2 December, 2007 | Leave a Comment
This photo is part of Amnesty International’s new campaign against female genital mutilation. I came across this image, quite coincidentally, while writing this very post on the topic of FGM, which was prompted by a disgraceful piece of writing currently up on the New York Times blog. I won’t comment on the Amnesty image now, but there are plenty of other people commenting on it.
Plenty of people are also commenting on NYT “science” writer John Tierney (formerly of the op-ed page) and his piece about “female circumcision,” which is astoundingly ignorant and dangerous. In his post, Tierney uses the term “circumcision,” explaining that “critics” of this procedure refer to it as “female genital mutilation.” (The UN, the WHO and most international health and women’s rights organizations use the term “female genital mutilation.”)
First, FGM is not circumcision. If we must equate it with something that happens to boys (and why must we always equate it with something that happens to boys?), then let’s call it castration. He focuses on the story of an American-raised woman from Sierra Leone who chose to have this procedure done as an adult, who describes it as something empowering. This woman holds a Ph.D. and is a professor, so therefore, her singular experience (being educated and essentially, a Westerner) overrides the experiences of millions of little girls in Africa who’ve been held down and mutilated against their will with a dirty razor blade or shard of glass.
Tierney runs with this evidence and presents an entirely one-sided view, portraying this procedure as a completely harmless, warm and cuddly “initiation right” that racist and imperialistic Europeans and Americans just don’t understand. It’s unbelievable to me that on an issue as divisive as this, of which he has very little if any knowledge, he does not mention the real and proven dangers of FGM (which include death), nor does he acknowledge the views of women who did not experience this as empowering but rather to be the ultimate form of oppression. I bet Tierney fancies himself to be one of those enlightened intellectual types, able to view everything “objectively” without cultural prejudice. If anything has the mere whiff of Western cultural imperialism, he probably takes the opposite side because he’s so enlightened. Yeah, I’m sure a white man who writes for the NYT is really the voice of African females.
Tierney also trots out all the tired arguments about FGM, including that it is mostly performed by women. Apparently, he thinks he’s seized on a great piece of evidence to support his view. All I can say is: Snooze. If memory serves, Alice Walker wrote an entire novel about the woman’s role in this practice fifteen years ago. Way to stay up with current events!
The worst thing about this article is when Tierney states at the end that he wouldn’t choose to have his daughter circumcised. First, I shudder to think that this man even has a daughter (let’s hope she’s hypothetical). Second, he makes this all seem so casual, as if choosing to have your daughter’s clitoris removed and her labia sewn up is the same thing as, say, letting her get her nose pierced.
The NYT should remove this post from its website and apologize to its readers for the dangerous misinformation it has published. The NYT has a loud, far-reaching voice and with that comes the responsibility to publish writers who understand the issues they are reporting on.
Anglofille said @ 2:21 pm | feminism |
- Comments RSS | TrackBack URI
-
Cav Says:
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:58 pmI, and I hope others, would like to write to the NYT to say that this post should be removed. Can you provide me with a person and address?
-
CAV: Since the article by Tierney is a blog post, you can leave a comment (there are over 200 comments so far, many very critical of him). You can also write to him at:
Letters to the editor of the NYT can be sent to:
If you write a letter to the editor, you can just address it to the “Editor.” I’m glad you are going to write!
-
Diane Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:38 amI do not see the point of removing Tierney’s post. Tierney’s post provoked much discussion of female genital cutting. Many of the comments were very informative, both in terms of perspective and in terms of information presented. Had Tierney’s article (and comments on the article) not been posted, many people might not be aware of the debate on the issue of female genital cutting. Healthy exchange of information is preferable to silence.
-
Junebug Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:27 amFirst off,
I think you’re attacking the wrong person and not fully aware of what female circumcision/genital mutilation is. There are various types of FGM and the one that is most commonly practiced is NOT infibulation (sewing up the vagina). The most common form of FGM is the removal of the clitoris and the clitoral hood. The removal of the clitoral hood is analogous to male circumcision.
The reason that male circumcision was brought up, was to point that the US has no leg to stand on on condemning another culture for cutting the genitals of its daughters without their consent, when everyday the US has thousands of boys circumcised without their consent and against their will. These boys can suffer from complications that range from mild to very serious, and yes this includes death. If you are against female circumcision/genital mutilation, you must be against the forced circumcision of baby boys.
-
Diane: As a stand-alone piece, Tierney’s post is filled with misinformation. And I was disturbed that in some of the comments, some people were saying that after they read this piece, they realized “circumcision” isn’t such a big deal after all. That’s the exact problem I predicted after reading it. It leaves readers with a completely false impression of what FGM is. Not everyone has time to read 200 comments. That is the danger.
Junebug: With all due respect, I don’t think you fully understand what FGM is. In my post, I link to Amnesty International’s information on this topic. I think they know more about this than both of us and the information they provide could give anyone nightmares.
There are some forms of FGM that are similar to male circumcision. Most types are not. They are far more brutal than that. Respected institutions from the UN to WHO acknowledge this.
