Printable View
Personal experience, then, and close personal identification with the victims. Understandable.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
However, you're not considering FMG from the same standpoint.
(Incidentally, I wouldn't bring my grandmother's wishes into this. If it were up to my grandmother, I'd be at war with you, and anyone else who wasn't born within about two miles of her house.)
FGM have supporters who do not want it banned. If anthropologists condemn FGM, they "other" those people who support it. Othering--the cardinal sin in anthropology-- is not the objective of anthropologists who adhere to the strict code of their profession. Got it?
Rape has no supporters but rapists. Why equate rape to FGM?
The perpetrators of FGM are women--mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers. The perpetrators of rape of women are men. Again, why equate the two?
If men are the perpetrators and society (usually a male hierarchy) does nothing to stop it, why can't one argue that it is has cultural relativity? After all, the women are forced to marry them afterwards because culturally it is appropriate to do so. Are you going to argue with that too?
I honestly don't understand your viewpoint even after so many posts, so I think I'd better stop with this post. I can understand that anthropologists don't make value judgements. Neither does any other scientific study. Surely there are numerous completely objective scientific studies of various aspects of the phenomenon of rape, murder, pedophilia and so on. However you (and that Dr. Ahmadu) have made value judgements by saying that the practice is not as bad as it seems. Anthropologists don't judge. But you both have done so.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
i was wondering about this, and I suggest that cultural relativism merely allows inhumane and damaging practices to continue whilst it is claimed that a less damaging practice is being done. Many people don't like change, don't like being told what to do, don't like their traditions to be questioned and will persist when all about have decided that they really should stop now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Your relativist Fuambai Ahmadu in the article in in support of it only with provisos - which i would suggest would be difficult if not impossible to monitor. Perhaps the UN thought an outright ban was the only way forward.
While I have serious issues with the concept of consent and how it is applied asymmetrically to African practices of female genital cutting,
The way forward is to look for solutions that would empower women (and men) to choose what to do with their own bodies.
My position is “pro-choice” on any form of female and male genital modifications
The concept of consent? For women in some countries? It's ok if they choose to do it, but as the Guardian articles I posted show, it's often about underage girls and compulsion.
It is your problem if you can't understand this one:
FGM have supporters who do not want it banned. If anthropologists condemn FGM, they "other" those people who support it. Othering--the cardinal sin in anthropology-- is not the objective of anthropologists who adhere to the strict code of their profession.
Anthropologists are expected to be always neutral when they study two opposing forces in a culture.
I think it is the anthropologists' problem. Some things are just not to be taken neutrally. That is clearly the UN's position.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
Have you checked what countries have the veto power in the United nations?
Dr.Ahmadu wants compromise, and she wants the change to happen within not from the cultural imperialists. Dr. Ahmadu, afterall, is a circumcised anthropologist.
That's for Mona, Paulclem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
If you want to talk about culture and cannot argue anthropologically, you better shut up. I would shut up too if you talk about genetics and I cannot argue with you biologically.
Cultural is sociological; sociological is not necessarily cultural.
In a complacent multicultural society, one cannot say that complacency is cultural. Maybe it's out of fear and hopelessness that they are complacent.
What do others think? Are the anthropologists right?
I have to say the cultural relativism aspect has been interesting, and I can see where it stops judgement by nations on others' practices. In the case of FGM, I think they are wrong.
What's the gender of the anthropologist got to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
What's the gender of the perpetrator got to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
The issue at hand (the rightness or wrongness of FGM) has nothing to do with anthropology. The anthropologist's job is to study and understand the culture, not to make judgements. It is not the job of the anthropologist to condemn, condone, commend or prescribe. But life is not just anthropology, and there's no reason why others can't use the findings of the anthropologist for these purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
As for Fuambai Ahmadu's comments on FGM - what a load of bullcrap. Anthropology, my foot. She's a Chicago born woman exploiting her ethnicity to get a wee bit of fame by the easy route of supporting something reactionary or shocking. And it's a sad state of political correctness the world has reached if we cannot call her out for it just because she's of African origin and uses words like "racist" "colonialist" "ethnocentric" "cultural relativism" blah blah.
