Western feminists and FGC

[SingingAnalyst]

In 1979, [Gloria] Steinem wrote the article on female genital mutilation that brought it into the American public's consciousness; the article, "The International Crime of Female Genital Mutilation," was published in the March 1979 issue of Ms. The article reported on the "75 million women suffering with the results of genital mutilation." According to Steinem, "The real reasons for genital mutilation can only be understood in the context of the patriarchy: men must control women's bodies as the means of production, and thus repress the independent power of women's sexuality.” -Wikipedia
***
Others [scholars], however, argue that Western feminists should defer to women living in communities that practice FGCs who have a long tradition of anti-FGC activism; a few
say that Western feminists should not be involved in FGC-related scholarship or activism at all.

from The Evolution of Feminist Thought About Female Genital Cutting
Sociologists for Women in Society Fact Sheet
Prepared by Lisa Wade, Department of Sociology, Occidental College
Fall 2009

[Middle-aged Europe]

Wasn't aware that this is even an issue. Option 1.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yes, it is a disgusting practice that should be stomped out.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I once read a Kenyan novel that treated this issue with more ambivalence than Western observers tend to and I found it more moving than I expected to, but it didn't change my opinion that it's an objectively abominable practice.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I've always found it interesting that many of the feminists who like to use the "my body my right" argument during an abortion debate never seem to consistently apply this argument to other issues, such as the US ban on consensual adult FGC. If a woman's sovereignty over her body is so absolute that she has the power to terminate a viable fetus up to the time of delivery, why the hell can the government tell her what to do with her privates in other informed consensual surgical decisions. I once read an article that the broadness of the american ban often forces women seeking cosmetic labiaplasty to go to Canada since american malpractice insurance wont go near the area.

I voted option 1.

[nclib]

Definitely Option 1. Especially given that children undergoing FGM aren't giving consent.

[KingSweden]

Definitely Option 1. Especially given that children undergoing FGM aren't giving consent.

This, and it is usually children who are usually subjected to this barbarism.

Steinem's point remains valid, and why Second Wave feminism remains superior to the modern version (angry critiques of this hot take are incoming, I imagine)

[Badger]

I've always found it interesting that many of the feminists who like to use the "my body my right" argument during an abortion debate never seem to consistently apply this argument to other issues, such as the US ban on consensual adult FGC. If a woman's sovereignty over her body is so absolute that she has the power to terminate a viable fetus up to the time of delivery, why the hell can the government tell her what to do with her privates in other informed consensual surgical decisions. I once read an article that the broadness of the american ban often forces women seeking cosmetic labiaplasty to go to Canada since american malpractice insurance wont go near the area.

I voted option 1.

What feminist strawwomen are you referring to? Every feminist or college women's resource center I've ever encountered has been vociferously anti-FGM. The fact there MAY be some so-called feminists who say it's a cultural thing like death camps and infanticide, doesn't mean 99.99+% of feminists don't loudly respond "WTF?!?" to such a truly anti-woman defense of such barbarism.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I've always found it interesting that many of the feminists who like to use the "my body my right" argument during an abortion debate never seem to consistently apply this argument to other issues, such as the US ban on consensual adult FGC. If a woman's sovereignty over her body is so absolute that she has the power to terminate a viable fetus up to the time of delivery, why the hell can the government tell her what to do with her privates in other informed consensual surgical decisions. I once read an article that the broadness of the american ban often forces women seeking cosmetic labiaplasty to go to Canada since american malpractice insurance wont go near the area.

I voted option 1.

What feminist strawwomen are you referring to? Every feminist or college women's resource center I've ever encountered has been vociferously anti-FGM. The fact there MAY be some so-called feminists who say it's a cultural thing like death camps and infanticide, doesn't mean 99.99+% of feminists don't loudly respond "WTF?!?" to such a truly anti-woman defense of such barbarism.

That's my point. It is not unconmon to find pro choice activists arguing that even 3rd trimester, 9th month abortions should be legal because women should have absolute control over their bodies. (I think th at was Hillary's position). Im just pointing out that most of the activists who use this absolutist argument are self serving because no one stands up for the rights of the marginal number of consenting adult women who want to have this surgery. If bodily autonomy is so absolutely integral to human dignity that even a ban on late term abortion offends the freedom of women to control their bodies, then that argument should consistently be applied to FGC. That it is not, suggests that the "my body, my choice, no old white men deciding what private surgery i have" argument (which is an argument i do see), is not very persuasive. Especially since many would argue that a hypothetical abortion at 8 months is more barbaric than an adult woman consensually undergoing FGC. When you break it down, the US ban can accurately be described as a law passed overwhelmingly by old white men for the purpose of limiting what a woman may choose to do with her body. But because this isnt an issue the pro choice people care about, even the absolutists who knee jerk oppose abortion clinic infection standards as intrusive and patriarchical become pragmatic.

Again, im fine with a ban on FGC. Just pointing out that this an interesting issue which undermines an extreme viewpoint on a different issue that is too often dominated by extreme viewpoints.

[RINO Tom]

Definitely Option 1. Especially given that children undergoing FGM aren't giving consent.

[Santander]

Of course we should stop this animalistic practice. But there are many other subhuman things that are practiced by "cultures" around the world that we must end as well.

I don't know why some people think it's justified to force an end to this foreign practice while tolerating things like Sharia marriage and divorce just because it's "part of a religion". (which isn't something I would describe as "animalistic" or "subhuman", but it's certainly inconsistent with our established moral and cultural standards) What if a religion demanded female circumcision? Should we tolerate it because they're poor minorities (by some liberals' perception... virtually every minority is the majority somewhere in the world) who we shouldn't be mean to?