I think that the blanket comparison to male circumcision is not legitimate. Furthermore, I find that when bad things happen to females (such as FGM) they are only taken seriously or given legitimacy if they can be compared to something equivalent that also happens to males. Hence the insistent comparison of FGM to male circumcision. Men always must be a part of this debate and it serves no purpose but to undermine efforts to protect women.
-
JR Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmFrom a purely physiolgical level, FGM makes no sense at all. The sexual response and reproductive processes of women have long been documented in western medicine. All of those ‘parts’ have a function. Modifying them is not benign.
To remove a woman’s clitoris is comparable to removing a man’s penis. In what culture has that EVER been acceptable? Are you kidding? Men would never accept that.
Men MUST be brought into this discussion because it was the men that came up with this practice in the first place. Think that women would have independently say ‘oh please cut off my parts’?
In order to understand FGM and how it fits into a society, you have to know who it serves. It serves the men. They cannot be ignored. However I find it laughable that they’re only mentioned in the context of comparison, and no one mentions why the practice started to begin with.
Call it what it really is: Control.
-
JR: I definitely think you’re right about the origins and purpose of this practice. When the practice of FGM is criticized, people take it to be an attack on men. Therefore, they always bring up male circumcision to show that men are victims of something too. This tactic effectively deflects attention away from the real issues.
When people like Tierney mention that women are the ones carrying out this procedure, rather than men, they show profound ignorance in regards to how patriarchy works and how women are often enlisted to enforce it on men’s behalf. Members of oppressed groups, be it based on gender, race or religion, often “participate” in their own oppression. This does not mean that they are the ones in control of the situation.
-
JR Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pmAll you have to do is ask, what would be the men’s reaction were they to all stop at the same time and say ‘no, we won’t do it’.
Would women still have marriage partners? Would they still be acceptable in society? What would be the perjoratives attached to them?
-
Junebug Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:12 pmAnglofille:
Infibulation is not the most common form of FGM. Trust me, I’ve read A LOT about this issue. Saying that FGM is the sewing up of the vagina is a blanket statement that is not accurate. There are various types with varying degrees of severity. Infibulation IS FGM is not accurate and it’s not the most pervasive form.
Secondly, my point and other people’s points in talking about male circumcision with regards to FGM has nothing to do with undermining the efforts of women to end FGM. We don’t agree with male circumcision and we don’t agree with FGM. Both need to be ended. Saying that those who compare FGM to male circumcision are undermining the efforts of women is only accurate if you believe male circumcision is ok and no big deal.
Equal rights for all children. All children boys and girls, deserve genital integrity. No one should make a permanent, damaging decision about their bodies. And if you think that male circumcision has no complications and isn’t atrocious, I can’t provide you with plenty of evidence that shows otherwise.
-
Junebug: Yes, there are varying degrees of FGM. Virtually all of them are horrific and condemned outright by such politically correct groups as Amnesty International and the UN.
Both FGM and male circumcision involve the genitals of people too young to consent, but that does not mean they are the same thing and should be linked. Girls are subjected to this as a way for men to control their sexuality. FGM happens in an entirely different political context than male circumcision. It is a weapon of oppression practiced primarily on women in under-privileged, male-dominated societies and serves to further oppress these women. An acknowledgment of the context in which this happens must be taken into consideration.
-
Junebug Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 pmWhy is it okay to cut the genitals of a boy too young to consent to the procedure, but it’s not okay to cut the genitals of a girl too young to consent to the procedure?
As I’ve said before, removal of the clitoral hood, the female prepuce, is perfectly analogous to male circumcision. But even that is condemned by all organizations. So why is it okay to remove the prepuce of a boy but not a girl? I fail to see the huge difference in that.
And mind you, not all FGM takes place in a dirty, back-water village. Egypt has successfully medicalized and sterilized the procedure. That doesn’t make it anymore right.
And male circumcision, FYI, was implemented in the US to prevent masturbation. So it too, like female circumcision, was implemented as a means of controlling sexuality. Stand up for all, everyone deserves genital integrity, not just girls.
-
You can pick anecdotal evidence to support your views on FGM, just as Tierney did. I choose to believe the UN and Amnesty International, among other international authorities.
Male circumcision may have been implemented to control sexuality, but has it achieved that aim? No. Meanwhile, FGM does achieve its aims: It deprives women of their full sexuality and impairs them in countless ways, even from being able to urinate or menstruate properly in many cases. A great many women who don’t have this done are ostracized from their communities. Are uncircumcised men outcasts? Are their lives ruined? No, because we live in a world of oppression of women, not men. For this and many other reasons, I don’t think the situations are the same. We can go on debating this forever and I doubt it will resolve anything.
-
Junebug Says:
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:44 pmI agree that we can go on debating this forever, but I am confused by what anecdotal evidence you’re talking about?
Do you think I’m making up the fact that Egypt has medicalized the procedure? Or that the removal of the clitoral hood is analogous to removal of the foreskin?