A bit more about Ahamadu - I really couldn't find much - no Wikipedia article or anything, and all news items date back to 2007 and deal with the same conference (or something). Looks like she hasn't made much of an impact after all. Also, she was not a victim of FGM. She underwent some genital cutting of her own free will when she was an adult, and no one knows just how much or how little she had nipped off. It's like a full grown woman trying to justify the torture and mutilation of a child by going for a liposuction.
As for Cultural Relativism - it's useful and necessary in the understanding of cultural practices, but we need to make a difference between those things that seem abhorrent to us because of our ethnocentricity, and those things that are abhorrent to us because of our common humanity. Some things are moral absolutes. Slavery, murder, rape, torture and mutilation are just bad, whichever way we look at it. Take Sati, for example. It was once practiced by certain peoples in the western part of India. No one knows when or how it started, but foreign conquerers, who generally leave local traditions alone, found this particular practice too barbaric to be ignored, and after a long history of banning and opposition from people outside the culture - the Mughal conquerers and British, Portuguese and Dutch colonists, the practice was eventually eradicated.
Just saw in the newspapers: The lawyer representing the rapists has said that the man who was with the girl was 'wholly responsible' because an unmarried couple should not be on the streets at night.
I'm with Mona.
Thanks, Mark!
Volya, I hadn't heard about it yet. That's really sad and despicable.
After female circumcision, are you going to move beyond vagina?
Are you going to condemn neck-lenghtening because it causes discomfot and orthhopedic problems to women?
Attachment 8593
Are you going to condem lip-plating because it ruins a woman's face and makes her unable to eat properly?
Attachment 8594
When will your cultural imperialism end? Let them change their ways if they want. It's their lives for god's sake. They are not victims of ethnocide or something that the world should speak against. They don't need our definition or characterization of their culture. They are practicing their culture. Leave them alone.
If rape is a cultural practice, I'll leave the rapists alone and their victims. But it's a different thing. Every culture I know sanctions it.
Cultural imperialists, why are you only condemning female circumcision? How about male cicumcision?
Let me tell you my experience when I had it (that was way before I had sex change)
a boy's penis is pulled, a knife is inserted into the pouchy penile skin with its sharp edge facing up, and a wood is used to strike the stretched skin to make a cut.
The full healing is two weeks. The first week is like hell: a boy cannot walk properly; his penis looks and bulges like a tomato; it hurts like no other; and if there's a severe infection, the entire penis will be gone.
After the healing, the pain from the cut nerves continue. the head of the penis hurts when it hits the rough surface of the underwear. for months, it will be uncomfotable.
Benefits? nothing
Uncircumcised men have better orgasm and extra protection and have no traumatic penile cutting experience.
Do you want me to condemn this practice? I would say the same: personally I abhor it, but I cannot condemn it anthropologically. Most of my countrymen expect their sons, grandsons, and brothers to undergo such initiation rite, do you want to meddle in their cultural expectation and practice that define them?
Are there people who condemn it? A lot, but they are not listened to. Lots of people also condemn crucifying humans and self-flaggelation during lent, but the practitioners of such spiritual sacrifices ignore even the Vatican.
Do I think male circumcision will go away in the future? I do as new generations of educated masses will have their own views and practices of culture. Definitely it will not go away because United Nations or you, cultural imperialists, say so.
Mona, go back to your anthropological readings or read Indian news about sati. In 2006, a lot of sati cases appeared in Indian papers. You talked about Mughals and "Britishers" as if Sati was totally gone. Sati still happens in secret and in rural areas. That is the result when the change does not totally comes from within. anthropologists know that pretty well. That's why any cultural change should not come from the cultural imperialists.
Mona amon — Your longer post in this thread today was brilliant. Thanks.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say miyako. If a culture thinks something is ok, they should be allowed to do it even if it hurts other people? You're not making any sense.
