Not only is a very sacred and special part of a woman taken from her, but most of the time it is in extremely unsanitary conditions. In other countries women have their clitoris (and more) removed with razor blades, shards or glass, etc. I’m not sure what the procedure is in Britain but I am sure it is underground which may lead to improper medical care.

It’s disturbing to read ‘folks are doing it out of love’. In most cultures it is part of female oppression, the circumcision prevents them from enjoying sex, therefore they will not stray from their husband. But the issue that bothers me the most about circumcision is that ‘civilized nations’ have the audacity to step in and change cultural beliefs that they believe are barbaric yet many (the US specifically) still circumcise boys! Don’t even get me started on that issue!!!!

Heh...on a small scale, this reminds me of the Hasidic population near my neighborhood. Evidently it's OK for the men to go trolling for shiksas in the local hipster bars, and try to pick us up on the street (with their wives at home). It's also perfectly permissable for them to not shake my hand in a business transaction, lest I be "dirty" from menstruation. It's definitely NOT ok for the Hasidic women themselves to cat about for hot hipster boys. Yet when I observe these facts aloud, someone inevitably cries, "antisemitism!"

I get really fucking tired of people's "cultural traditions" trumping common sense in terms of rights all women should be able to take for granted. like, "Ohhhh! If we treat our women like human beings, it will ruin our identity!!" I call Bull Shit.

"If the West wasn't so obsessed with cultural hegemony, immigrants probably wouldn't feel so threatened."

Dear God, some people will take any rhetorical route--no matter how tortured, no matter how fallacious, no matter how ridiculous--to blame western culture for everything, up to and including rain during a picnic.

I'm not impressed by arguments about cultural imperialism with respect to this issue. Misogyny and violence towards women and girls is a native part of the culture? Well, take a number. Misogyny and sexism are traditions in almost every culture. Child labor is a tradition in the west. So is torturing and burning heretics. Doesn't make it all acceptable.

That should be "at all acceptable." Sorry.

Footbinding, too, was supposed to be for the benefit of girls--to help them marry better, fit into the elite, conform to beauty standards. Mothers crippled their own daughters in the name of love.

But I wouldn't think twice before condemning footbinding. Same for female genital mutilation. It's an outrageous human rights abuse--one done to mentally ill patients in the U.S. as recently as the 1950s. No question--England should do as much as it effectively can to prevent it.

I understand the reason for using moral relativism when looking at other cultures, and their practices, but I feel that the bigger issue at hand is that peoples lives are in danger due to this practice. I wish I had exact stats, but I do believe the incidence of infection is high especially in rual villages in Africa, where they are using glass etc...

I don't care if they're using scalpels and antiseptic wipes. Mutilating people is not acceptable behavior; nor is crippling them for life. If they were cutting off little boys' feet, I doubt moral relativism would come into play. But female sexuality is somehow disposable.

I'm in agreement with EG, but I must say that I'm impressed with Samhita's treatment of this topic. We can recognize that some people just don't know any better than to practice FGM.

And yes, that's a horribly colonialist statement to make, but it's true. Whenever we're talking about gender equality and cultural differences, I feel comfortable in saying that cultures where women are subjugated represent cases where those involved simply don't know any better, and that traditions pertaining to same are not worth preserving.

What gives us the right to make that determination? The fact that we care about women's rights. It means nothing to say that we're pro-choice in America but don't mind cutting off women's clitorises in Nigeria. Let's get real. If the subjugation of women is a problem, it's a problem always and everywhere. We don't say of our own culture "Well, forcing women to stay at home and raise children is a tradition here..." and let it go at that. We should treat other cultures no differently.

Cheers,

TH

The end to the first paragraph should read "...than to practice FGM, but this doesn't mean that we have to assume that those involved are making a conscious effort to harm women."

My point in general is that I'm impressed with how Samhita is walking the tightrope of being charitable towards other cultures without losing her feminist values. That's tough, especially when we're discussing the developing world.

