castrating men that they felt produced products that were harmful to women (sexist toys for example). Except that on the site in question, there was actually a lot of positive response to that fantasy along with some people cringing. It’s that kind of response that I think turns a lot of people off to what feminism could be. Sadly there seems to be too little “self policing.”
Mandolin: You sure are persistent with that link! Thanks, I already have it. Sorry, don’t feel a need to “prove myself.”
I’m glad AI is doing this, but I find the images a little too restrained for the subject matter. Perhaps it’s just that I’m jaded by exposure to endless horrific images in the media, but the first thing I think looking at the images is “where’s the blood?”
As I understand it FGM generally involves both cutting and sewing: There are differences between cultures over what is cut (labia only or clitoris as well), and the sewing ensures that the post-cutting healing process joins the labia together. The procedure is done using razor blades, broken glass, or similar improvised instruments, under unsanitary conditions. There is lots of blood, lots of screaming. Somehow a flower with nice surgical stitching doesn’t quite convey the awfulness of the crime.
“It’s too bad, because I think it hurts the cause of feminism overall. ”
Since you have such an immaculate grasp of feminism, including an intimate understanding of your own privilege and how you feel it entitles you to reframe any conversation around your own issues and doubts, I’m sure that we’ll all take your criticisms immediatley to heart.
Hey, I hear there might be people who actually *want* to talk to you:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
Mandolin: You’re right, there might be. Since you don’t want to, why are you? By the way, there is some irony in what you write. Know you can take it in all fun and good intentions though!
fred:
I’m assuming you’re done with this thread? Or are you going to stick around some more and tell us how to fix feminism so it’s more palatable to you?
Don’t play the concern troll.
“By the way, there is some irony in what you write. ”
But none in yours.
Oh, hey, look, there’s somewhere on the internet where you could talk with feminists about your pet issue without trying to hurt women:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
“In Africa, it tends to be inflicted by the women of the family on girls in order to control their sexuality.”
You are wrong. There are different reasons in different African cultures.
That was the case in the stuff I looked at which, IIRC, related to West Africa - Ethiopia and the Sudan. I suppose I could go and get out the Hosken Report which I cited earlier, but I really don’t want to read more about such a depressing topic.
I can easily see believers in FGM curtailing the most medically damaging parts of the practice and sticking just with clitoral removal or some scraping in a doctor’s office.
This would be in the same sense as curtailing the most ethically challenged parts of a genocide, and sticking with just exterminating entire populations of civilians, yes? AFAIK, it’s the clitoridectomy and excision of the labia that kills (pieces of tin and glass, for the love of God) not the infibulation. Not to mention those other minor negative effects.
I mean, I’m more cynical and evil-minded than practically anyone here, but this is really a nasty thing.
If you feel X is part of your religion, than it is. The holder of the belief is the person to say whether it’s “religion” or not, imo. When you start with the “not a religious practice” stuff, you start to imply that as long as someone can legitimately characterize vicious assaults on human rights as religion, that’s somehow more excusable.
That’s not the case. Rather, distinguishing it as a cultural practice highlights the fact that Islamic teachers have also labelled it repulsive. It is not justified by Islam.
Stressing that it is not justified by religion is not the same as accepting the argument that religious justifications are acceptable. Rather, it is preemptively removing that argument from those that do give it creedance.
I’m not particularly interested in the ad’s artistic merits; I just think it’s pretty damn effective, and I am very, very pleased Amnesty is doing a high-profile campaign against it. I didn’t even need to read the copy to get it. It works. Showed it to the spouse, and it made him feel nauseated. He got it instantly, too.
Normally I think the “what about the menz” thing gets thrown around too often, but it’s 100% appropriate here. Some other time, some other place.
I think the ads work well. I’m a bit relieved that they chose a flower, which is something that is appreciated for its own sake, instead of say a fruit of some kind, which is only appreciated by consuming it. So they dodged the “women are only valuable/more valuable for their hymens” bullet (not that I thought Amnesty International was especially likely to do that, but it’s nice to know anyway).
I do like the white background in the ‘Shopped version a lot better. I don’t think a wilted or damaged flower would have worked as well, for the reasons others have given. What might have worked is a split screen shot, showing half an unsewn, undamaged flower spliced onto half of a damaged, sewn flower. The separating element could have been a scapel or something.
“This would be in the same sense as curtailing the most ethically challenged parts of a genocide, and sticking with just exterminating entire populations of civilians, yes? AFAIK, it’s the clitoridectomy and excision of the labia that kills ”
Clitoridectomy kills (really close to major avenues for blood), but so does infibulation. I think infibulation tends to be the thing that kills women long after the initial cutting.
I had trouble looking at the images directly at first. I didn’t need a moment’s thought to know what they meant.
Still, having stared at them for a while now, I find them really beautiful, and I worry what kind of message that sends to people who know nothing about FGM; the ones I imagine these ads are for. I don’t expect people will think FGM is pretty, or can be, or should be, but maybe that the message won’t stick if the image isn’t visceral.
I don’t know. In spite of my concerns, I still think it’s an intelligent and creative campaign. I still really like it.
“Now, if you mean that the Koran doesn’t endorse FGM and nor does any other holy book, I do believe you’re 100% correct on that, and that could be a useful believer-to-believer argument for halting the practice. ”
it is borne out of religion & there is something in the koran about it. i was on an egyptian forum about 5 years ago & it was actively bought up by a uni student who wanted his future bride to have it, & it was argued on koran scripture. it’s a minority of people who probably believe that in egypt in this day & age, but nevertheless, it’s out there & being aruguedinthe name of islam.
im leaving now but will look up the info later if i can.
“it was argued on koran scripture.”
If you’re talking about what I think you’re talking about, then the passages you refer to suggest that partial clitorodectomy is neutral, or a mild benefit, but not compulsory.
In context, this was sort of feminist, as I understand it — since the culture that was being told to do partial clitorectomy had previously been doing full clitorectomy.
“the fact that Islamic teachers have also labelled it repulsive. It is not justified by Islam.”
BS. islam is not monolithic, & it has no centralized head. so SOME may have, even the majority out there–but not ALL.
Partial or not…religious borne it is. everyone interprets things differently, in differing translations, etc…
Does anyone have a link still to the feminist blog troll bingo card? I think fredmercury may have just gotten BINGO with the bit about how we’re hurting the cause of feminism by not talking about a men all the time.
As for the images: I think they’re a spectacular awareness campaign. Why? Because feminists look at them and recognize immediately that they’re talking about FGM. Hell, none of us were unable to get what the ad was talking about pretty quickly (without reading the text). All we’ve really debated is the level to which the images are reflective of the procedures actually performed. Flowers, particularly roses, are cliche, and that’s the point. Use of a picture of a rose as a stand in for an actual vulva allows them to put these ads in print, and allows so many of us to look at them without vomiting and crying at the same time (which is what happened to me on the one occasion I watched a video of a clitoridectomy, and a rather mild one at that as there was no infibulation)
We already know what FGM is, and we know that it’s horrible. The point of the campaign is that lots of people don’t. I’ve had an endless number of discussions with Americans who had never, ever, in their lives heard about FGM. Most anyone who had heard of it who wasn’t a member of the women’s studies set had only a passing familiarity, and a lack of understanding of why it was performed, and in what cultures (religiously rather than regional tribalism).
Provided that these ads are well placed in a variety of magazines which appeal to people who would not otherwise know about the topic, I would rate this as an excellent campaign.
I grew up in North Africa, where FGM was practiced on girls at around the age of eight, without anaesthetic or sterilized tools, and also without their consent (in that, even beyond the fact that consent is a ridiculous criterion when discussing eight-year-olds, the girls were known to be terrified and to dread the experience in spite of being told that it was a special rite of passage; this acknowledgement of the victims’ fear was part of how the issue was commonly discussed, it was supposed to be “normal”). And yes, in my experience this was a largely rural practice that had nothing to do with the Coptic/Catholic/Sunni/Sufi/Shia’a/synchretistic-whatever religion of the family or village, but instead resulted from centuries of tradition and superstition (and in many Middle Eastern countries, the categories of “religion”, “ethnicity”, “family”, “tradition”, and “superstition” are not easily distinguishable from one another).
Anyway, not to soapbox unnecessarily — I know most Pandagonians know this, and more, already — but I have such wincing reactions to any feminist argument that FGM should be left alone out of some misplaced respect for cultural difference. It doesn’t make any more sense, in the context, than ignoring genocide out of “cultural respect”. People (feminist and [especially!] otherwise) might be interested in reading Nayra Atiya’s Khul-Khaal: Five Egyptian Women Tell Their Stories, which has, among lots of other great stuff, some heartrending, fascinating, complex first-person accounts of FGM by Egyptian village women.
Also, for all those getting side-tracked in a debate about whether or not it constitutes a religious practice, I don’t see either side arguing anything which opposes the beliefs of the other side. One side seems to be using the term “religious” in a broad sense while the other side is referring to Islam in particular and the fact that this practice is no way endorsed by the religious texts or hierarchy.
“this practice is no way endorsed by the religious texts or hierarchy. ”
Well… again, you can read some (as I understand them to be) supplementary texts of the Koran as saying that it’s a good thing to do (though not compulsory).
And there are definitely individual Islamic leaders who think the practice is ducky. Does something become Christian because 5% of pastors endorse it? I dunno.
I’d be happier if we just said the relationship is fuzzy, instead of saying it DOES or DOES NOT exist.
I have to say, I’m somewhat surprised at the willingness with which people here are more interested in setting me up as a strawman and trying to put words in my mouth than addressing things directly. I had thought better of pandagon’s readership. Are people so intoxicated with anger that they’re willing to throw reason and decency away?
“I’m somewhat surprised at the willingness with which people here are more interested in setting me up as a strawman and trying to put words in my mouth than addressing things directly. ”
I hear tell there are places on the net where people would be willing to address you directly.