You won't understand because you don't have an "anthropological mind" that would rather describe a cultural practice holistically than judge whether it's bad or good.
The danger of judging a culture:
If a Hindu kills a Christian Indian or an American Baptist missionary who slaughters a cow so he can grill steak, will you condem that Hindu who judges the beef-eating practice of that Christian Indian or that American Baptist missionary as bad and against his cultural practice of not eating beef?
Yes this scenario happens and has happened. Anthropologists are familiar of this violent judging of other people's cultural practices.
If having an 'anthropological mind' means letting people be abused just because their culture says it's ok, then I'm sure glad I don't have one.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
To you, female circumcision is abuse, but not to Dr. Ahmadu, an African woman who is circumcised and has a different view about her cultural practice of female circumcision, and her supporters. In anthropology we listen to the stories and views of the people who are from inside not outside when we do ethnography. Should I value your opinion about Dr. Ahmadu's culture more? You, white, male, Caucasian and American maybe? No.
As an anthropologist, I am more inclined to study and describe female cicumcision according to the inputs of those who belong to the community or culture that practices it. I will include pros and cons, negative and positive views, and those who are for and against. It's up to the people in that community or culture that practices it to decide whether they need to change or not.
There are so many culture-related problems the world should be talking about. Some are more pressing than female circumcision like the torture and killing of child "witches" in Nigeria and the killing of albinos and trading of their body parts in Tanzania.
Debate on Female Circumcision in Africa takes center stage at American Anthropological Association Annual Meeting in San Francisco
By: SEM Contributor on November 15, 2012.
“How can Western public health officials, global health institutions and feminist organizations maintain a straight face in condemning African female genital surgeries as FGM and yet turn a blind eye, even issue guidelines for the performance of very similar and sometimes more invasive female genital surgeries on Western women under the guise of cosmetic surgery?”
This argument was highlighted on Wednesday by Sierra Leonean medical and symbolic anthropologist Fuambai S. Ahmadu, PhD at the commencement of the 111th Annual Meeting of The American Anthropological Association (AAA) held at the San Francisco Hilton (Union Square) in San Francisco, California.
This year’s program which runs from November 14 – 18, 2012 features 717 sessions, 34 workshops, 13 innovative events and 183 special events.
Dr Ahmadu, who is also a senior research fellow and public health advisor at the Office of the Vice President in The Republic of Sierra Leone and a staunch advocate of female circumcision organized a special session yesterday titled THE PRACTICE THAT CAN’T BE NAMED: A PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY ADVISORY ON FEMALE GENITAL SURGERIES IN AFRICA.
During her presentation: Free to Choose? Unraveling Gender, Power and Sexuality in Global Policies Concerning African Female Genital Mutilation Versus Western Female Genital, Dr Ahmadu maintained “the question of choice, our freedom to choose what to do with our own bodies has become all the more poignant in the last few years, given the sudden rise in demand for genital modifications by Western women that, at least in terms of final appearance and psychosexual motivations, are very similar to the procedures labeled by WHO as Female Genital Mutilation and declared as a human rights violation.”
The 111th Annual Meeting of the AAA commenced a day after the Hastings Center Public Policy Advisory Network on FSG in Africa – an informal group of anthropologists, feminists, geographical legal scholars, medical researchers, and physicians with expert knowledge about female genital surgeries in Africa who claim that they are concerned about the accuracy, objectivity, fairness, and balance of current media representations of the practice released a policy statement “Western media coverage of female genital surgeries in Africa called ‘hyperbolic’ and one sided.”
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) as it is widely called by its opponents is a very contentious issue. The United Nations and its agency the World Health Organization (WHO) describe the practice as procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons or provide any health benefits for girls and women and can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, infertility as well as complications in childbirth increased risk of newborn deaths
According to WHO, FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women they say the practice which is “nearly always carried out on minors” is not only a violation of the rights of children but also “violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.”