I still remember how aghast I was in 2001, when a bunch of allegedly feminist acquaintances of mine loudly and vitriolically defended the "sovereignty" of the Taliban, and asked how dare I be a Western colonialist by saying that the Taliban's subjugation of women is a bad thing. That's a ridiculous extreme, but there's definitely an uncomfortable tension here and I think it rocks that Samhita is willing to bring it to the fore.

Cheers,

TH

Idealistically, I have nothing to add to what previous commenters have said. A good rule of thumb is that if your argument about cultural imperialism could apply to the South in the 1940s, you're putting the well-being of authoritarian traditions above the well-being of people.

That said, the lack of enforcement is a real problem, as is the insularity that blatant acts breed. Passing a law that isn't enforced isn't particularly useful. And Britain could do better than adopt France's policy of dealing with minorities.

But then again, Britain accommodates immigrants' cultural traditions, however pernicious, more than probably all other Western countries; indeed, Britain's problem with immigration is its over-enthusiasm with letting a vanguard of upper-class men represent an entire ethnic group politically. Britain's no France, but it's no Canada, either.

Tom, in general, in case I haven't mentioned this recently, you rock.

And, I am appalled at your pseudo-feminist friends.

Word. I hear what most of you are saying. I did not leave a judgement as to whether I think FGM is okay ( I do indeed believe it is fucked) but more how can we empower the women of these communities to act on their own behalf in ways that are beneficial to *them.*

Saying that a culture is imbedded with barbaric practices is how colonialism was justified. I see people are leaving examples of barbaric things we do in our own culture, and that is an important point of emphasis.

In terms of health, sanitary conditions and the longterm physical and psychological effects of FGM, I think we can all agree that all of it is just not okay. The question is how/what do we (the West) do about it and is it appropriate. Criminalizing things in immigrant communities tend to push them underground, making the conditions worse.

Thas all amma sayin!

Criminalizing things in immigrant communities tend to push them underground, making the conditions worse.

Is there any country other than Britain that has a sizable immigrant community that practices FGM? If there is, and in addition there exists a country that enforced anti-FGM laws, it would provide much needed empirical data to continue this conversation.

Samhita, with all respect, while an aversion to cultural imperialism can be a perfectly healthy attitude, the fact is that some cultural practices are simply abominable, and we will never eliminate them if we can't condemn them as unambiguously wrong.

The fact of the matter is that this is a practice that: (1) is of no benefit to, and does specific and grievous harm to, the women who are forced to undergo it, (2) is used as a means to control women by patriarchal societies, (3) is forced upon girls before they are able to make an intelligent and informed choice about whether they would wish to undergo it as opposed to facing the alleged "shame" of remaining intact, and (4) is based on all sorts of false stereotypes about the dangers of women being sexually promiscuous.

Under these circumstances, there is little danger of improper cultural imperialism in unconditionally condemning the practice and attempting to effect severe punishments on everyone who engages in it. On the other hand, there is a great danger that in attempting to avoid condemning or imposing a cultural practice, we will in fact perpetuate a great injustice on many women and girls who, if they were given an informed choice, would want no part of this.

The fact is, personally, I have little patience for cultural relativism in situations like this. Western culture has its faults, and I certainly am troubled by, for instance, the trend of planting a McDonald's on every corner throughout the world or displacing local music with manufactured soulless Western pop, but the fact is that in the particular area of not slicing off girls' genitals, Western culture happens to be vastly and objectively superior to some other cultures. Concerns about respecting other cultures simply have no place in this area.

I understand some western feminists fear of being paternalistic with this issue but there are in fact many African women who are very active around FGM.

Culture should never be used as an excuse to violate human rights.

Like another commenter said, this practice is all about control and leads to many many medical complications later in life. FGM sometimes involves sewing a woman's vagina up as well so that having your period is... well you get the picture. And this is done so that women can never enjoy sex. It's done because men don't want their wives cheating etc etc.

I think a better route for western feminists is to join forces with/ give solidarity to those women already doing what they can to improve the lives of women of their own cultures. Thus avoiding the paternalistic route.