You could try this one:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
I hate to feed a troll, but this one won’t shut up. My humblest of apologies if responding to him makes him stick around even a single moment longer.
fredmercury: You have not been made into a strawman. 1000 clones of you have been seen here before, and it is disturbing how closely your statements have followed those of your predecessors.
To begin with:
You entered a discussion on female genital mutilation, and your first comment was intended to derail attention away from said topic to a topic you would rather discuss: male circumcision. No, these topics are not analogous, you have been told they are not, and even if they were, it wouldn’t matter because the topic of this post is female genital mutilation.
You posted the exact same comment twice, verbatim, from two different accounts
You insisted that because we refused to change the topic of conversation (you know, the one which fit in with the topic of the post) to your topic, one which is about white men in the West, we were hurting the cause of feminism.
When shown a more appropriate forum for the topic you wished to discuss, you rejected it. You were only interested, it would seem, in discussing male circumcision in the context of a post which had nothing to do with female circumcision. The logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that your interest is NOT in discussing male circumcision, but rather in derailing a thread about FGM.
I could go on, but do I really need to?
edit: change female to male in the statement “nothing to do with female circumcision)
The biggest problem with the design is the hopelessly unreadable (from a distance) text. They’re very effective at generating the “ooo, ick” that FGM deserves, but the only point in generating such a reaction is the “Give your support at www.<unreadable URL>” text in the lower-left corner. With that, it’s just likely to lead to “My God, that’s horrible! (Smug self-satisfaction in living in a country that doesn’t practice FGM)” which doesn’t help at all.
I confess to being completely puzzled by all the people who told me “no, it’s not religious; it’s part of traditional tribal spiritual practice.” Huh?
Then I read:
Rather, distinguishing it as a cultural practice highlights the fact that Islamic teachers have also labelled it repulsive. It is not justified by Islam.
And now I get it. A whole lot of you are under the misapprehension that you can only be part of one religion at a time.
The practice is traditional. The sources of that tradition are control of women, control of men, control of people, control of bodies, fear of bodies, fear of sexuality, fear of loss of control of sexuality, and a sadistic desire to cut up people. Religion and society and culture and ritual and even aesthetics all enter the picture somewhere, but they’re not the driving force so much as window dressing designed to hide the ugly truth.
Great ads - I’m glad the flower is beautiful, though I think MH’s idea of a double-paned ad could be a good alternative. And I like the brown background which, by the way, is flesh-toned for many people. It looks much more human to me than a white background.
(begin sarcasm)
But what about first-round draft pick rules in the NFL? I am greatly saddened to find that the esteemed writers and readers of Pandagon are ignoring half of the population (that is, the football-watchers) by keeping this post about FGM and utterly ignoring the growing concerns I hold about some teams getting all the best players every year. If you really cared about all people, you would let me talk about the NFL in these comments and stop oppressing me.
Kisses, StotheL.
“but they’re not the driving force so much as window dressing designed to hide the ugly truth. ”
This is a statement that appears to be made with great certainty. I’m wondering how you come by that certainty.
“I think fredmercury may have just gotten BINGO[.]”
Yep. Let’s give him his $100 and send him home.
Esme: Kindly remain civil and refrain from referring to me as a troll. Thank.
I am sorry but simply saying that I have not been made into a strawman doesn’t make it true. I already explained why there was a double post from a different name, so just read what I already wrote if you’ve forgotten. Numerous times people have accused me of stating things that I never said and then “defeated” me on those grounds, or tried to put intentions into my words that were never there, and used that excuse to blow me off. That’s called a strawman argument.
My intention was never to derail the conversation. All of you have proven over and over that you’re perfectly able to carry on multiple conversations in the same thread. Like here, you’re able to discuss the ads, female genital cutting in general, religion, and me, all at the same time. My intention, all along, was just to add to the discussion on an interesting track. Right away, I’ve been attacked, people have claimed that I just copied and pasted from elsewhere, and I’ve even been repeatedly told that although I am not being asked to shut up, I shouldn’t talk.
The dominant theme here seems to be “it’s true because we said it. This is a private clubhouse. Any annoying ideas that we don’t like completely will be treated by yelling and stomping our feet.” Sorry, I have tried to remain civil for a long time and read what people have said even though English is not my best, but it is quite hard.
Even you, yourself, just commited another strawman argument. I never said that because you wouldn’t change the conversation you were hurting feminism. I never even said that you should change the conversation. But I did say that acting badly hurts feminism. And it does.
“Esme: Kindly remain civil and refrain from referring to me as a troll. ”
If you stopped trolling, she probably would refrain from referring to you as a troll.
By the way, if you wanted to discuss male circumcision in a place where it wouldn’t be trolling, you could go here:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
fredmercury: You’re sorry? Change your behavior.
And what do you think about the NFL policy on first-round draft picks?
Also, since you care so much about circumcision, could you provide a link to your blog on that topic so the rest of us can discuss it with you there?
StotheL
P.S. Feel free to not respond, ever.
Like, ever.
guh. every single time theres a discussion of FGM on any feminist blog the male circumcision stuff comes up. is there some sort of godwin’s law for this? cos really, there ought to be.
and i assume the reason, for those wondering, why people are so quick to assert the lack of explicit religious reasoning for FGM is becos the religion usually cited is Islam and to blame FGM on Islam is used to feed the “islamofacist” hysteria. and similar to being sick of hearing “what about the menz” on threads about atrocities done to women, most thinking people are also sick of hearing about how all evil in the world is to be blamed on Islam.
but thats just my guess. now, im off to watch “mighty ducks” and work on 3 term papers. wheee.
fredmercury: short version — yes, you’re trolling. Male circumcision has nothing to do with female mutilation. We’ve said how upthread.
Assuming for a second that the whole religious/not religious discussion has merit, it should be pointed out that if a practice is associated with anyone’s religion, it’s religious, even if it be heresey. The fundie/Catholic prohibition against birth control is heresy — in some cases, where its knowingly leads its proponents to cause significant harm to individuals, is absolute blasphemy in Christianity. Doesn’t make it non-religious. In fact, it couldn’t be a heresy if it wasn’t religious.
If mutilation is Islamic heresy, then that is proof that it is religious, not that it isn’t.
fred, get out.
The folks at Alas will gladly carry on your intended conversation there. No really, they will.
Amanda, how much can I pay you to ban fred?
Amanda, if you want more money than teac can supply, I’ll gladly pitch in.
“The folks at Alas will gladly carry on your intended conversation there. No really, they will.”
If you mean that the mods oppose male circ, then you’re right — at least some of us do.
I suspect, however, you meant to imply that we’re antifeminists. I always find it amusing when people who want badly to target Barry find it acceptable to imply that myself, Maia, Rachel S. and so on are also antifeminists.
Re: religious discussion:
I thought MAJeff made a good point on a pharyngula thread when he suggested that we should stop talking about things as if they are part of “Christianity” and start talking about “Christianities.” In this case, I think it would be appropriate to talk about Islams.
I am uncomfortable with the erasure of non-Abrahamic religions from this disucssionof religious basis… but I don’t have enough grounding in any of them to add useful information.
Mandolin, I think you misread me. I meant that y’all will engage with him on the subject he wants to discuss. That’s all. I did not mean to imply that any of you are antifeminists. My deepest apologies for being unclear.
fred, I did remain civil. Very civil.
Why did I call you a troll? Because you’re trolling. Showing up at a blog and making posts for the purpose of derailing is trolling. If you engage in trolling, you are a troll. You cannot say that your intention was anything other than to derail for the reasons I mentioned above. The other things being discussed in this thread are relevant to the topic (religion, and the ads, as relates to FGM). Your comment was not relevant. When told it was irrelevant, you became hostile.
“I have seen feminism get a bad wrap and it seems too bad but sometimes I can see why. If you blow people off because they do not immediately agree with you 100% it is going to be hard not to be seen as a bunch of angry whiners, and that’s quite close to ball breaking man haters.” You also said that us not liking your derailments hurt the cause of feminism.
When men show up on feminist blogs and say that we oughtn’t to be so mean, it’s hurting our cause, we refer to it as “concern trolling.” It happens a lot. You’re doing it yourself
When men show up on feminist blogs and derail the topic away from the topic of the post (a women’s issue) to something different which is about men, we laugh at you, because “What about the poor men” is something we see a lot.
http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=431
Here’s one of the many bingo cards that feminists have made to help identify people like you. See how many of those you find yourself agreeing with.
I won’t respond to anything else you say unless it’s about FGM. Not male circumcision. Not “you feminists are so mean.” Not “why do you keep calling me a troll?” I’d like to ask that others do the same, as you’ve made it quite clear that you have no interest in actually listening to anything that anyone here has to say.
My thoughts on male circumcision are as follows: there is no comparison. Female circumcision is more akin to cutting off the penis than it is to cutting off a little flap of skin. And I’m pretty tired and disgusted with seeing the issue framed that way.
“My deepest apologies for being unclear. ”
Oh! Sorry. I got subtext-happy.
Sorry again for misreading.
Esme: Thank you for remaining very civil. I, for one, think the ads are effective. But I wonder why you see men and feminism blogs as being against each other. Amnesty International should be applauded.
Gee, just got through the first half dozen comments and there were already a couple of comments bringing up circumcision of males.
FWIW, I was circumcised as an infant. Don’t know if I missed anyting because I was too young to know what was happening when it was done so what I know is how I’ve felt which is quite normal. I do NOT feel as if I have lost ANYTHING sexually by having been circumcised.
And I do feel that equating circumcision of infant males to FGM is incredibly insulting to the females.
Trying to sort out whether FGM is a religious practice or not requires us to define what constitutes the essence of somebody else’s faith, which is pretty damn arrogant, IMHO. If they say it’s part of their religion, it is, end of story. Claiming that FGM is not part of true islam is all well and good if you’re an Imam, but there are other Imams who will claim the opposite.