As for male circumcision achieving it’s aim, I could direct you to information that shows that men do suffer from sexual complications as a result of their circumcisions. And I hope you also know, that not all victims of FGM have unfulfilled sex lives. Or at least they claim to still enjoy sex. There was a study on this, that’s not anedoctal.
As for uncircumcised men being outcasts, in the US there have been cases of ostracization of uncircumcised men. People say “Ew, you’re uncut? That’s disgusting.” etc.
But again, regardless of the unique political issues surrounding both practices, both are inherently wrong and human rights issues.
-
Arggghhhh!!!! Junebug you are proving Anglofille’s point. Leave male circumcision out of it. It’s really NOT the same thing. How often is FGM just the removal of clitoral hood without removal or clipping of the clitoris? Never?
And I am the mother of baby boy and I would NOT have him circumcised because I believe it to be genital mutilation for no good reason. AND the risk of complications were too high even if I felt it would be better somehow to go through with it because where I’m from circumcision rates are very high. I’m well aware of the societal pressure for cutting boys. But that’s locker room rants (not that these aren’t hurtful) - and doesn’t prevent uncut men from getting married, etc.
Now I’m being sidetracked. Listen, if she had wanted to do a post on male circumcision then she would have.
-
Junebug Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 7:39 pmVol,
What are you talking about? I never said the removal of the foreskin and the removal of the clitoral hood are the same thing.
The variances in severity still do not make the main point I was stating any different: Forced genital modification is immoral and unjust. Period. Regardless of whether it’s the male foreskin, the female prepuce, the clitoris etc.
And Anglofille made a post DISAGREEING with Tierney’s post which compared FGM to male circumcision so I’m hardly “sidetracking.”
-
Junebug, in a previous comment you stated the following:
The removal of the clitoral hood is analogous to male circumcision.
Now you’re stating that you didn’t make such a claim.
After all this, I stand by my belief that attempts to “piggyback” the issue of male circumcision onto the campaign against FGM just undermines efforts to protect women and girls. This comment thread really just proves that point, as the Vol Abroad wrote.
-
Junebug Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 9:09 pmI’m sorry, I confused myself. I meant to say that male circumcision and FGM (removal of the clitoris, infibulation etc.)
I do still believe removal of the prepuce is the same in both sexes.
As for your opinion that comparing male circumcision to FGM undermines efforts to protect women and girls, you have yet to really state why that is. Implicitly it seems, you don’t see anything wrong with male circumcision, thus any comparison to it “legitimizes” FGM. Is that what you’re implying?
-
In addition to the reasons I’ve already stated, we are talking about two vastly different body parts, lest we forget. While people are removing the male foreskin, a woman’s genitals are having different parts destroyed, depending on what region of the world she lives in. FGM is a highly complex and varied procedure.
More importantly, I think that most people see nothing wrong with male circumcision. Even if we agree that male circumcision is genital mutilation, most people don’t see it that way. So if people want to have a campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of male circumcision, great. But linking it to FGM (and thus equating the two) makes FGM seem like no big deal to many people. Little boys in America are circumcised every day, therefore, many people will assume that “female circumcision” in Africa and the Middle East is no big deal. I think that’s the reality of the situation. We can’t forget that we live in a world where women are not given the same status as men, not in Europe, not in North America, not in Africa. This requires the rights of females to be given special consideration, in my view. It’s dismaying to me that time and again, discussions of FGM (including this one) seem to always end up focusing on penises.
-
Junebug Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 10:42 pmThank you. You confirmed what I suspected.
And it’s about focusing on “penises” it about genital integrity for ALL, not just females.
-
Junebug Says:
December 4th, 2007 at 10:43 pmSorry, that post should’ve said NOT about focusing on penises.
-
SpliceGirl Says:
December 5th, 2007 at 6:27 pmDearest Anglofille there are a lot of us out here who have read your post and EVERY comment and believe me, WE GET IT. If you wanted to write about male circumcision you would have. But you didn’t. Maybe next time you could write a post about menstruation but make it mostly about how the hormonal change in women every month really effects men and their daily routine and schedule. SIGH.
Some people don’t get it and never will. Don’t kill yourself trying to talk to a wall.
-
I swear, this comment thread gave me a massive headache! I do feel like I was repeatedly banging my head against the wall. I shouldn’t get sucked into that again.
-
A college student Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 12:47 amHi Anglofille,
You are totally right. With all due respect to the pro-FGM crowd, the global warming skeptics have more credibility than these nutjobs do.
And women who support this–including Dr. Fuambai Ahmadu–God, I don’t even know where to begin with them. How the hell can she “become a woman” (according to the NYT piece) if she’s having, um, what I might consider a very, very, VERY critical part of her womanhood graphically and permanently altered?
But seriously, Anglofille, what you wrote earlier, about having time to read the nearly 300 comments (as of 6:45 PM CDT), you’re right–there are an awful lot of peple who simply cannot or will not make the distinction between circumcision and FGM. If this is the type of crowd response that the NYT generates–and it’s supposedly America’s most read newspaper–I am genuinely scared of what progressive intellectualism means here in the United States.
Miguel V.
But I could never see the point of tuna and sweet corn...