I understand some western feminists fear of being paternalistic with this issue but there are in fact many African women who are very active around FGM.

Culture should never be used as an excuse to violate human rights.

Like another commenter said, this practice is all about control and leads to many many medical complications later in life. FGM sometimes involves sewing a woman's vagina up as well so that having your period is... well you get the picture. And this is done so that women can never enjoy sex. It's done because men don't want their wives cheating etc etc.

I think a better route for western feminists is to join forces with/ give solidarity to those women already doing what they can to improve the lives of women of their own cultures. Thus avoiding the paternalistic route.

damn! Sorry. My internet connection's being an arsehole.

I think that tradition takes on a life of its own. Since FGM is so prevalent in the culture, the women obviously don't think there's another option... but the men probably don't think there's one either.

I don't know any men who don't want their partners to enjoy sex, and the fact that some African men have stated that they don't like it shows that attitudes are changing. If it becomes regarded by the men as something that is undesirable, it will go away.

Although... it's awful that the easiest way to end this subjugation of women is for the men to decide that their wives crying in pain during sex isn't fun for them anymore. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

I think that questioning what the most effective way of fighting this practice is, as Samhita does, is a wise thing to do.

But I do not think there should be any ambiguity as to the fact that FGM is Wrong. I think that a cultural practice that degrades the value of a human being, and especially one that does so in such a gruesome way, is simply Wrong. One can question why the people who practice this are doing it, but I do not think the immorality of the act should be questioned based on this. Cultural diversity should be preserved and encouraged, but not if the price is that some of the members of these cultures are reduced to sexual objects to be cut up and mangled out of considerations of morality. Not even if it's done out of 'love.'

P.S. Is it imperialist to say that a cultural act is wrong, when even some of the women who are harmed by it think that it is acceptable and good? How can someone else tell these women what's best for them? It seems so arrogant, and that just struck me as I read my own post. And if a girl is taught from birth that FMG is a good thing, isn't it likely she will think it's appropriate? I don't know enough about the idea of false consciousness to go further, but my gut instict tells me that when it comes to the value of a human being as a thinking, feeling creature, rather than just a cog in some cultural machine or an object upon which a culture may act, there is an absolute right and wrong that one must believe in, or concede that human life has little worth -- and so it is possible for a woman to think FGM is good, and just simply be wrong about it, and it is not mere imperialist to try and prevent the act from taking place.

I have to agree with Jane on this one... if none of our traditions ever evolved we'd all still be living in caves, eating our meat raw. (Except, of course, the vegans et al.) The problem is that whenever people identify themselves as a (insert cultural/religious/national identity here) first and as a human being second, these kinds of traditions remain indispensible to the practioner and mind-boggling to the outside observer. But that doesn't mean that the outside observer is necessarily in the wrong. India's independence was a victory against colonialism, but would anybody seriously suggest that as part of this cultural recovery process India should have reinstated the practice of suttee, even though it is defined as the widow "willingly" throwing herself on the husband's funeral pyre in devotion to him? Emphasizing people's attachment to misogynistic cultural practices underscores the belief that humanity was better off before we hit on the modern idea that people are sentient, autonomous beings rather than sacrificial materials for placating cruel and whimsical gods.

I find the suggestion that FGM is perpetuated in western countries because immigrants feel threated, preposterous.

Girls are subjected to FGM abuse all over the world. Scores of non-western countries are fighting this, and outlawing it. They have no qualms about it, they are not socially or morally confused.

Eqypt, Kenya and outlawed FGM. The United Nations, UNICEF, and the World Health Organization considers FGM to be a violation of Human Rights.

Please note that the article (unlike the blog) describes the abuse of a 7 year old girl. Not woman, - a girl. A rag was stuffed in her mouth and she was cut by a razor blade, and held down by 10 adults.

This is what it is about. We have no problem here pointing out that the Iraqi female who was raped by the American soldier was a girl, not a woman. I don't hear that same emphasis here with this issue. This issue is a no-brainer.