I understand the desire to keep ammunition out of the hands of the Horowitzian Jihadists, but defining other people’s religions for them is part of what makes Horowitz and company so utterly wrong. It doesn’t help play the same idiotic game. FGM is abominable, and if that’s an insult to anyone’s faith, fuck ‘em.
“But I wonder why you see men and feminism blogs as being against each other. ”
We don’t — we see you as acting out of enitled privelege to try to stifle discussion about women’s mutilation.
By the way, there is a site where you could go where it would be appropriate for you to make these comments in a feminist context:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/02/why-can%e2%80%99t-the-united-states-stop-circumcising-boys/
Mandolin - No prob! I wish to remain in your good graces.
Mandolin: I think I can understand you now but I am confused. When has I said that I was privileged to be entitled? Sorry, it was just a mistake if so. My English is perhaps not as high as yours. Not sure even what I am entitled for!
What a great ad! This is such a terrible thing though. How can we stop our fellow sisters from being hurt like this?
Bye, fred. You were given one simple rule, which was to stay on topic, which was FGM. So far, you’ve found that impossible, since the only subjects that interest you are yourself, your gender, things that happen to your gender, why feminism needs to be all about men and not about women, how “equality” is only achieved by making every topic of discussion about men, men, yourself, men, and yourself. Bye, now.
And for shame sullying the good name of the dearly departed.
You really are putting words into his mouth here.
Anybody who says it’s not the same thing is absolutely right, because AFAIK this is usually done to males when they’re infants (and they won’t remember it, while girls of a certain age will remember their mutilation all too vividly), it’s done in sterile environments (which isn’t always the case when somebody takes a scalpel or other sharp object to female genitalia), it isn’t done for the express purpose of ensuring the male can never experience sexual pleasure, and if it’s done in adulthood then there will be anesthesia instead of a girl being forcibly held down while she is carved up.
So I’m agreeing with you on that.
What I don’t agree with, since I was recently a victim of it myself, is the unprovoked hostility towards somebody who might actually not be a troll at all.
For anybody who’s going to accuse me of whining, btw, take a minute to watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6xYcUQiJ3sk
If me saying that people shouldn’t launch personal attacks and should try not to be so hateful towards one another makes me a “whiner”, then I guess Elizabeth Edwards is also a “whiner” for saying the same thing to Ann Coulter.
People should treat one another with respect, and this guy is not disrespecting you by saying that men suffer as well, so there’s no justification for you blasting him like that. By doing so you are doing nothing to disprove all of the nasty shit that’s been said and written about you, you’re instead reinforcing it.
He’s saying that all circumcision is bad, and I’m inclined to agree.
He is absolutely NOT saying that men are the only people who matter, he is NOT telling you to stop talking about female circumcision, he is not even demanding that you respond to his question. You could have just ignored him and kept on talking about female circumcision instead of acknowledging his post and making him out to be an enemy and raking him over the coals.
It’s WORSE for females, yeah, and it deserves to be talked about. But tell me, what would be so horrible about briefly talking about male circumcision in this thread as well, because there will certainly never be a thread devoted solely to male circumcision on here. I could easily turn your argument around and say that you think women are the only ones who matter, if I wanted to. But I’m gonna give you more credit than that.
It would be nice if people did that. I try to do that, but when somebody attacks me or when I see them attacking somebody else unprovoked, the time for civility is past. Even now I’m not calling anybody names, which is more than I can say about other posters here.
I like the ads, but honestly I think the most effective ad would be one that actually shows a woman who has been mutilated. I’m a member of the “show what its really like” school, not just in this but in other things, and as far as effectively showing the horriffic effects of FGM, I’d say photos of actual victims of the barbaric practice beat sewn up flowers.
But still, these ads are a good start, and maybe they’ll get people thinking.
What the ads really need, however, is links for where to donate to the groups dedicated to fighting FGM, not just a link back to AI.
Wow…I thought I’d peek in and see how long it took for someone to try and derail the thread by bringing up circumcision (it happens every time, after all). I *am* rather shocked to see that it happened so soon. The second reply? Jeebus fuck!
Rob, it’s not our job to disprove the nasty shit antifeminists write about us. It really isn’t.
Again, Pandagon isn’t here to cater to your needs. If you want to read a post dedicated solely to male circumcision, you are more than welcome to write one yourself. Or, alternatively, you could travel just a little further to, say, Alas, a Blog or Feministe, who have, in the recent past, posted about this very issue.
Anyway, not to soapbox unnecessarily — I know most Pandagonians know this, and more, already — but I have such wincing reactions to any feminist argument that FGM should be left alone out of some misplaced respect for cultural difference. It doesn’t make any more sense, in the context, than ignoring genocide out of “cultural respect”.
I really, truly understand the fear of giving any ammo for the imperialist agenda, so I try to be sympathetic, even when I get the sense that people are squelching their knowledge that patriarchy-is-patriarchy and by demurring on the issue if it’s not *your* patriarchy, you’re inadvertently allowing the definition of women in that culture as “subhuman” to stand. I wince, but forgive, because it’s unintended to come across that way and our duty as the loyal dissent in America is to resist imperialism at every corner.
That said, I find the “but right wingers will hide behind this!” argument to be a bit tedious. Right wingers, as well all know, will say or do anything to advance their agenda, and are not slowed by fealty to truth or ethics. If we allow this tendency of theirs to squelch our speech, then we will eventually be able to say nothing, for fear of co-option. Look at how anti-choicers are hiding behind a phony concern for women here in the U.S. to push for an abortion ban, with their ridiculous claims that it hurts women. Should the co-option of such rhetoric halt feminist efforts to get better gynecological care for women? No. On a certain level, we’re going to have to accept that there’s no magic bullet that’s going to stop right wingers from lying and sleazing and co-opting rhetorical ploys, and we’re going to have to proceed knowing that’s going to happen no matter what we do or don’t do.
Agreed. This is where I read about it first:
http://rotten.com/library/sex/circumcision/female/
I don’t think any still photo can adequately convey how terrible that is.
No it’s not, but if you want people to follow your lead on an issue then it’s good to try alienate as few of them as possible.
Somebody might say “all feminists are bitches.” A man will think “no way, that’s just some sexist asshole saying that.” Then maybe that man hears about former Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte, wants to read what she has to say about the issues of the day, finds Pandagon, makes an innocent comment in a thread, and then has everybody jump down his throat and accuse him of being a troll. After that experience, maybe the man’s opinion of feminists declines.
You want people to be on your side, and if you treat them like shit then the odds of that happening go down. I’m not saying you need to suck up to men, I’m not saying that you need to be ultra-sweet to them, but if somebody comes here who isn’t a troll and says something that you consider stupid, simply saying “No, you’re wrong, and here’s why” would suffice. You don’t have to get personal, and you don’t have to get nasty. A big reason why I’m against the Republican party is because they are all about being vicious and using attack ads and smears to stay in power.
We on the left are supposed to be better than that.
Your mistake is thinking it was innocent. He was well-versed in whining about the meanie feminists, had every half-assed complaint down.
Rob, you are teetering on the edge of concern trolling. Which is never courteous to do, regardless of the politeness in which it is done. I also think Amanda is probably laughing at your valiant attempts to safeguard her internet virtue by piously lecturing her and her posters about their “tone” (and who the fuck do you think you are to come to HER blog and tell her how she should talk to people?!? Honestly?!?). Do you only consider yourself an ally of feminist causes up to the point where the women start getting “uppity”? We don’t need fair-weather friends like those, thanks.
There is a long, long, looooooong history of men coming into threads like this one and trying to derail the conversation. A sincere reader will understand and take to heart the lessons their responses will show them and apologize for disrupting the conversation. A troll will respond with hostility and accuse the responders of victimizing them because they weren’t responded to in what they feel was a respectful enough manner (and as shown above, the troll will continue to try and derail the conversation, at this point making it about them and how mean the wimmenz tweat them, how it makes feminism “look bad”, etc…).
This is another one of those instances where there’s a long history that you are unlikely to be familiar with if not a longtime feminism blog reader. I’ll just stress with emphasis that defending concern trolls (and/or behavinglike /becoming one) is not going to be a good strategy if you want to avoid taking some lumps.
OK, I just hope you’re right and you’re sure.
I’m sorry for flying off the handle like that, and I hope you feel better soon.
Rob, please stay on the topic - FGM.
Please do not create yet another thread about yourself, your feelings, your observations on how you are treated.
Or, you know, get out.
I’d respond, Sheesh, but that would derail it further and I honestly can’t think of any good reason to spar with you over this.
We’re sure, Rob. (Did you read the whole convo? There was no doubt with this one — he even posted as “Susette” before settling in with the Fred Mercury name.)
So: FGM.
I think the ads are awesome, by the way. I don’t think they could have been made any more “graphic” without possibly causing problems that would overshadow the conversation they want to have, but it’s still enough to get the idea across.
I’m just a mean ol’ atheist, but I don’t see any value in a culture holding onto harmful practices in the name of “tradition”. What that culture needs to do is get the fuck with the program and evolve.
Just an addendum, I was cruising DeviantArt one night a few years ago, before I understood FGM at all, and someone had taken a plastic baby doll and sewn up her labia and then taken photos.
I remember being really horrified and having no idea why. Now, I’m sure that it isn’t there anymore because DA has gotten pretty uptight about any depictions of children and nudity, or so much as referencing them, and the only activism through art that they really get behind is the kind that involves a thin white woman’s boobs making the whole thing palatable.
Brad’s comment, showing it like it is, made me remember that. I’m sure it’s not original, but it definitely drives the point home: children/destruction of innocence/childhood, and the persecution of women by mutilating their bodies and robbing them of their bodily integrity.
Good on Stothel, pointing out that the garden is actually flesh toned for many people. Especially the people primarily victimised by this practice.
And according to the rotten.com article, it’s not even always about religion. Sometimes that’s all it is, is tradition.
“Why do I have to do this?”
“Because I did it, my child, and my parents had to do it too.”