[Badger]

I've always found it interesting that many of the feminists who like to use the "my body my right" argument during an abortion debate never seem to consistently apply this argument to other issues, such as the US ban on consensual adult FGC. If a woman's sovereignty over her body is so absolute that she has the power to terminate a viable fetus up to the time of delivery, why the hell can the government tell her what to do with her privates in other informed consensual surgical decisions. I once read an article that the broadness of the american ban often forces women seeking cosmetic labiaplasty to go to Canada since american malpractice insurance wont go near the area.

I voted option 1.

What feminist strawwomen are you referring to? Every feminist or college women's resource center I've ever encountered has been vociferously anti-FGM. The fact there MAY be some so-called feminists who say it's a cultural thing like death camps and infanticide, doesn't mean 99.99+% of feminists don't loudly respond "WTF?!?" to such a truly anti-woman defense of such barbarism.

That's my point. It is not unconmon to find pro choice activists arguing that even 3rd trimester, 9th month abortions should be legal because women should have absolute control over their bodies. (I think th at was Hillary's position). Im just pointing out that most of the activists who use this absolutist argument are self serving because no one stands up for the rights of the marginal number of consenting adult women who want to have this surgery. If bodily autonomy is so absolutely integral to human dignity that even a ban on late term abortion offends the freedom of women to control their bodies, then that argument should consistently be applied to FGC. That it is not, suggests that the "my body, my choice, no old white men deciding what private surgery i have" argument (which is an argument i do see), is not very persuasive. Especially since many would argue that a hypothetical abortion at 8 months is more barbaric than an adult woman consensually undergoing FGC. When you break it down, the US ban can accurately be described as a law passed overwhelmingly by old white men for the purpose of limiting what a woman may choose to do with her body. But because this isnt an issue the pro choice people care about, even the absolutists who knee jerk oppose abortion clinic infection standards as intrusive and patriarchical become pragmatic.

Again, im fine with a ban on FGC. Just pointing out that this an interesting issue which undermines an extreme viewpoint on a different issue that is too often dominated by extreme viewpoints.

I think we're convoluting debate over fgc and abortion here. Fwiw, I believe Hillary's position was merely maintain Roe v Wade comma which permits states to outlaw third trimester abortions except as necessary to protect the life of the mother.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Work against it but be humble about the limitations of one's own voice, actions and perspective, and take the time to understand it within it's cultural context beyond "omg patriarchy!"

[KingSweden]

Very well, I'll say it - Option 2. I've never seen an argument against this that isn't just "KNIVES ARE REALLY SCARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111"or something similar.

It sounds like you're conflating this with arguments against male circumcision, if unintentionally.

Male circumcision is harmless if unnecessary, and both it's advocates and opponents have nothing but opinion on merits to back them up

Cutting off the clitoris, often *specifically* so that someone cannot feel sexual pleasure in the future, is horrifying. I do not consider myself a third wave feminist, so I'll avoid the intersectional argument, but I can't think of anything more "patriarchy" than mutilating women so that their vaginas are only good for babymaking. Also, it apparently makes sex painful to the point of excruciation

[vanguard96]

It is usually done against children. As a recent case in Michigan shows people will journey from out of state to do it. In that case as non consensual I would outlaw it.

[Gustaf]

1. This is almost exclusively done to small girls who cannot consent so the weird attempt to make this about abortion is nonsensical.

2. While it varies a lot in severity it is often extremely debilitating. Not only does it make it impossible to enjoy sex it can make basic things like peeing and being on a period excruciatingly painful (in the cultures where you sow the vagina together afterwards).

It's absolutely barbaric, and as Badger pointed out you'll be hard-pressed to find a feminist who wouldn't oppose it. What is true is that some feminists might argue that local issues should be led by local activists. This is something that I think can be true as a strategic point in some cases but is a bit different from cultural relativism. The latter group does exist (a Swedish anthropoligist did argue that FGM should be allowed for black women, basically because it was their "culture") but thankfully those awful people tend to be few.

[RFayette]

     Yes, it is a disgusting practice that should be stomped out.

[Mr. Smith]

     Yes, it is a disgusting practice that should be stomped out.

[RFayette]

Of course we should stop this animalistic practice. But there are many other subhuman things that are practiced by "cultures" around the world that we must end as well.

I don't know why some people think it's justified to force an end to this foreign practice while tolerating things like Sharia marriage and divorce just because it's "part of a religion". (which isn't something I would describe as "animalistic" or "subhuman", but it's certainly inconsistent with our established moral and cultural standards) What if a religion demanded female circumcision? Should we tolerate it because they're poor minorities (by some liberals' perception... virtually every minority is the majority somewhere in the world) who we shouldn't be mean to?

Animalistic is the wrong word.  Most animals don't intentionally hurt their own young because of a demented tradition.  It is nothing short of pure evil, whether it be done by a Christian or Islamic country.   If something is abusive, it should be stomped out and every effort made to eradicate it; cultural considerations ought to be irrelevant.

[Antonio the Sixth]

     Yes, it is a disgusting practice that should be stomped out.

[DavidB.]

Very well, I'll say it - Option 2. I've never seen an argument against this that isn't just "KNIVES ARE REALLY SCARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111"or something similar.

...

[fhtagn]

     Yes, it is a disgusting practice that should be stomped out.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Very well, I'll say it - Option 2. I've never seen an argument against this that isn't just "KNIVES ARE REALLY SCARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111"or something similar.

Thanks for the trolling. Much appreciated.

[Lechasseur]

     Yes, it is a disgusting practice that should be stomped out.