For the Love of Egads..More Cultural Mutilations

I don't know, I don't buy looking at "primative people" and saying "aw, they don't know any better, they arenn't educated." I mean, how hard is it to see that ironing a child's breasts, or cutting up her clit isn't good for her? I think that really diminishes the expectations of all peoples.

Yes, only about 20% (we think) are total infibulations, where the vaginal is sewn up, after the entire inner and outter lips are removed. BUT, in ALL procedures as much clitoris as is availble IS removed. The majority are not just the removal of the labia, in all prodecures the clit is removed. I have seen NO data that supports the idea that only the outter lips are removed. Some places remove the clit but NOT the lips, but not the lips, leaving the clit. Removal of the "hood" is often done, but rarely is the clit left alone. Even "nicking" the clit. which is done in some places, as a "conselation" procedure, after clitorectomy is outlawed, is in the minority, probably less than 2%. Why not focus on the worst? It has nothing to do with BUSH (like he would care if some African womyn loses her abilty to have sex.) People have the right to know what goes on. And MANY womyn DO have the entire infibulation, I would not call approximately 15 to 20% "rare."

 

Also, many people in OUR culture defy cultural norms, in regard to their children, by not vaccinating, breastfeeding if possible, co-sleeping, attaching, not circing our boys, not hitting our children ect, because despite the fact that our "Culture" tells us this stuff is either wrong or not neccesary, we KNOW that it is best for our children, and we are willing to defy our "culture" to do what is best for our children. I expect NOTHING LESS from mothers anywhere else.

We are NO more intelligent than people in less affluent societies are, and I will not patronize them by thinking anything less or expecting anything less.

 

No one is asking you to patronize them. Calm down and seriously think about this from another angle instead of trying to prove that you are right. Because you don't seem to be listening to what anyone else is saying and just attempting to prove a point, your point. Just because you defy cultural norms doesn't mean everyone here does. That is why they are the norm. There are women over there who don't iron thier childrens' breasts, but it is because they are defying the norms. And you really do not believe that in our country we do not have more opportunity for education or we "know better". Are you serious? Then tell me, why didn't my mom iron my double d's when I was young? Could it be that #1 in general we don't let men run around raping little girls and blame them for having breasts or could it be #2 that we simply know that it is not good for us? You seriously have to be kidding yourself if you think you haven't done something to your kids while they were growing up that you thought was for their own good, and in reality was not.

I'm not saying that we should feel sorry for these people, or let them continue. My point was instead of sitting on our computers (or high horses, depending on who is typing at the moment) we could be doing something like making sure these people do know. Just because you know something and think it is common sense, doesn't mean everyone does. What the hell kind of logic is that? But until we are sure they full understand what is going on, I don't see how we can hold them completely accountable. That would be like punishing a baby for crying.

 

You're comparing adults in these cultures to crying babies? I think we can expect more from adults in any part of the world than we can from a baby. Respecting and not inflicting pain on other's shouldn't have anything to do with the economy or education level of the populace (a person doesn't need public education to know how to respect other humans). And what do you expect people to do before you think they can express their disdain for a cultural practice, go over to Africa and tackle anyone with an iron?

 

I think adults in even preindustrial societies should not be compared to children in ours. I really feel (and so do many others) that treating the people in subsaharan Africa as "children" and "people who can't be expected to be intelligent enough to know better" certainly IS patronizing them.

I am no more trying to "prove my point" than anyone else. Only, I don't see any evidence for the "these people are too stupid or unsophisticated to think for themselves" attitude. Has nothing to do with "high horses" only just what is best for children, and what is obviously best for children and womyn as a whole, and society at large.

Yes, that is why there are organizations like Amnesty International, which a few people have actually accused of trying to break people away from their "cultures." But, AI was criticized, on this thread as interfering with "people's cultures." When, in fact, AI really works with the culture to prevent harm and torture. Yet, their fine work was dismissed as "running in there without understanding." Which is simply not the way AI works.