I'd like to discuss and expand on this comment by Samhita as well:

"how can we empower the women of these communities to act on their own behalf in ways that are beneficial to *them.* "

What I'd say to that is that again, this is about children. Children need to be protected. This is less about empowerment than about laws, intervention and education. Those 10 adults who held down that girl were women. They were the "them."

These 10 women inflicted this barbarism on that girl to protect the family honor, to ensure that their daughter doesn't become an embarrassment to them, to ensure that she is able to be married off and not rejected by the community as being "unclean." All unacceptable reasons to continue this practice, and in my opinion, all selfish reasons.

I am sicked after reading the last part of this blog 'should the west be allowed to say anything on this issue,' and 'should they be allowed to.'Of course-what a stupid question! I am even more appalled you would blame this devastating practice on 'the west,' as if we are burning brides, selling our daughter's, and stoning to death the women who have shown their faces! If it is a referance to Europe trying to preserve their race and culture-what is so objectionable about that? Europe is very unique in the world being as they don't oppress women (at least not like the mass majority of cultures out there), and cannot accomodate evryone. most come merely for economic oppertunities rather than freedoms. Why would Europe want to risk eroding all of their effort at liberating women when their immigrants refuse to assimilate? If this practice is considered respectful of women according to the cultures that practice it then perhaps they should stop these cultures from immigrating to Europe. I certainly wouldn't want to see this practice spread all over Europe-would you?

What next-not even ojecting to burkas because of 'cultural sensitivities.'Why even call yourself a feminist?

At what point can Westerners say anything on such a complicated issue? And should they be allowed [emphasis mine] to?

Allowed? What the heck is wrong with you? Seriously?

How the can you call yourself a feminist and at the same time talk as if there was some justification for censoring criticism of a procedure like FGM simply because it comes from westerners?

That's the most vile suggestion I've ever seen on this blog.

I strongly object to FGM, but keep in mind certain western practices that are harmful to women exist as well.

Plastic surgery, while in a sterile environment, can also be dangerous to the health of the woman involved. And isn't this a fairly accepted western practice to make women more desirable(lovable, marriageable), if they do not fit the media standard of beauty?

TMD:

Granted there is plenty of legitimate grounds for criticizing plastic surgery, but plastic surgery is sought by consenting adults, and people are not ostracized from their communities, considered unmarriageable, or subjected to violence for not getting it.

If I may draw an analogy, this is the disctinction between a feminist's deconstruction of gender roles and sexuality, on the one hand, and actual forcible rape, on the other. It is very true that many "consensual" sexual relationships are quite unequal and that there is much to do to arrive at a more enlightened view of female sexuality, one wouldn't say that a woman who, for instance, decides to consent to sex with her husband in a not-so-great marriage because due to limited options in life is in the same position as a woman who is forcibly gang-raped. Both are bad things, but one is much, much worse, in kind and degree.

There's a great conversation to be had about plastic surgery and why women feel pressured to get so much of it. But it is simply not the same issue and it is not an issue with the same gravity as women who are forced to undergo painful surgeries with unsterile instruments which harm them for life, both denying them sexual pleasure and sometimes making procreation and sexual intercourse painful and even deadly. These are simply two very different things.

If it is a referance to Europe trying to preserve their race and culture-what is so objectionable about that?

Apart from the fact that Europe tries to convince the entire world that it's no longer racist and pursues an economic policy that's intended to keep third-world countries poor, nothing.

..."How the can you call yourself a feminist and at the same time talk as if there was some justification for censoring criticism of a procedure like FGM simply because it comes from westerners?"
Posted by: Josh Jasper

Josh,

I was wondering the same thing. If this issue is too "complicated" to be tackled by feminists, then what in God's name are we supposed to be concerned with? This is just a no-brainer to me. There are plenty of feminists who do not share Samhita's opinion on this issue, myself included.

I think everyone's blowing Samhita's last question way out of proportion. The idea of allowing Western culture to develop ways of eliminating genital mutilation stems more from the effectiveness of the approach than the demonizing of Western culture. If anything, the best that the West can do is strengthen the ongoing opposition movement by those women and men in the cultures still performing genital mutilation.