“And why did they do it?”
“Because their parents did it.”
“And why did they do it?”
“Because their parents did it.”
“Wait, wait, wait. Somewhere back in the annals of history, was there ever a logical or practical reason why anybody did this? Anything at all? Something that, you know, made sense?”
“You’re thinking. Stop it, that is not our way. Let us painfully disfigure you, as is tradition.”
If something causes harm and there is no good reason for doing it, just don’t do it. If only the entire human race thought that way.
If it had that kind of impact on you, maybe I was wrong about a still photo not being able to convey how awful it was. Unfortunately I think that a lot of people are just going to see a flower and think “flower”, and if they read about FGM they’ll think “Oh that’s a shame” instead of “Oh my god, I feel sick.”
Good on Stothel, pointing out that the garden is actually flesh toned for many people. Especially the people primarily victimised by this practice.
Wow, I completely missed Stothel’s observation. Very astute. Thank you for pointing it out.
My reason for thinking the pink flower works better as a visual has to do with the stiches’ differences between the two flowers. The pink one seems more suggestive of reality I guess. Plus the stiches are easier to discern against the lighter color, thus giving a quicker visual punch.
I mean if they read the limited description of FGM on the ad, that is.
“Sometimes that’s all it is, is tradition.”
That’s… well, your rendition of the dialogue is funny? But misleading.
I wrote some about the cultural underpinnings of FGS here - http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/07/05/problematizing-legal-approaches-toward-stopping-fgs/
Sorry to be linking Alas again, after having tried so hard to troll the troll. At least this is a different article.
Ack, sorry that I didn’t get all of this in one post to save space. Last one for now, I promise.
Clicking on the pics here doesn’t zoom in on the text, so just now I googled “amnesty international + flower + fgm”, found it and read it. Here is what it says on both pictures:
“Every year, two million girls suffer the pain of genital mutilation - a clear violation of their human rights. No government should continue to ignore this crime. Help us to stop violence against women. Give your support at www.amnesty.se”
Give them credit for trying to do something about it, but that isn’t even a “limited description”, that’s no description at all. If you want people to get really outraged as they should be, include the details of why it’s painful and the lasting effects it has on the woman throughout her life.
Amanda, how much can I pay you to ban fred?
[and time passed - but not much]
Bye, fred.
Now where’s my dang credit card? *rummages through desk* Ah, here it is!
Oh man, that would make a great pledge drive!
Donate $10 and you’ll get this great tote bag!
Donate $20 and you’ll get a troll banned!
How’d you know that’s how much I gave???
and yet again youve managed to make me think about things from a new perspective. i’ve always been big on the whole “this is cultural, not a part of Islam” train, but between your comment and others posted here, im starting to understand that it may be more important to say “while some people may interpret FGM as part of their faith, that doesn’t make it acceptable.”
so thanks pandagonians and amanda! yet again your analysis is so much deeper and better informed than that of my gender studies prof. i wish my financial aid money could go to help fund pandagon.
I’ve shared my thoughts about this already at Feministing, but I have more to add.
I had the same reaction to the “description,” Rob. I understand that this ad might not be aimed at seasoned feminists, but the text sure suggests that it is (and I don’t think it is). The image is too pretty, the flower too intact, and the text is very vague.
Will *anyone* who is not already horrified by FGM be horrified after viewing this ad?
Female circumcision is more akin to cutting off the penis than it is to cutting off a little flap of skin.
Come now. It’s only akin to cutting off the head of the penis, trimming off half the scrotum, and stitching the rest to the remaining shaft so the male can never get an erection unless he’s cut free.
Really, such exaggeration…
Thank you for linking that, Mandolin.
There are things in there that I want to respond to, but I can’t copy the entire thing in here as a blockquote, of course, so before anybody forms an opinion based on the small excerpts I quote and/or my responses to them, I recommend they read the entire thing so that there’s no chance of misunderstanding.
If you want to talk to proponents of the procedure and try to get through to them without pissing them off, I suppose “FGS” is a good thing to call it, yes.
Oh god…
Literally tearing open old wounds in addition to all the other ways that’s traumatic…lovely.
I’m sure they could adapt, eventually.
Like prohibition. Makes sense.
Point taken. Could also be similar to abortion as well, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess; if abortion were outlawed, you would have people desperate to get them either going to people not qualified to do it, or people who didn’t have adequate facilities to do it safely, or people trying to do it themselves.
Oh, wonderful.
…
Fuck. That’s not adequate at all to express my reaction to reading that, but it’s all I can think of to say.
With the latter being impossible to accomplish quickly. Fuck.
OK, I guess I wasn’t far off with that analogy after all.
I am officially discouraged as hell now. You do mention some causes for optimism and Solutions That Work, but it seems like this practice is not going to go away during the course of any of our lifetimes.
But, I’m more knowledgable about it now, so thank you again.
Probably not “horrified”, no.
If you’re inclined to look on the bright side, they’ll have plenty of other chances to get it right. With luck, they’ll realize what this particular ad lacks and take that into account when designing the next one.
Thanks Cola,
teac, I agree about using a lighter colored flower if the stitches must be black - I can hardly see them on the red rose, no matter how I tilt the computer screen.
Amanda @ 127 - So true. We cannot be afraid to frame our own arguments just because right wingers may try to reframe them.
Oh, and teac - did using the bold text backfire on me? I’ll stop shouting.
StotheL - No, I think I’m just reading too many things at once. My bad
I think the ads are a good idea to get people to think about a topic that most people NEVER think about.
That being said, most people will have no idea what the ads are for and will simply move on without ever reading the tiny text.
I know not all woman-haters are also gay-haters, but it’s a refreshing tingle to see a braindead misogynist identify with Freddie Mercury.
But what about Jeff Gerstmann being fired by CNET? Hmm? How do you gals feel about that? Oh wait sorry, what was the topic again? Something to do with women I gather.
—-
Anyway the ads seem pretty effective to me. Yes genitals as flowers is a cliche but when raising awareness it’s probably best to stick to the recognizable; not the right time to invent a new metaphor. I suspect that a surprising number of people totally ignorant of FGM (and female genitals) aren’t going to get it even given the cliche nature.
Well, even though the text in the AI ad is … succinct, I’m guessing anyone who reads the phrase “genital mutilation” in combination with that image is going to flinch whether they know what FGM means or not.
And, my god. FGM as currently practiced — without consent, anaesthesia, sterile tools; with irreversible, traumatic, severely disabling, often fatal consequences — in. no. way. fits the term “surgery” as I’ve ever heard it in English usage. People who think they’re doing African and Middle Eastern girls and women a favour by going out of their way to call it “FGS” should read more oral and written accounts of FGM by African and Middle Eastern women before concluding that calling it a mere “surgery” somehow gives them Po-Co cred. I understand, even agree with, that underlying humility that acknowledge cultural difference, but it’s so painfully misplaced.
“People who think they’re doing African and Middle Eastern girls and women a favour by going out of their way to call it “FGS” should read more oral and written accounts of FGM by African and Middle Eastern women before concluding that calling it a mere “surgery” somehow gives them Po-Co cred. I”
“People” have done, and “people” are responding to them.
FGM can be both cultural AND religious. Just because it’s not ‘mandated’ doesn’t mean that you can absolve (whichever) religion it is associated with. The following article starts off explaining the different existances of it over history & geography.
Here is some interesting text about islam & fgm from mappingfgm.org:
{Debate among Muslims:
As noted above, FGM is a social custom, not a religious practice. However, in those Muslim countries where it is practice, FGM is often justified by two controversial sayings of the Prophet Mohammed that seem to favor Sunna circumcision. The authenticity of these sayings is unconfirmed, and some scholars have refuted them. Even if true, they only permit the practice; they do not mandate it.
The Sunnah (the words and actions of the Prophet Mohammed) contain a number of references to female circumcision:
A discussion was recorded between Mohammed and Um Habibah (or Um ‘Atiyyah), a woman who performed infibulation on slaves. She said that she would continue the procedure “unless it is forbidden and you order me to stop doing it”. He replied (according to one translation): “Yes, it is allowed. Come closer so I can teach you: if you cut, do not overdo it, because it brings more radiance to the face and it is more pleasant for the husband.” This passage states that the least invasive form of circumcision is allowed. It does not say that it is to be encouraged or is compulsory.
The Muslim Women’s League comments on this passage: “This is known to be a “weak” hadith in that it does not meet the strict criteria to be considered unquestionable (classified as mursal, i.e. missing a link in the chain of transmitters in that none was among the original Companions of the Prophet.) In addition, it is found in only one of the six undisputed, authentic hadith collections, that is in the Sunan of Abu Dawud (Chapter 1888). 1
Mohammed is recorded as speaking of the sunna circumcision to the Ansars’ wives, saying: “Cut slightly without exaggeration, because it is more pleasant for your husbands”. Again, this appears to be related to the least intrusive method of circumcision.
However, these passages are regarded by many Muslims as having little credibility or authenticity. The Muslim Women’s League comments: “According to Sayyid Sabiq, renowned scholar and author of Fiqh-us-Sunnah, all hadiths concerning female circumcision are non-authentic.” 1 An extensive analysis of classical Muslim authors is available online. 2
Many Muslims see passages in the Qur’an which, by implication, oppose FGM. they reason:
God apparently created the clitoris for the sole purpose of generating pleasure. It has no other purpose. There is no instruction in the Qur’an or in the writings of the Prophet Mohammed which require that the clitoris be surgically modified. Thus God must approve of its presence. And so, it should not be removed or reduced in size or function.
The Qur’an promotes the concept of a husband and wife giving each other pleasure during sexual intercourse. For example:
“It is lawful for you to go in unto your wives during the night preceding the (day’s) fast: they are as a garment for you and you are as a garment for them.” (2:187)
“…and He has put love and mercy between you.” (30:21)
Mutilated genitalia reduce or eliminate a woman’s pleasure during the act.