And, yes, I was born in the 1960s, and I have seen plenty of girls blamed for thier own rapes because they showed too much skin, or only developed breasts early.

More opportunity for education, sure, "Know better" NO, this has nothing to do with formal education. Of course, all parents sometimes make choices which are not maybe the best for their children, but choosing the wrong day care center, or letting them watch too much TV or allowing some sugar sometimes is a hell of a lot less damaging than removing breasts or clitorises.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I do NOT feel that African mothers are any less intelligent or have any less common sense than I do. A lot should be expected from people who parent, no matter where they live, and letting people who abuse or torture their kids off with "they didn't know any better because they are just uneducated savages" is not complimentary to the majority of people who live in ANY area. JMO.

I have listened to what other people are saying, and I am hearing a LOT of rationalizing, with little actual fact. No one can tell me that no matter what some in your "culture" say, hacking off your child's clit, or ironing off her breasts is going to be a good idea, no matter who you are. My point was, people in ALL societies refuse to damage their children, even if their "culture" encorages it, I expect no less from anyone, and I don't want to act paternalistic to people in Africa, because I know people there are no less intelligent than I, or anyone else is.

When the "Culture" in the USA said that Slavery and that not allowing females to vote or own property was OK, a good number of people said "This isn't right." and did something about it. It wasn't because they were "educated" it was because they were strong. WHY are people who live in Africa any less strong? They aren't. And allowing people excuses to do things like this only furthere infantalizes them, and that is a subtle form of racism. I won't be racist and I won't give anyone, of any culture that excuse to use, because everyone is capable of thinking and caring.

.



I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

We will have to agree to disagree then, but you still don't understand what I am saying. Like I have stated from the begining, I don't know a lot about the subject and to be perfectly honest and you can all hate me for saying so, I don't really give a shit. If I did, I'd be working to solve the problem. Sure if a petition came my way or a donation plate, I'd send some money or sign something, but this simply isn't my cause. I know I'm horrible. Whatever. But I was not trying to say that I believe that they have any right to do what they are doing because it is their culture. There is someone else here arguing that point. I honestly don't believe the excuse that just because it is part of their culture they should be allowed to do something whether it be mutilate or brainwash or what have you. Here there or anywhere. My point was I really think that they believe they are helping their daughters. I don't think they are doing it to be mean or hurtful or anything like that. It seems like some of you think that they are evil or something. I guess what I am saying is that in their minds the end justifies the means. And everyone came on here saying how these women were stupid for thinking this way, etc. And all I'm saying is that maybe they are stupid, but I really believe that they don't know any better. Maybe some of you think they do know better. The education I was refering to though was a suggestion of a solution. Because we can't just run over there and force them to stop (or maybe we can) just because we think it is wrong. What is the big deal with having people start to teach these women, much like we had to teach women in the 70's that maybe smoking and drinking isn't good for a fetus. Do you understand what I'm saying now. (I'm at work and trying to type without getting caught.)

 

You are saying that the mothers are raising their daughters the best way that then know how to. Which is the way they were raised. Which is the way that the grandmothers were raised. etc... which is close to the definition of "culture."

One part of the solution will be teaching mothers that what was done to them shouldn't be done to their daughters WITHOUT critisising the grandmothers.

 

I firmly agree on this point. That's one of the problems that was highly prevalent in early anthropology, and which anthropologists today sit and question how our forebearers could have been so egocentric and paternalistic. It is an ethnocentric assumption to believe that we know what's best for everyone else. Which, frankly, is why I have such a strong reaction against people who will mutilate their sons' genitals yet scream bloody murder against those barbarians who practice FGM -- how can a person justify their own practice of mutilating genitals without giving the victim a choice, yet claim the right to judge an equally horrible procedure of a similar sort (just on the other sex) in another culture? And, before you reply, keep in mind that I'm not saying that you have to be perfect before you criticize anyone else -- what I'm saying is that you should not be guilty of close to the same offense if you want to have any standing in criticizing others. A petty thief may criticize someone for cheating on his wife, but a cheater has no ground on which to criticize another cheater.

