FGM, Culture and Controversy

Female Genital Mutilation or Female Circumcision is a topic that is really hard for me to talk about definitively. The problem is that there are a lot of facts that should be taken into account, but at the same time the practice is so polarizing because of the emotional factors involved that these facts are hard to take at face value. I don't really feel like I'm getting at what I'm trying to express, so I'm just going to get into some examples and at times point to how they relate to the texts.

A good place to start is the name of the practice, specifically the fact that it has two commonly used names. Both names are incredibly loaded, so much so that you can pretty much tell someones stance on the issue by how they refer to the practice. I mean FGM just sounds terrible, how could mutilation ever be a good thing? On the other hand Female Circumcision compares the practice to male circumcision, which is a practice of tradition or personal (read: parental) preference with no real implications for the male. I think that both names get at truths located within the issue, but neither really do the issue full justice. For example, if you look at both articles, they both are basically against FGM and both articles have the term mutilation appear first (and in larger text) than circumcision. In fact, the only reason I feel the Bergner article uses the term Female Circumcision at all is in attempt to show non-bias in reporting. The Maple family is always quoted as referring to the practice as FGM. I was kind of surprised when both of the readings were essentially against FGM, i expected one to be in support of it to illustrate both perspectives.

Another issue I have with the FGM/Female Circumcision debate is how the debate seems to be drawn down a line of different academic schools. As suggested in the Daily article, Anthropologists are the primary supporters of Female Circumcision using the argument of cultural relativism. Its a hard argument to make and I'm sure that I'm making some anthropologists fairly upset by generalizing them in with the rest of the anthropologists. But basically an anthropologist looks at Female Circumcision as a cultural tradition and exists within its own value system and to someone outside that value system the practice may seem unethical, however that is simply because those people are acting under a different set of values. And it would be unfair to judge Female Circumcision under a set of values under which it did not originate. On the other side, sociologists are often more critical of FGM due to the practice seeming to promote masculinity and act out a systematic violence towards females.

I take issue with both of these arguments. First of all, cultural relativism has never been an anything goes theory, it does have some conditions. One of those involves human rights, which could quite possibly be being violated here, that is definitely up to interpretation. However, to suggest that our own culture has no history or even current examples of similar practices being acted out towards women is just incorrect. These instances do exist in our past so we do have some sort of cultural comparison and are capable of making a judgement that is not completely bias in this case. Perhaps that has yet to be established, but it is a possibility. On the other side, the sociological arguments make sense, but you're also assuming that all women desire the same thing. There are many different flavors of feminism, and assuming that FGM is a bad thing based on your own brand of feminism does not necessarily mean that the women who have had this done to them feel the same way.

All of that being said, if I had to choose a side it would fall against the practice of FGM/Female Circumcision. However, I think that the best way to deal with the problem would be to improve medical care, education and other aspects that would improve the quality of life in the areas where it still exists.

Film Series Responce - Miss India Georgia

Miss India Georgia is a documentary that follows the lives of four girls of Indian heritage participating in the Miss India Georgia beauty pageant. This pageant exists specifically for women of Indian decent living in Georgia. The biggest question, for me, that this documentary raised is what are the effects, both intended and unintended, of having such a pageant.

The intended effects were rather hard for me to figure out, I think primarily because I'm not a big fan of beauty pageants. I understand there is an argument to be made that they are empowering women, but I honesty think that it is a fairly weak argument. Part of that is because it seems that most women that participate or are involved in pageants who appear in the video media don't come off as appearing very intelligent and are portrayed as having, what I would consider to be, "shallow" values. Though if I attempt to put these biases aside I can see that the goal of the Miss India Georgia pageant could be to promote acceptance and awareness of Indian culture in the Georgian community. Also, it allows for strong Indian women to be recognized in a public sphere where they might not typically be granted this opportunity.

The unintended effects were what really dominated my concerns about the pageant. It did not seem that the pageant was actually promoting awareness of their own culture for the girls who were participating. Rather, they were only concerned with winning. So really the values that the pageant was possibly designed to promote were not actually coming through in the girl's themselves. Also, having a separate pageant from the statewide competition sends an underlying message that these girls are different and do not measure up with normal beauty pageant participants. This only reinforces the sentiments that these girls experience every day at school according to their testimony in the documentary.

Overall I found the documentary fairly concerning. Yes a few of the girls seemed to understand on some level the circumstances surrounding their social interactions, but I do not feel that the pageant was an overall positive force in their lives or was even helpful in widening their perspective or understanding.

Mohanty

In the paper we read for class today Mohanty works to justify the third wave in a different way than we've discussed so far.

Mohanty's concern lies in the universal nature, she claims, that western feminists see the world. She sees that the feminist acknowledgement of the world wide oppression of women as a form of colonialism. This is because, in doing this, these women are homogenized across their gender, culture and class.

I think what this really gets down to is a similar argument that we've seen from hooks, Davis and other black feminists but set on a global stage and using a more anthropological approach. Not that I would want to generalize here and make the same mistakes the article warns against. It is just sometimes easier to draw comparisons when offering a simplified explanation.

As far as there being a global sisterhood, I think that Mohanty would be guarded against any such claims. She would assume this belief would take on similar characteristics of other western feminist campaigns and end up marginalizing the women the collation was claiming to include and support.