Also, in response to Josh and MsJane, the problem isn't that the situation is more complicated than feminists can handle; the problem is the situation has more complications than some feminists may choose to recognize. Some cultures do practice dangerous behaviors/detrimental behaviors as a backlash against attempts at "civilizing" them. So the method of outlawing the practices by force does nothing to alleviate that perception; it only reinforces it. The best method for ridding the harmful practice of genital mutilation is to cooperate with the pre-existing efforts to get rid of it and look at its cultural significance beyond the biological and psychological detriments. Painting the problem under the guise of value judgments only imposes an outsider's sense of morality on the culture in question, and throughout history, such a position has been dangerous. There's no need to sit quietly on the sidelines, but one shouldn't rush in sword in hand without evaluating all the resources and impact on the opposing side.

Skyanide, I think you misunderstood the original post by the editor. Either that or you're trying to spin it. I'd like to believe the former, though.

The effectiveness of various types of approaches were not discussed. The question posed was whether or not we should say anything about FGM even within our own borders, and if we should be "allowed" to.

To address that question, my response was yes, we should, we can, and we have an automatic right within our own borders to protect the rights of immigrant children. When you seek to impose that upon other countries that is a different matter. But either way, in either country, education and outreach is important.

I never said that the best method to combat FGM was only "outlawing the practice by force." If you read my first post, I spoke about the law, education and intervention. Once we recognize we have the right to intervene, all that remains is to determine the best method of obtaining that goal. And if the best method for example turned out to be jumping on one leg while eating a ham sandwich and juggling oranges, then that is what we must do.

The problem is, when the practice follows the immigrants into a western country like Britain, there probably is not already an "ongoing opposition" to simply support, as you suggest. You have to start building the effort from the ground up. With a commitment from the British government and community leaders from within the immigrant population, it can be done in this case.

Alon Levy,
NEWSFLASH!The whole world is rascist! What do you call these unassimilated arabs that come to Europe and profess they are better than the west (Europeans) and that only they're religion and race are dominant. It is one thing to spout that in your own land, but another when you go into the land of the people you profess to hate and say that-particularly without any repercussions. It is not wise to create a mass of unassimilated cultures who hate your own, and hate the free ways in which the women act. Many Europeans are reacting to these people-like any race they feel they are being eroded. That is not good for them, or good for us in America. Europeans view these militant muslims more like nazis than anything.

Samhita asked:
At what point can Westerners say anything on such a complicated issue?

I don't think this issue is complicated at all. Cutting up women in a way that is purely harmful is wrong in any culture, the end.

There is a time when the label "Westerner" and "White" and "American," and any other label that smacks of the shame of "imperialism," can be dropped - and that is when one drops the aforementioned for the singular label of "human." Slicing up girls/women in this way is barbaric.

In some indigenous cultures - even today - having sex with children is perfectly alright. Fathers lend out their pre-teen daughters to travelers seeking pleasure...disgusting, yes? But wait, they've been doing this for thousands of years, and it's a part of their culture, and wouldn't it just be so imerialist of us to say that it's wrong and try to end it...

Give me a break. Under all our religions and skin tones and languages, we're every one of us human, and tend to interpret pain the same way. I say stop FGM by any means necessary.

I fully agree with Sylke and most of the other comments here. It's not about imperialism, I do think that all cultures deserve respect and protection, but tolerance ends when human life and dignity is at stake. I don't care how un-PC it is, certain things are just unacceptable, period. Besides, we should not forget that FGMs are almost always performed on children, sometimes babies. So it's not like these girls are actually choosing to be mutilated, is it?
Burning people alive used to be part of our culture as well...

Oh and about the "people are doing it out of love" argument. Most incestuous fathers claim they love their daughters too... I don't think anyone should care whether the intentions are good or bad when we're dealing with inflicted mutilations.

"The question is how/what do we (the West) do about it and is it appropriate."

I've been thinking about this question on and off this weekend, Samhita, because you're making really important points about the intersection of efficacy and morality, in my opinion.