Nawal El-Saadawi, a Muslim victim of infibulation, stated:
“The importance given to virginity and an intact hymen in these societies is the reason why female circumcision still remains a very widespread practice despite a growing tendency, especially in urban Egypt, to do away with it as something outdated and harmful. Behind circumcision lies the belief that, by removing parts of girls’ external genitals organs, sexual desire is minimized. This permits a female who has reached the dangerous age of puberty and adolescence to protect her virginity and therefore her honor, with greater ease. Chastity was imposed on male attendants in the female harem by castration which turned them into inoffensive eunuchs. Similarly female circumcision is meant to preserve the chastity of young girls by reducing their desire for sexual intercourse.” 3
Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, head of the al-Azhar Islamic Institute has stated that the practice is un-Islamic. The Health Minister of Egypt, Ismail Sallam, announced the ban on FGM in 1996-JUL. This was upheld by a junior administrative court in Cairo.
Sheik Youssef Badri, a Muslim fundamentalist, took the health minister to court. In 1997-JUN, an Egyptian court overturned the country’s ban on FGM. Eight Muslim scholars and doctors had testified that the ban exceeded the government’s authority and violated the legal rights of the medical profession. Sheik Youssef Badri commented: “[Female] circumcision is Islamic; the court has said that the ban violated religious law. There’s nothing which says circumcision is a crime, but the Egyptians came along and said that Islam is a crime.” About 1997-JUL-6, the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel interviewed Sheik Badri. He claimed that many Muslim women are pleased with this victory of Islam over its enemies. When it was pointed out to him that parents in Morocco and Algeria do not practice FGM, he replied that the clitoris in Egyptian girls was larger than in those countries and had to be cut back to a normal size. He quoted a French study which showed that circumcised girls are less likely to catch AIDS. * He believes that the United States is spreading misinformation on the health risks of FGM.
source www.religioustolerance.org http://alum.hampshire.edu}
forgot the link ;6
http://www.mappingfgm.com/origins.html
sorry if that was too huge.
Jesus christ: FRED, jon, STFU!!!
How fucking stupid are you two? TAKE IT ELSEWHERE, you privileged assholes.
This is why people like to stick knives into Nice Guys(TM).
I don’t think the point of the ad is so much to horrify people. I think the goal is to raise awareness. Granted, not everyone will take the time to read the text, but then, there isn’t an ad campaign in history that will hit the mark every time. If the goal is to reach people who have never heard of FGM, I think they’ve done it well. For what it’s worth, I prefer the ad as-is; I didn’t care for the Photoshopped white background. And I do think the backgrounds as chosen are meant to convey some added significance.
And for shame sullying the good name of the dearly departed.
Ha! Indeed.
I think the ads are very effective, and find the nitpicking about the background ludicrous. Why not find the art director and ask what s/he was thinking about the backdrop?
(and I’d like to slap my entire gender for the ridiculous “What about the MENZ?!” thing. Jezzus it’s embarrassing.)
I normally just lurk, but this brought me out, since I seem to have had an unusual reaction to these ads.
In all honesty, I do not connect them to FGM, unless it’s explicitly pointed out to me. My immediate reaction was “oh, pretty flowers” and upon closer inspection, I still saw just pretty flowers with their petals sown together. I simply do not make the connection of flower=female genitals. It could be a cultural thing, I would have to ask the reactions of other people around here, but it could just be me as well. I assume that these ads are meant for the US though, and since the majority here seems to make that connection readily, I’d say the ads are effective. However, they might not be effective elsewhere and I have no idea if Amnesty usually runs campaigns internationally.
And I think another reason is that though they are stiched up, the stiches are neat and tidy and the flowers themselves seem undamaged. So I don’t get the ick-reaction from that either. That might be different had the petals actually been cut down or something.
Also it does bring to mind all that stuff about how female sexuality is a “beautiful flower” and every time you have premarital sex you rip petals off that flower… Not the intended result I’m sure.
But then, I’m not exactly part of the target audience of the ad.
(all right, it’s not showing up so I’ll give it one more try and then go off and not try to say anything anymore)
I normally just lurk, but this brought me out, since I seem to have had an unusual reaction to these ads.
In all honesty, I do not connect them to FGM, unless it’s explicitly pointed out to me. My immediate reaction was “oh, pretty flowers” and upon closer inspection, I still saw just pretty flowers with their petals sown together. I simply do not make the connection of flower=female genitals. It could be a cultural thing, I would have to ask the reactions of other people around here, but it could just be me as well. I assume that these ads are meant for the US though, and since the majority here seems to make that connection readily, I’d say the ads are effective. However, they might not be effective elsewhere and I have no idea if Amnesty usually runs campaigns internationally.
And I think another reason is that though they are stiched up, the stiches are neat and tidy and the flowers themselves seem undamaged. So I don’t get the ick-reaction from that either. That might be different had the petals actually been cut down or something.
Also it does bring to mind all that stuff about how female sexuality is a “beautiful flower” and every time you have premarital sex you rip petals off that flower… Not the intended result I’m sure.
But then, I’m not exactly part of the target audience of the ad.
Susette, “I wonder if people have any thoughts on the circumcision of infant males.”
Years ago I wrote to Amnesty International to ask them why they didn’t campaign against MGM as well as FGM.
They wrote back to me and punted, saying that no international organizations had put it on any list. They are hypocrites.
As to the clit, here is a video you should see. Be sure to watch the clips and maybe you will want to buy the DVD.
http://www.clitoris-film.com/
This film has been on Australian and French tv, and in other countries I believe. Ask PBS to show it.
Here is a video of the function of the prepuce.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html
I wonder if the red rose was mean to suggest blood.
But I do think the images are strongly effective for people aware of the practice (I felt queasy), but I’m not sure if the less-informed will get it.
Eric, what the fuck did I do? I tried to tell Fred to stuff it in a polite way. I disagree with his stupid comments about this site, feminism, and how he’s being treated. (Maybe I could have commented myself, but I thought others already said what needed saying.) He’s getting the treatment his words get. Sure, Fred complimented me on my calm tone or whatever, but that doesn’t make me his Best Comment Buddy Ever (Trademark it if you must.) The guy’s not in need of an intervention so much as some time to think about things. I tried, and many tried, but you can’t help someone who doesn’t see himself as needing help.
As for “privileged asshole”? I’m mildly offended.
Amanda throws another female genital mutilation picnic and I’m late for the party!
I see the “What about my foreskin?!” ants have marched right onto the blanket, though.
Certainly there are newcomers who will raise this point every time the subject is broached, so deserve an answer.
Circumcision and FGM both are ancient religious practices. But circumcision was doubtless done for hygienic purposes (not AIDS, but balanitis, phimosis, adhesions, and the other problems associated with uncircumcised penises not properly cared for, doubtless the norm 3000 years ago).
Female genital mutilation was done to control property: the female breeding stock.
So circumcision was done for the benefit of the boys, and FGM was done for the benefit of…the boys. Shocking, no?
Circumcision is akin to tonsillectomy. They were both done to help the individual avoid health problems. We are probably wrong to do either for health reasons on a routine basis. Both are still medically necessary at times.
Female genital mutilation still has control of female sexuality as its sole rationale.
If your parents circumcised you, health concerns (ancient or modern) drove them; if your parents allowed female genital mutilation done to you, they were concerned with your future husband, not you. Ethically this is entirely different, and unacceptable to enlightened people.
I like this ad campaign even though it plays to the prejudice that women are delicate flowers. We are all delicate flowers, and the appropriate time to be reminded of that is when someone is proposing taking a knife and mutilating delicate human flesh for ignoble reasons.
Great ad campaign. I believe it also plays well where FGM actually is practiced. Don’t mutilate your precious baby girl.
epi - I don’t want to get into “what about the manz” but male circumcision is not about health. If having a foreskin was a genuine threat to male health evolution would have dropped it long ago. The vast majority of men worldwide are not circumcized and they aren’t keeling over dead from grotty johnsons. There is a very small health benefit to circumcision, but it’s very small indeed, and the same benefits can be had by simple good hygeine.
FGM is vastly worse than male circumcision in that it increases health risks substantially and interferes with a basic human capacity (sexual pleasure). Still, the fact remains that circumcision is primarily a badge of tribal identity, not a health care measure.
Eric, could you calm down? You realize that by blasting people like that, particularly telling them to STFU after neither one of them has posted for a while, you’re taking the thread off-topic again, right? You might as well be begging them both to come back and argue with you.
Here’s the problem, though, if the only hope to end hte practice is to educate women.
You have to talk to them in order to educate them, and if you tell somebody “you are mutilating these girls” then they’re liable to get offended and angry and tell you to go to hell. It doesn’t matter that what you’re saying is true; it won’t be received well, and in order to get anything to change you can’t afford to alienate the people you are trying to educate.
Referring to it as FGM while talking to them is going to have the same effect on them as telling them “you are mutilating these girls”.
Had, past-tense. That part of the discussion is over.
Here’s another problem: if it was really fred’s goal to derail the thread, every time somebody responded to him in any way they were giving him more ammo, because he then had a reason to post again in response to whoever was telling him what a jerk he was being. If the universal response had been to ignore him or to say something like “don’t worry, nobody’s forgotten about your foreskin. Now, back to FGM…” he would have gone away. Because really, how many times could he possibly repeat the same thing without anybody taking the bait?
It seems like he’s gone away for now. If people keep talking about him, he might come back.
Now, back to FGM…
Good observation — even if it doesn’t shock or surprise me all that much, it does make me shake my head at one more example of how “human civilization” is an oxymoron.
I’m sure that a lot of people will have the same reaction. I’m not going to say that the ad is completely ineffective, because it isn’t. But they could have done better.
“If having a foreskin was a genuine threat to male health evolution would have dropped it long ago.”
I call BS. We still have our appendix, eh?
“The vast majority of men worldwide are not circumcized and they aren’t keeling over dead from grotty johnsons.”