As part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996.17, the United States Congress on September 30, 1996 enacted a provision criminalizing the practice of FGM. The law provides that “whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person under the age of 18 years shall be fined or imprisoned for 5 years.”
Meanwhile, at her closing statement Dr. Ahmad challenged public health researchers or practitioners to disseminate information based on evidence and accuracy “that reflect real risks and benefits; and, for heaven’s sake, we need to stop judging, demonizing and criminalizing African women for upholding their culture while rewarding Western predominantly male doctors who appropriate, rebrand and gain financially from African women’s ancestral traditions and at the expense of Western women’s own sexual insecurities.”
WHO estimates about 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM, approximately 92 million girls 10 years old and above have undergone circumcision in Africa.
By Dennis Kabatto
I would say that "culture" is being practised upon them, as it is clear that, as Dr Ahmadi says, choice is an issue, and many - or perhaps most? - don't have a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
I agree. the point about Sati was very well made, and Miyako's rejoinder that it is underground rather supports the idea that nothing less than an outright ban will do, as even that does not guarrantee that will stop, let alone the kind of half hearted measures Dr Ahmadi was on about.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
This is how it should be done. Let the insiders change by themselves. Even though Teri is not a Massai, the school she founded is run by the Massais who educate mothers and daughters regarding female circumcision.
If you are really that rabid against female circumcision, donate to African Schools in Kenya, so they can educate more mothers and daughters and include everyone in their communities to move forward with this change.
Here's the website: http://askenya.org/donate.php
Words are cheap. Donate now. Prove you can also do what you say or type.
This kind of change is more meaningful and lasting than the ones proposed by American NGO's, United Nations, and Hilary Clinton.
Maasai Women End Traditional Female Circumcision
Two-day ceremony marks end of genital mutilation for 52 young Maasai girls
By Denise Darcel
Epoch Times StaffCreated: October 3, 2012Last Updated: October 7, 2012.
In a traditional two-day ceremony in Kenya, the Maasai, one of the oldest cultures in Africa, changed the fate of 52 young girls in a historic alternative rite of passage performed without female circumcision.
Maasai men and women who accepted the new ceremony took a monumental leap forward in health and education for their culture, causing reactions across the globe.
Three Maasai women were selected by the African Schools of Kenya (ASK) to talk with the girls about issues ranging from their basic human rights as young women to reasons for using birth control.
Meals were prepared and delivered to the girls, and they stayed together overnight in the classroom on Aug. 27.
“There was no holding back on the information given to the 52 girls attending the first Alternative Rites of Passage without cutting,” said Teri Gabrielsen, founder of ASK, which funds educational courses in Africa.
The 52 girls, including the chief’s own daughters, paraded through their village early Saturday morning wearing their traditional all-black dresses and crowns, slowly walking to the school room for the very first two-day ARP ceremony.
Special recognition was given to the four cutters: They each received a milking goat for their willingness to participate in the ceremony and for supporting the “non-circumcision” of the girls.
On day two, the mothers helped their daughters get dressed in their traditional ceremonial dresses and crowns. The two-day ARP ended with ceremonial dancing, a feast, and the presentation of certificates acknowledging each girl entering womanhood without being circumcised.
Female circumcision, widely known as female genital mutilation (FGM), is illegal in Kenya and is punishable by law, yet it is still practiced in many countries worldwide.
Many regions in Africa and some countries in Asia and the Middle East widely practice the ritualistic procedure, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Traditionally, young women who had not yet been circumcised were ostracized by their peers. The women who had endured the unlawful procedure were considered acceptable members of society and were deemed suitable for marriage, as it increased their value in the community because the procedure is considered to be customary.
Instruments traditionally used to perform the cut are sharp metal tools, knives, and other crude objects, and the procedure is usually not carried out by trained medical professionals. The effects of FGM can severely burden the women and often bring on medical complications, placing additional obstacles on the health services and systems in their countries.