Is it racist to accept the idea of peer pressure -- that when you are the only person you know who doesn't think something is right, you're more likely to just go along with it? After all, isn't the purpose of organizations like support groups simply to allow people to interact with others of the same opinion, to reinforce that they aren't the only ones who feel that way, and, well, to support one another?

In researching religious skepticism, one of the things that kept coming up in early anthropological works was the assumption that those people over there are too child-like, their world-view too centered on interactions with the supernatural for anyone to possibly be skeptical. However, one of the exceptional anthropologists of the 1930s or so discussed the prevalence of skeptics among traditional religion practitioners. He found pretty near the same ratio of the population were skeptics. However, due to lower population densities, these skeptics rarely knew another skeptic, muchless had any intellectual heritage as they do in the West. What appeared to Westerners as an absence of skeptical thought was really just a matter of lower population density prohibiting the formation of social groupings centered on such skeptical opinions. Also, as the skeptic often had little social support in favor of his position, he often outwardly participated in rituals and whatnot, only expressing his skeptical opinions to his friends and the ethnographer.

So I sound way off topic, right? But, as an analogy, the incidence of women who disagree with female circumcision or with breast ironing is probably at about the same proportion as women here who refuse to circumcise their sons. However, those who do circumcise are still in the vast majority here, as is the case there. The big difference is that, in rural villages in low population density areas, a woman who does not want to circumcise likely will not know any other women who feel the same way. Without that support from friends with similar opinions, it is far more diffucult to stand up to one's mother, mother in law, neighbors, and extended kin. It's not a matter of lower intelligence. It's a matter of less moral support in a fight against the norms of the majority.

In comparison to religious skepticism, it is easy to detect defectors from these practices, which increases the social pressure even further. While perhaps none of us on these boards would do so, how many mothers do things that they don't really agree with just to avoid having their daughter be the only one who doesn't do so? And, yeah, this is often the relatively harmless stuff like wearing make-up or high heels too young, but the only consequence here for not participating would only be a bit of teasing... What level of practice would you go to if the consequences of not doing it were your child's social ostracism and inability to find a husband in a society where economic opportunities for unmarried women are few and far between? This doesn't make it right. Just because all your friends jump off a bridge doesn't mean you should do so as well. But understanding the social pressures and lack of social support these mothers are dealing with is integral to finding any sort of solution.

This doesn't infantilize them -- I see adults in the US responding in similar ways to social pressures every day. We evolved as social animals, and still are subject to social pressure and the need for social support. It's not just a matter of "they don't know any better" (though some white Americans apply that same argument to explain why they mutilated their sons' genitals) -- it's a matter of social pressures and lower population densities getting in the way of finding any sort of social support.

 

I'm sorry, I did not speak clearly enough, apparently. I assumed that all readers would be aware that in all cases the clit is removed. My statement was intended to compare the most common form of female circumcision to the much less common form -- that in which only the outer lips (and clit) are removed vs. one in which the outer and inner lips (and clit) are removed, then the vaginal opening sewn shut.

The mention of Bush was as an analogy, refering to his tendency to focus on only the worst examples. But, you're right, why NOT focus on the worst? After all, the people who brought down the Twin Towers were Arabs -- so what's wrong with painting ALL Arabs as terrorists (as Bush and his crew have done their best to do)? Wow, good to know you feel that way.

 

This is getting silly. Both parties agree that FGM should stop.

The difference seems to be that one accepts Amnesty International's reports as useful, while the other wants antropological field studies to be the source of information.

AI is an advocacy group. Their literature (while accurate) is not inteded to be a complete picture of African society. It is inteded to point out the bad things.

If I may make an analogy, there is a difference between an engineering report and the specifications listed in a sales brochure. Neither of which are well suited to someone looking for a repair manual.