The vast majority of men have some access to medical care or theory and at least occasionally clean water. Ep was referring to the origination of the practice, and made clear that it was rarely a legitimate medical need now.
FGM is a terrible thing. Imperialism conducted under a cynical pretext is also a terrible thing. But fortunately, we don’t need to swoop in, guns blazing, uninvited–because women who live in societies where FGM is “customary” have already taken the initiative in opposing the practice; what we can do is support those movements, which are both feminist and local. And oppose those here who, under an equally cynical banner of “cultural relativism” in this case but not thousands of other issues, try to shame us into saying FGM overseas is none of our business.
I have, as usual, little time, having been especially busy tonight, but I did see somewhere upthread someone bring up male castration. That person’s context was “oh noes, these nasty insensitive feminists don’t know where the boundaries of civil discourse are!” Refusing to get drawn into the morass of male circumcision, I will point out that FGM is a lot more like castration, particually the nastiest kind involving penectomy.
And guess what? European cultural imperialists-specifically the British Empire–encountered both FGM and radical male castration in the African and Middle Eastern and South Asian territories they conquered. Guess which one they seriously attempted to ban. Hint–the same practice that they did in fact have considerable success in diminishing, both by forbidding the procedure and prosecuting exploitation of its results (enslaved eunuchs–Oh noes, I gave it away, darn…) all down the line.
By no means, as far as I know, did they put a complete stop to the practice of castrating unwilling boys and men, but they certainly did reduce it a great deal; I suspect that their success was due in large part to the fact that the victimized populations really didn’t want any of their males castrated if they could avoid it, and to that extent welcomed and cooperated with imperialist help and kept on repressing the practice after the colonial regimes ended. I’m sure there was lots of ugly compromise, bad faith, outright hypocrisy.
I have not heard of any comparable effort by the same authorities to end FGM. But on the other hand I do think that feminists, mainly women, in those countries can make great progress and perhaps eradicate a practice they feel freer and more able to articulate their hatred of, and counter the understandable self-defensive rationalizations of older generations of FGM victims who now have a sadly perverse stake in perpetuating the practice.
By that last sentence, I mean that when something terrible has been done to someone, one possible way of dealing with it is to rationalize its necessity, and that is the goal of patriarchy in cases like this–rape, treatment of women as chattels in general, domestic exploitation, and of course FGM–to try to close off all alternative responses and cultivate acquiescence as “feminitity.” I would feel that I was hurting a woman who had been mutilated, if she has rationalized her injury as a good thing, to try and persuade her there was really no good reason at all–but I would also feel that allowing her to continue the practice unhindered would hurt other women worse, and that it would be better for the injured women to take the initiative in ending it once and for all, despite the pain of reopening old mental wounds. And it isn’t my place, as I say, to do this interference at all–because there are brave women doing it already, who have authority to speak where I don’t. I should just back them up.
“Great ad campaign. I believe it also plays well where FGM actually is practiced. Don’t mutilate your precious baby girl.”
Doesn’t the problem start with not considering baby girls to be “precious” (a problem also seen far too often in the western world)? If you really, truly, loved your daughter, and knew of and understood the pain your own wife went through / lives with / will have in the future - how could you propagate something like that?
I bet it won’t “play well”. It will be considered by the propagators of the patriarchy in those regions to be just another example of western countries messing with things aren’t their business.
FGM is a crime. But the revolution will have to occur from within if progress toward elimination of this barbaric “procedure” is to be made…
IMHO…
Getting back to the very beginning of this topic, for what it’s worth, even as a vulva-free American, those images made me literally cross my legs and wince. My only concern is that they really might not actually get their message across to people who haven’t heard of/about FGM before (which I gotta believe is an awful lot of western society). I might have missed it had these images been plastered on subway station walls (next to those for Will Smith’s new action flick, some trashy morning radio show, and Dr. Zizmor’s ads for “beautiful, clear skin”) rather than on a feminist blog under the words “ad campaign against FGM”.
$0.02 worth.
No One of Consequence
December 2, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Which is why the poster above was making a derail attempt by bringing [male circumcision] up. Even if people disagree about the hygine value, no one thinks it hurts male sexuality or personhood.
Are you kidding me with this??? We’re OK with needlessly chopping off normally-functioning parts of babies’ genitalia without their consent? WTF? And of COURSE it hurts male sexuality and personhood - self-obsessed much?
The reason it was brought up above is because it is never mentioned, although the issues are very similar to FGM. Obviously, FGM is far more barbaric. Obviously FGM affects a person more - but nowhere in Article 3 of the UNDHR does it say “no-one shall be subjected to TOO MUCH cruel and degrading treatment - just a bit is fine”.
I appreciate that this forum is about FGM - and think that it should certainly focus on that; I don’t think there’s any need to jump down someone’s throat just because they mention a connected tangential point.
On the ads themselves - all of my friends have found them to be very effective - preaching-to-the-choir a bit, given that many are AI members - but still, I think they’re as graphic and simple as they could be made without losing the message or being unprintable.
“Female genital mutilation still has control of female sexuality as its sole rationale.”
There is no simplification here at all, of course. Nor is this immediately or obviously inaccurate if you actually study female genital mutilation.
This in no way reflects an ignorant eurocentric flattening of other people’s cultures.
“European cultural imperialists-specifically the British Empire–encountered both FGM and radical male castration in the African and Middle Eastern and South Asian territories they conquered. Guess which one they seriously attempted to ban. ”
Actually, you’re wrong — colonial authorities made strenuous attempts to eliminate both. And in their clumsy attempts at doing so, gave us the situation we have now — which is complicated by the fact that there has been huge imperial pressure in Africa, which caused damaging changes to the ritual and also radicalization in response to European pressures.
The fact that cultures reacted differently to the attempted imperial elimination of male castration and FGC is only evidence of the fact that the practices were viewed really, really differently, and had vastly different social functions. FGC was seen as necessary for reproduction and routine in that it needed to be practiced on every woman (lest she become a prostitute); in no society has male castration been seen as routine for non-prostitutes or necessary for reproduction.
“Doesn’t the problem start with not considering baby girls to be “precious” (a problem also seen far too often in the western world)? If you really, truly, loved your daughter, and knew of and understood the pain your own wife went through / lives with / will have in the future - how could you propagate something like that?”
AUGH! Yes, that’s right, barbarians overseas just don’t love their baby girls.
We however ADORE ours, which is why we’re still able to perpetuate the patriarchy. Oh, wait.
The devaluation of the female =/= no one really, truly loving their female children.
By the by, the idea that brown people don’t love their kids is vicious stereotype that’s partially a slavery hold-over. Really racist, and really damaging.
Last night I read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s FGM story:
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.I mentioned it on the last go-round on FGM, but it bears repeating:
For an African perspective on FGM and male circumcision, read Ngugi wa Thiongo’s “The River Between” - it’s a short, quick read, and well worth the effort.
I think these images are very effective in showing how wrong it is to sew closed that which is naturaly open. The stitches look painful and ugly without being so shocking as to turn viewers away before they read the rest of the ad.
I think the ad is impressive, and I hope it does raise awareness. Because I can’t read the text, it took me a second to realize what was going on.
I agree with the commentors who said the background made it harder to see. I think the black thread on the dark red rose is hard to see as well.
Oh, and thanks for banning Fred — I like seeing comments which stay on topic, let alone the men with the “cater to *my* needs” whine built in.
Cheers!
Taking Stock — If it leaned any more to the left, it would be horizontal
It seems like [fred]’s gone away for now
Rob, precious, fred was banned. He can’t come back no matter how hard he tries. Likely his IP address has been blocked.
You, as new guy, don’t get to lecture other posters - particularly those who’ve been here longer than you and who know the regulars and the regular arguments and derail tactics.
So knock it off, would you?
“For an African perspective on FGM and male circumcision, read Ngugi wa Thiongo’s “The River Between” ”
Or, for an African woman’s perspective, you could try Efuru by Flora Nwapa.
“particularly those who’ve been here longer than you and who know the regulars and the regular arguments and derail tactics.”
Note that it’s not derailing for him to try to shame us for our rudeness — but it was derailing for us to use our own tactics for getting rid of the troll.
Note that it’s not derailing for him to try to shame us for our rudeness
Not suggesting that it was. I just want him, the new guy, to knock it off. He should at least knock it off until he has a better feel for the whole shebang of Pandagon.
And yes, I agree, we bought into the trolls’ attempts to derail.
That’s why I stated in comment #38 “Don’t feed the trollz please”
Mandolin we’re definitely on the same side here. (And I have a little guess that Rob is an Aspie and needs clear rules to function, and he just isn’t figuring them out for the blog. But I could very well be wrong.
)
“Not suggesting that it was. I just want him, the new guy, to knock it off. He should at least knock it off until he has a better feel for the whole shebang of Pandagon.”
Sorry, didn’t mark my sarcasm.
I was noting that for some reason he seems to think that it’s derailing for us to deal with the troll, but not derailing for him to shame us on how we dealt with the troll. I think that’s a bit silly.
Ah. Well then we are on the same page.
I guess maybe today I’m a little subtext-happy.
[You know me from Alas and email / Aspie. Handle change here.]
Are you serious??
You’re privilege is showing.
Let’s stop derailing the thread, please?
Thanks Mandolin - I’ll look up Efuru. I mention Thiongo’s work because I read it for ‘O’ level English. Made quite the impression on me.
After reading all the comments, I found only one (nice job, Olivia!) which really focused on the symbolism of the ADS.
Olivia stated that the ads are effective because they show something that is *supposed to be open* sewed *shut*. Now *there’s* symbolism! Even people who know nothing about FGM know that you don’t sew flowers shut - it defeats the whole purpose of the flower! So they might take 30 seconds to really *look* at the ad, thinking “Why is that flower sewed shut?”, and maybe look *on the ad* for why that flower is sewed shut (curiosity’s a wonderful thing!). Then they will be introduced to the idea of FGM and maybe moved to learn more about it and possibly even help to eliminate it!