The physical pain resulting from the practice has immeasurable psychological impact on these young girls, who look to the adults as well as their peers for solutions. This year, educated Maasai women are avoiding the risk of the physical and psychological damage associated with female circumcision by participating in the first ARP of its kind.
Tonte Ikoluba is a tribal descendant of a family who practiced the age-old custom of circumcision in Nigeria. She is from the Ijaw tribe and is now a social worker living in New York. Ikoluba participated in the ritualistic rites of passage at the age of 13 with great trepidation.
“I was 13 years old when I was circumcised, and both of my parents as well as my grandmother were with me and they prepared me for the traditional ceremony,” said Ikoluba.
“I knew it was something that had to be done, but I was scared because some people died or got very sick afterward. I was told by my family that I could not be a full woman until my male part was cut off.
“Some people ran away and so I wanted to run away, but my mother assured me that I should not be scared. She said she would hold my hand and that I would be okay.”
Ikoluba described her experience of being circumcised, saying that while she was being cut, she felt as if she was going to die. She described the complications that came after the procedure.
“It was very painful to urinate after the cutting. I had infections and fever and lots of nightmares. I later found out that a lot of girls did not go through with it and they turned out to be okay,” said Ikoluba.
“I felt tricked. I was told I was going to be a complete woman and then found out they actually made me incomplete. I am now missing something important—my womanhood.”
According to H. Scott, a registered nurse and maternity nurse in New York City, “FGM is a horror and the more enlightenment shed upon this ritual, the better. I have had my share of labor patients who have suffered this atrocity and they suffer that much more during delivery when their scar tissue tears. Some have to be c-sectioned. … Makes my heart cry.”
As the suffering of young women continues to surface in cultural hamlets across the globe, studies and personal opinion continue to find no sensible reason for female circumcision, considering it to be an act of violence against women.
According to the WHO website, it is estimated that 100 million–140 million women and girls have already been subjected to some form of FGM.
Ikoluba is a resident volunteer for the Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation (CAGeM) in New York City. New York State has the second largest population of FGM victims next to California, according to the CAGeM website.
“Female mutilation is against the law, but people are still dying from it,” said Ikoluba. “Just earlier this year, one girl died from the bleeding and her sister ran away from our village to come to a CAGeM shelter because she was next in line. They just ignore the law. Nobody goes to jail, nobody gets arrested.
“I recently attended a conference in New York hosted by CAGeM . I heard them talk about a free surgery and hospital service for victims of FGM. I did some research on my own and found that I could regain feeling and reduce the pain by having the surgery. Until then, I never knew I would be able to feel complete again. I know I can never be 100 percent complete, but I want to be as close to it as possible.”
Ikoluba applied for the waiting list for the surgery. She did some fundraising with the Restoring the Rose Walkathon in New York, and she was put on the waiting list in December.
With the influx of immigrants that come to the United States from countries that continue the practice, girls who become United States citizens are at risk of family pressure to perform their native cultural rites of passage.
A study in the United Kingdom is mapping the current situation and trends of FGM in 27 European Union member states and Croatia. The study was launched this year upon the request of EU commissioner Viviane Reding, according to the European Institute for Gender Equality website (EIGE).
The triumphant stand of the young Maasai girls may send a message of change to families who are weighing the facts against the myths and current findings about the practice in their own rites of passage ceremonies.
Gabrielsen of ASK, Maasai elder and director of ASK chief James Ole Kamente, local grassroots organization Voices of Hope, and a resident nurse from Loitokitok General Hospital in Kenya all fully participated in an ARP ceremony, leading in making a change in the current practice of female circumcision and the eradication of the practice entirely.
Still waiting for an answer to this, by the way....
Originally Posted by miyako73
If it's a female anthropologist...
What's the gender of the anthropologist got to do with it?
Originally Posted by miyako73
The perpetrators of FGM are women--mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers. The perpetrators of rape of women are men. Again, why equate the two?