I don't have a problem with outlawing the procedure as part of a program to eliminate the practice, especially because I think there has to be one set of laws in a country. If slicing up a baby girl's genitals is illegal child abuse when a white English couple does it, then it's illegal child abuse when a British immigrant couple does it. I am surprised that they have to bother to pass a new law, rather than prosecuting under regular child abuse laws, but there you go. As to whether or not it's going to be effective, well, no law is 100% effective--in fact, you can more or less tell whether or not something is being done by whether or not there's a law against it (not always, obviously, but it's not a bad rough guide). So, seventy years ago there was no law against FGM in Britain, which means either it was accepted (which we know wasn't the case) or there weren't enough people doing it to attract anybody's attention.

So, no, it's not going to be completely effective. But it does do two things, hopefully: it sets out an institutional position statement, and it will provide negative consequences for parents who go through with this. Think of wife-beating: laws against it have not eradicated it, but strict laws and vigorous prosecution can help make the difference between wife-beaters thinking they have institutional support for their behavior or not.

If I were in charge of the UK (which, right, I know), I would pass this law and then assemble a task force involving scholars who have studied the various immigrant culture in depth, representatives from local domestic violence shelters, and women from the cultures and countries under discussion to decide on the best methods of outreach, because, quite frankly, I simply don't know enough to even begin suggesting ideas.

skyanide - did you totaly miss the point where Samhita asked if criticism should be allowed?

I have nothing wrong with claims that the issue is complicated, and engagement of the sexist roots in all cultures need to be addressed, but what the hell is up with the suggestion of censorship?

I won't put up with calls for censorship, and I think people who make calls for censorship are so wrongheaded, they're a danger to any political or social movement they claim membership in. You can revoke my feminist credentials if you want.

Perhaps Samhita misspoke herself. If so, I apologize for misreading her, but the implication seems pretty clear form the text.

NEWSFLASH!The whole world is rascist! What do you call these unassimilated arabs that come to Europe and profess they are better than the west (Europeans) and that only they're religion and race are dominant.

I call them racist. However, in terms of policy, it doesn't matter that much, since Arab immigrants aren't a government. What does matter is that European governments can mitigate racial and religious segregation by adopting Canadian or American attitudes toward immigrants.

freewmn, this has nothing to do with who is better or who is racist. We don't need to demonize the west or the middle east. Immigrant muslim populations and their host countries are seen clashing on the news all the time, but this is not about that. Muslims do not encourage FGM at all, in fact. This is an archaic tribal custom, which is very damaging to girls.

One thing I find interesting about FGM is how it is inflicted by women, and perpetuated by women as well. From the standpoint of the girl as victim, FGM is a brutal unwanted act. But once she is cut, and married off, it is in her interest not to oppose the cutting of girls who will soon become young, available members of the community. Such women are competition and a threat to the marriage. And while a woman may not completely like the idea of their own daughter undergoing the procedure, they are hardly in a position to do anything about it when it is a requirement for marriage. To secure a high bride price, to ensure a future for the daughter, and to elevate her daughter (and herself) to a higher social status, FGM is desirable.

This concept of women sometimes being the worst enemy of other women has appeared before in other forms, and it interests (and concerns) me.

Anyway, in Kenya's struggle to outlaw FGM, it ran into some obstacles. Here is an edited blip:

In 1996, after intense public pressure, the government referred the matter to parliament. What baffled most Kenyans, however, is that the motion was defeated overwhelmingly, not because of the male dominance, but because some of the women members of parliament voted against outlawing FGM. [They]argued for its perpetuation - saying that the "practice reduces women's sexual drive and therefore promiscuity, premarital sex and adultery."

That assumption isn't true, by the way, but it is what their fears were.

But it seems that death, pain, disease and deformity is beginning to trump everything else, trump the selfishness and fear, the fear of losing tradition and so on. I read about a recent success in Africa called the Tostan Project.

