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
Printable View
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