While a picture of the actual mutilation would be truthful, how many people do you think would actually *look* at it? Humans have an amazing ability to be selectively blind. But lots of people *like* looking at flowers and are drawn to pictures of them. Bingo! You’ve got someone actually looking at what you want them to see.
Personally, I found the red rose more effective, simply because female genitals *are* red (in varying shades), in every women, regardless of race. It also has more stitches than the white rose. IMNSHO, these are terrific ads for introducing a concept that lots of people (especially lots of Americans) are simply unaware of. Heck, I was 35 before I found out about the existence of FGM, and I was a voracious reader of books about everything, practically from the time I *could* read.
Now if these ads don’t progress from this symbolism, *then* maybe there’s room for complaints …
Mhorag,
I really like your comment and it brings the discussion away from the troll (I myself am an inveterate troll baiter but I forbore this time because everyone else got there ahead of me) and back to the matter at hand.
Look, an unadressed issue with this ad is *its target*–an ad is only as good as it is tailored to its viewing audience. What that says to me is that the actual market for the ads is a big issue in how they will or could be understood. I like the ad, visually, in some ways though I think it could be sharper. But I’m not really the target for the ad. The correct target for the ad should be adult men and women in the countries perpetuating this mutilation of their girl children and the correct ad form has to be dictated by the prevailing media standards, local customary understandings, local/vernacular representations of female genitalia and of females in general, etc…etc…etc… And it has to be tailored to the real reasons individual families engage in this practice when they choose to engage. There’s no point likening the girl child to an innocent baby if the entire point of the practice is to enable an adult woman to get married into an approved family. No one is going to be *derailed* from proceeding with a culturally approved practice because of an image that they dno’t think relates to what they are doing.
As many posters have pointed out there are almost as many reasons for the practice as their are families praticing it. It is religious, cultural, traditional, and yes, from some perspectives sometimes “practical” (where practical means done because not to do it produces some other serious cultural harm like not being able to marry off the woman in question). That doesn’t make it sacred to us as outsiders and it doesn’t make it a taboo topic for discussion or interference to women within the tradition. It just means that as outsiders we might want to look to insiders for better/more effective ways to intervene. A mass publicity campaign that might work in one village or state or culture might not work in another. That’s a problem to be worked on, not a show stopper.
Its culturally and religiously approved for some members of society to be sacrificed first when money an resources become scarce–that doesn’t mean that trying to change the situation or the equation is an impermissible form of cultural imperialism. Or if it is, thank goodness for cultural imperialism.
aimai
Mhorag,
I really like your comment and it brings the discussion away from the troll (I myself am an inveterate troll baiter but I forbore this time because everyone else got there ahead of me) and back to the matter at hand.
Look, an unadressed issue with this ad is *its target*–an ad is only as good as it is tailored to its viewing audience. What that says to me is that the actual market for the ads is a big issue in how they will or could be understood. I like the ad, visually, in some ways though I think it could be sharper. But I’m not really the target for the ad. The correct target for the ad should be adult men and women in the countries perpetuating this mutilation of their girl children and the correct ad form has to be dictated by the prevailing media standards, local customary understandings, local/vernacular representations of female genitalia and of females in general, etc…etc…etc… And it has to be tailored to the real reasons individual families engage in this practice when they choose to engage. There’s no point likening the girl child to an innocent baby if the entire point of the practice is to enable an adult woman to get married into an approved family. No one is going to be *derailed* from proceeding with a culturally approved practice because of an image that they dno’t think relates to what they are doing.
As many posters have pointed out there are almost as many reasons for the practice as their are families praticing it. It is religious, cultural, traditional, and yes, from some perspectives sometimes “practical” (where practical means done because not to do it produces some other serious cultural harm like not being able to marry off the woman in question). That doesn’t make it sacred to us as outsiders and it doesn’t make it a taboo topic for discussion or interference to women within the tradition. It just means that as outsiders we might want to look to insiders for better/more effective ways to intervene. A mass publicity campaign that might work in one village or state or culture might not work in another. That’s a problem to be worked on, not a show stopper.
Its culturally and religiously approved for some members of society to be sacrificed first when money an resources become scarce–that doesn’t mean that trying to change the situation or the equation is an impermissible form of cultural imperialism. Or if it is, thank goodness for cultural imperialism.
aimai
The important thing is that people get it right away. I showed the image to my husband and he immediately knew what the ad was about, before I even said anything. So it’s effective.
“I mention Thiongo’s work because I read it for ‘O’ level English. Made quite the impression on me. ”
Sorry if that came out growly, too. (Lots of tone problems on the thread.) Thingo’s great, although I don’t tend to think of him as being as good on women’s issues as he is on economic ones.
“Handle change here.”
Hey, Teac! Pleased to remake your acquaintance.
I’ll answer your email soon, btw.
“The correct target for the ad should be adult men and women in the countries perpetuating this mutilation of their girl children and the correct ad form has to be dictated by the prevailing media standards, local customary understandings, local/vernacular representations of female genitalia and of females in general, etc…etc…etc…”
I assumed it was intended to inspire westerners to give money that could be funnelled into (hopefully african women led) organizations against FGC.
Ok, fine. But earlier in the thread– in fact, in the prior comment– you accused another poster of being oversimplistic and inaccurate for saying “Female genital mutilation still has control of female sexuality as its sole rationale.”
Isn’t “we must do this to prevent women from becoming prostitutes” an example of FGM being rationalised on the grounds that it controls female sexuality? I mean– of course it is.
So how was the other poster wrong? Is your problem with the word “sole”? If the poster had said “primary” instead would that have been OK?
As a photographer, gotta say–these are gorgeous. As someone who’s studied political art and propaganda–they’re effective. The whole point is to catch the viewer’s eye with a lovely and/or interesting image. That the form and content are opposed only makes these posters stronger, in my opinion.
I’m surprised the post doesn’t have a link to Amnesty International.
I just showed it to my (male) partner, who is famously uncurious and a little thick about these matters. He looked at it and said “Vagina! But why is it stitched up?”
So I’m convinced these ads say what they want to say. Even he would have read the text at the bottom.
“So how was the other poster wrong? Is your problem with the word “sole”? If the poster had said “primary” instead would that have been OK? ”
No. It is not the primary rationale in all circumcising cultures.
“Isn’t “we must do this to prevent women from becoming prostitutes” an example of FGM being rationalised on the grounds that it controls female sexuality? I mean– of course it is.”
Not the way you mean it, although the culprit is my phrasing.
There are cultures that believe women who are uncircumcized will become promiscuous (so there’s an overt control component there).
However, what I was referring to is cultures in which the only social role available to women who are uncircumcised is prostitution. You don’t necessarily circumcise your daughter to avoid her wanting to become a prostitute; you circumcise your daughter to avoid her *having* to become a prostitute.
Yes, this is a form of social control which has a sexual component — but that does not make it the sole nor primary rationale, let alone the sole or primary rationale for all circumcising cultures.
Thank you, pussy tourmaline, very interesting.
Your opinion is very much in the minority, so it would be you that are self-obsessed.
Just because you’re wounded doesn’t mean everyone else is.
And “normally functioning” is a matter of debate, as has been mentioned before.
You’re flying off the handle for no good reason. Fact of the matter is, mutilation for females would be equivalent to completely destroying the penis for males, and none of your screaming will alter this fact. Good luck with therapy for your other issues.
In other news, I’m getting the impression that people who already knew about FGM either get knocked back on their heels by the ad or, at least, understand completely what it’s trying to convey just from the view of the flower. People that don’t know about FGM don’t get the message without text. The image has shortcomings, definately, but there is simply no visual, non-vulgar way to explain to a neophyte what’s going on here. Sound about right?
Sound about right?
Yes. I think you nailed it.
epistemology, “But circumcision was doubtless done for hygienic purposes”
That is absolutely FALSE. If one did a minimum of search, one would find that out. Verify before talking. Spreading such preconceived erroneous ideas only helps perpetuate the myth.
Try cirp.org or noharmm, or one of the the sites I linked above, doctorsopposingabortion.
Both FGM and MGM are done for control, and though there is a difference of degree of harm, they are in principle the same.
Another way to look at the ad images is (1) what advertising audience are they trying to appeal to and (2) exactly what do they want the audience to do.
For a feminist or female-majority audience, from say Ms magazine to Oprah, the images in the ads above are probably very appropriate. For a more mainstream audience reading Time magazine or a religiously conservative audience, it probably has more shock value than is necessary or helpful. More mainstream images of a sad-looking woman in traditional clothing frowning at the camera, or maybe a happy face of a girl in traditional clothing with an appropriate caption talking about the distress that infibulation or female circumcision causes girls would be more effective.
And what would be the consequences of images that shock more than mobilize? Well, potential supporters more shocked than mobilize might well have their “consciousness raised” or “conscience raised” or whatever label you put on it, but they may not be moved to (1) give money to the group putting out the ad, (2) write a letter to Your Excellency or whatever they call themselves, (3) click on the image, (4) forward the image to their friends, etc, etc, etc.
Potential supporters more shocked than mobilized might then be moved to support right-wing or socailly conservative, anti-choice human rights group, of which there are many compared to relatively progressive ones like Amnesty International.
We have see this a lot in the pro-choice movement where pro-choice groups which have taken radical stands have “raised consciousness” but inadvertently alienated a good part of their potential constituency into supporting advocacy groups much more mainstream, assimilative, and backlash-fearful than might we otherwise have seen.