What's the gender of the perpetrator got to do with it?
if you need someone to tell you that rape is a gender-related crime, I don't want to waste my time. Go educate yourself.
According to you, so is FGM.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
Originally Posted by miyako73
The perpetrators of FGM are women--mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers. The perpetrators of rape of women are men
So what difference does it make?
That's why you cannot compare an apple to an orange.
The perpetrators of female circumcision are women. The perpetrators of rape of women are men.
Why the gender of the perpetrators are important? So you will know the target in case you think of solutions. Telling men in Kenya to change their mysogynistic ways will not necessarilly stop female circumcision. Giving livelihood to those women who are clit-cutters is better.
I'm still struggling to understand your viewpoint miyako. You have posted comments about how horrible FGM is, how it damages women, and how dangerous it is. Yet you still think it is ok if their culture says it is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
When you wrote about the gender of the perpetrators, you weren't talking about how to stop it. You were talking about why rape was universally bad, and FGM was cuturally acceptable. Why does the gender of the perpetrator make any difference to whether or not the practice is acceptable?
Did I say "it's okay, if their culture says it is"?
Can you post where I said that?
I said I could not anthropologically condemn it, because, being an anthropologist, othering those people who want female circumcision is not what I have learned in anthropology.
I also said repeatedly that I want to see the change from within a la the Massai case not from the cultural imperialists.
Answer this:
If a Hindu fanatic hurts you, a white American who loves In-and-Out double-double, when he sees you grilling beef, do you think that's okay? That Hindu judges your beef-eating habit or food culture to be bad and against his culture. That's the danger of judging one's cultural practice using an outsider's view or standard.
See, we anthropologists spouse peaceful coexistence or compromise in the form of synthesis or assimilation than social or cultural tension that always results to conflict.
I'm sorry. I did put that badly.
You were talking about why rape was universally bad, and why as an antropologist you could not condemn FGM. Why does the gender of the perpetrator make any difference? To put it another way, if the cultural norm was that men carried out FGM, would it change your view as an anthropologist?
I think you have a problem understanding what you read. here's what I wrote:Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
"The perpetrators of FGM are women--mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers. The perpetrators of rape of women are men. Again, why equate the two? "
in response to your statement about my stand against rape:
"However, you're not considering FMG from the same standpoint."
You wanted me to treat apples and oranges as same fruits with no difference. Maybe this elementary analogy will work.
Some commenters are funny. One commenter got pissed after I said female circumcision is not a problem in India, yet she shut up when Mona said it is unheard of in India. Just wondering. It seems to me some just want to attack the person not the idea or point of view.
Firstly, please don't patronise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
Secondly, I believed your argument was that rape was bad regardless of cultural context, and that FMG was culturally-contextual and, from an anthropological standpoint, should not be judged.
My question, then, was: if these are the categorisations, what has the gender of the perpetrators got to do with it? Is gender a criterion for the categorisation as either 'outside cultural context' or 'culturally contextual? If it is, how? And if it isn't, in what way is gender relevant?
The standpoint thing we'll come back to, if you like.
"My question, then, was: if these are the categorisations, what has the gender of the perpetrators got to do with it? Is gender a criterion for the categorisation as either 'outside cultural context' or 'culturally contextual? If it is, how? And if it isn't, in what way is gender relevant?"
No, gender is just the characterization of the perpetrators that will help us determine what's a cultural practice and what's a criminal act.
Women circumcise girls because they are "socially females" that have to play by the social rules (no woman clit-cutter orgasms when she cuts; circumcising a girl is not due to the wim of a clit-cutter) and men rape women because their victims are "physically females" with vaginas that make them salivate (if they are men, do you think they will be raped?).
What's the difference between anthropologically condemn and just plain condemning?Quote:
Originally Posted by miyako73
Why were you earlier speaking about how it was horrible that rape occurred in India, yet it would seem you think FGM is nothing to be concerned about?
(Please don't misunderstand me here, I genuinely am just plain confused about where everybody stands on the matter...)