It is a comprehensive project involving health, education, and so on, which makes it great. They also created a dialogue, removing the secrecy. Like many abusive practices, when you remove the veil of secrecy the the solution becomes atainable. A very key (and extremely clever) aspect of the project was to get groups, not individuals of people to pledge not to cut their daughters, all at the same time. So no one would be rejected in terms of marriage, because these families had each other. Then, from there the idea spread like wildfire. They got the idea from the method used to end footbinding. (Which aardvark posted about).

There is a great, great psychological analysis of that method, on a website I can't find anymore. But here's another one which talks about the success of Tostan:

Tostan project grows

Using legal ramifications in regards to female genital mutilation is essentially attempting to stop or deter the practice by force. Laws aren't optional.

Also, Josh and Ms. Jane, I did not misunderstand what Samhita said. The element of allowing another culture to speak on its practices is multifaceted. While Western culture (rightly, in my opinion) condemn the practice of female genital mutilation, it results from our own senses of morality, bodily integrity, and dignity. But the question remains if such arguments will remain in tact when applying them to the morality of the culture practicing female genital mutilation. If people within the culture practicing FGM don't want to change it, they will ignore any prescriptions of morality and criticisms offered because their sense of morality will trump any other if they regard the practice as correct.

There's also a danger in speaking about practices from a Western perspective as barbarisms, as tribal, as primitive, as indigenous -- a lack of cultural evolution does not cause these practices to continue. And don't misunderstand me; I am not trying to censor anyone on how to approach the situation, but critics should be mindful of what they say if they wish their viewpoints to be heard by the right people and taken seriously.

"Skyanide, I think you misunderstood the original post by the editor. Either that or you're trying to spin it."
Posted by: MsJane

..."the problem isn't that the situation is more complicated than feminists can handle; the problem is the situation has more complications..."


"... The element of allowing another culture to speak on its practices is multifaceted..."

Sky, I think I've concluded spin at this point.

Yes, I do consider FGM as abusive and barbaric. I don't care if it comes from Africa, the middle east, the United States, or the moon. It was performed here decades ago too, did you know that?

There is such a thing as universal human rights. More specifically in this case, women's human rights. And because of that, abuse can no longer hide under the banner of culture or custom, or even sometimes religion. But in any case, it especially should not be ignored within large, modern, enonomically powerful and democratic nations. That was what the original article was about.

Also, your last sentence about "critics" being "mindful" of what they say, is perplexing. What critics, feminists? Critics of FGM? Who has to be mindful? Certainly not myself. This has nada to do with what I want. The world has spoken, they've moved en mass against FGM, and outlawed it, and educated people about it, and are seeking out the most effective means of ending it. It will take a long time, but there simply is no controversy. Except here, of course. On a feminist blog.

Well, on the bright side, I guess I can't say I'm preaching to the choir, lol.

My point as far as race is concerned is merely to point out some prejudice torwards Europe. We must remember it is a culture, and is not to blame. Wouldn't you be exasperated if you were a French woman and had to read about how muslim men treat their women. The fear is that if this remains out of control it could not only undermine their own native culture, but as well much of the enlightened inroads made in europe.The accusation torwards Europe pretending not to be rascist, but really are should be understood to be because of the political correct climate they live in does not encourage open discussion of these problems. When one outlet for voicing their concerns is not fostered they turn to themselves.It is probably unvented frustration torwards what they see everyday.As far as feminism in the west I perceive it like a war; America and Europe are like the D-Days-we've been taken over and is the great inroad to conquering this oppression. If these non-enlightened cultures start encroaching on others (especially when they have not confronted much of their women's issues) that is a threat to freedom.I think the feminists in these middle eastern cultures are having a 'hard' time to begin with. Why does it make sense to import these ways to a culture that has defeated (for the most part) much of their sexist ways. Like a disease-it is easier to contain when it is not spreading.

...the problem isn't that the situation is more complicated than feminists can handle; the problem is the situation has more complications than some feminists may choose to recognize.

Emphasis added, MsJane, after chopping off the rest of my point.

It will take a long time, but there simply is no controversy.

There obviously is controversy or else the movement against it would be successful.