One example of that might be during the battle for Medicaid funding for abortion back in the mid- to late-70s, when the Hyde amendment passed despite moderately favorable polls showing public support for abortion funding for poor women. The pro-choice movement was not able to mobilize that moderately strong majority in the polls to press legislators to overturn the amendment or push through alternative government funding mechanisms. Instead radical tactics were used like demonstrations and the image of Gerri Santoro’s death photo to depict the women who “died because of Hyde”. Also doctors were not very enthusiastic supporters of Medicaid funding for abortion, and were fearful of being mandated to perform abortions with Medicaid funding and then be sued if something were alleged to go wrong. We don’t remember how wishy-washy democratic support was for Medicaid-funded abortion or how the AMA was unenthusiastic about it either, but we sure remember that catchphrase about “women who died”. The latter slogan may make better ad copy, but activists might better learn and teach others in turn from lessons from the other phrases, huh?
Another example came after the movement to raise awareness of risks due to high-dose birth control pills and the dangers of some IUDs like the Dalkon Shield moved pharmaceutical companies to all but stop contraceptive research and pull IUDs off the market completely in the US in the 1980s and early 1990s. Rumor had it back then that pharmaceutical companies were risk-adverse for financial reasons out of fear of being sued. And while there were feminists and some misinformed members of the general public that believed that lawsuit fears were behind the industry’s move, the real reasons according to industry insiders was different.
Actually, if you look at the pharmaceutical industry’s own testimony before Congress and in public statements, their reasons weren’t based on financial reasons at all, they were making money despite the lawsuits and would have otherwise have been continuing to do research — except for the bad PR that a well-intentioned feminist movement had in being what the public took as an overly critical stance against hormonal contraception in general. (Dr. Luigi Mastroianni, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, “Developing New Contraceptives: Obstacles and Opportunities”, 1990) Notice how after that in the mid-1990s it became easier for the pharmaceutical industry to develop, test, pull off the market, and reintroduce so many different new contraceptives with little public criticism. Norplant, for example, went on and off the market – and into and out of the arms of schoolchildren in some communities – with little public outcry, except from the anti-choice movement, when it might have been better for the pro-choice movement to be speaking up with concern. And then RU-486 came along, and misunderstandings about it’s use and misuse when administered in some clinics vaginally rather than orally, and less suspicion and oversight than probably should have been given.
And then around 2000 Plan B came onto the market, and demands developed to push OTC approval though the most right-wing, anti-choice US government in living history, and accept nationally a “compromise” to sell it OTC to women over 18 ONLY. And then it went on the market from Barr Labs on November 6, 2006, the day before the midterm elections, with a press release that few media outlets would be expected to carry, competing with news about the election. But no national pro-choice group asked if Barr Labs maybe never really wanted to market Plan B OTC to minors; as Barr (and national pro-choice groups) NEVER developed ad campaigns for minors and Barr Labs actually said they would not do so. Until the Bush administration announced their opposition to minor’s OTC access to Plan B no pro-choice group made any significant effort at public education and organizing for minors access for EC in any form, although Plan B had been around since the late 90s, and organized EC campaigns – targeting adult women and college student consumers, and NEVER minors, as adult women and college students are more desirable to the pharmaceutical industry – had been around since the early 90s when public education about EC began in earnest.
Sorry for the digression. Yeah, the posters are moving and appropriate. For some audiences more than others. But all audiences need to be reached somehow. But sometimes they’re not reached. Why? Maybe it’s on purpose sometimes. For profit, and not for people.
bernarda:
Some things are more absolutely false than others.
The reasons for the ancient tradition of circumcision, obscured by thousands of years of history, most of it predating its written history, will never be one of such certainty as your enthusiasm indicates.
I am an uncircumcised doctor against circumcision. Circumcision, like kosher food laws, as oblique as they seem to us, doubtless were instructions to illiterate tribes on various health matters.
Today a little instruction on cleanliness, in an educated, literate population with easy access to fresh running water, is an adequate response to the health issues surrounding the care of a foreskin.
But these weren’t the conditions that pertained to uneducated tribes in the middle east 5,000 years ago.
Phimosis, balanitis, paraphimosis, and adhesions are seen frequently in the clinic, and easily cared for. (Whether there is an increase in sexually transmitted diseases in men who are not circumcised is probably irrelevant, they likely didn’t know of the connection back then.) Back then they would have been common and often disastrous.
We can be certain of nothing, but the origin of circumcision in the health of men’s penises is pretty obvious. Just as ancient tribes intiated female genital mutilation to control their breeders.
Again, circumcision was started by men to protect their health, and female genital mutilation to protect their investment in their breeding stock, women. To enlightened people, the former is pointless, the latter is unethical and cruel.
epistemology, the Romans and Greeks thought that circumcision was a disgusting practice and the Romans even had a law against it. I guess they were ignorant unhealthy people, at least the men.
The Jews probably got circumcision from Egyptian practice, but even in jewish mythology, it was not universally practiced. Moses and his sons were not and Moses apparently prohibited the practice. Health concerns don’t seem to have been important.
It was not a question of physical cleanliness, but of spiritual purity. It probably isn’t a coincidence that FGM is practiced by societies that also do MGM.
China, India, Japan, Russia, Europe, Latin America must all be largely populated by unhealthy males.
Bernarda:
The Jews “probably” got circumcision from Egyptians? You aren’t even sure where it started, but you are certain why?
Lawgivers centuries before the scant written record you’ve cited passed an oral tradition to their unlettered people regarding diet, circumcision, etc. Telling them circumcision was necessary to please their god, to keep them spiritually pure, was likely how they convinced people to follow the law.
Do you think that kosher food laws, now done for reasons of spiritual purity with little rationale in modern health concerns, also had no origin in matters of health? Nonsense.
You are looking at a written record made thousands of years after the tradition began. Physical cleanliness became spiritual purity in the whisper-down-the-lane of the oral tradition.
I think you, properly, want to argue against the phony health concerns that some cite today as a reason for circumcision. The argument is not helped by denying that it may once have had a health rationale thousands of years ago.
Certainly we can agree that the lawgivers were men, and their reasons for circumcision of them and their sons were for their own benefit, even if misguided. And that the cultures that started FGM also had male lawgivers, deciding to take a sharp rock to the genitals of their women, also for the benefit of…the men.
Do you think that kosher food laws, now done for reasons of spiritual purity with little rationale in modern health concerns, also had no origin in matters of health?
Consider me one, then, that doesn’t understand how a procedure with no discernible health benefits over any tine frame but the longest has an origin in health benefits. Ancient people weren’t dumb, but they also weren’t doing longitudinal double-blind studies - studies under which the supposed benefits of male circumcision appear only at the limits of detection.
The health benefits story is pretty dubious; circumcision simply doesn’t have any benefits - in any culture - that can be discerned with the tools available to an ancient culture.
The health benefits story is pretty dubious; circumcision simply doesn’t have any benefits - in any culture - that can be discerned with the tools available to an ancient culture.
Circumcision and the kosher food laws have one major advantage - they seperate the committed members of the tribe from the Other quite nicely
Chet:
Of course they were doing longitudinal studies. They predicted eclipses. And told you to eat your cod liver oil. Longitudinal double blind studies on the effects of circumcision? We’re not doing them either.
And you don’t need double blind or longitudinal, just a few decades doing rounds with the shaman, to see that guys with circumcisions had fewer penile health problems than guys without 4,000 years ago.
Let me see… clipping a small piece of skin from a baby
versus
throwing a teenage girl down, using a razor blade/broken glass/rusty knife etc. to rip out the clitoris, tear out much of the vulva, and then sew it back up, leaving only a small hole for urine to pass, which can result in infection and death.
The baby will have an easier time keeping clean, and at worse, a slight loss of sexual pleasure.
The girl will spend weeks in pain, and if she survives, will find every PIV encounter an excruiating torment, and if she has children, will probably be sewn back up again right after cildbirth.
Yeah, it’s completely the same. (/snark)
Kosher law gets tested even faster.
It takes less than a generation to notice that people eating pork and shellfish in a time of high disease associated with these two foods are people who tend to die more often.
I have yet to hear anyone make a genuine argument that
a) male circumcision started as anything other than something as a practice beneficial for men (be it through group cohesion or health reasons) instituted by men
b) female circumcision started as anything other than a practice instituted by men, and never for the benefit of the women
What do the two practices have in common?
a) both are practiced as part of a tradition (be it religious, spiritual, or cultural)
b) both involve cutting a bit of flesh
c) both involve said cutting occurring in the genital area
d) the original reasons for both may or may not have much influence over whether or not to practice either is determined by individuals and societies today.
I see no other similarities, to be perfectly honest. The difference is not of degree. It is of purpose, origins of the practice, and the effects that it has.
It’s amazing so many people justify circumcision as being OK by saying that FGM is worse. I don’t get it. Can anyone honestly give a reason why circumcision SHOULD be practiced in the US, where cleanliness is not an issue and AIDS is not an epidemic?
“Let me see… clipping a small piece of skin from a baby
versus
throwing a teenage girl down, using a razor blade/broken glass/rusty knife etc. to rip out the clitoris, tear out much of the vulva, and then sew it back up, leaving only a small hole for urine to pass, which can result in infection and death.”
Hardly a fair comparison. A better description for the first given the wording of the second would be: “strapping an infant down, using a metal clamp to crush the skin of his penis, slice through the top, tear off the most sensitive skin portion, slip a cuff over the bleeding wound, and let it slowly heal with the head of the penis exposed to the air permanently”
The basic thing that people seem to be missing though is: BOTH OF THEM ARE UNNECESSARY SURGERY WITHOUT CONSENT. The fact that FGM is bad does not suddenly make MGM something to snicker about.
Well, bound feet was once thought of as sexy, that’s where they break the bones of little girls, and then bound their feet so tight, that their toes rot off, or grow to bend underneath the pads of their feet
Pictures of it is out there on the internet, and it’s grotesque, but the sick fuckery that is the patriarchy found it appealing, and that a woman is doing her duty, showing her respect to fucking Confucian principles by enduring the pain and ensuring that herself and her daughters are housebound, so it was done for thousands of years, accompanying the steady decline of the entire civilization and keeping it down, etc, etc.
What hurts people, even /female/ people, affects all people negatively.