I am pleased to see any approach working.

I am sure part of the problem is that Muslim ideas and Western feminist ideas tend to run in opposition to one another. The feminist movement, as it is understood world-wide, is considered to be Western and white. It seems almost logical that local leaders would reject the terms of women's rights if they are based on a Western model of "women's liberation."

I'm less sure about this. Or rather, I am sure that the feminist movement, as it is understood world-wide, is considered to be Western and white, and that therefore many local leaders use that as an excuse to reject women's rights. And I'm sure that many local leaders genuinely believe that, and see feminism as another example of cultural imperialism. But the fact is that feminism runs counter to practically every cultural tradition, as well as almost every religious tradition.

Muki -- Give up the non-sense about feminism being seen as Western and white. It's one thing to know your audience and to speak to one's audience in terms that will persuade and resonate with them. Quite another to abandon objectivity. And unconscionable to ignore the cries of little girls in the name of post-modern political correctness. The non-Westerners have no doubt about the objectivity of their beliefs. And Westerners should not be in doubt about the correctness and superiority of their culture and the way it treats women. It is right to criticize these barbaric non-Western practices.

"I was next. Grandma swung her hand from side to side and said, "Once this long kintir is removed you and your sister will be pure." From Grandmas's words and gestures I gathered that this hideous kintir, my clitoris, would one day grow so long that it would swing sideways between my legs. She caught hold of me and gripped my upper body in the same position as she had put Mahad. Two other women held my legs apart. The man, who was probably an iternant traditional circumciser from the blacksmith clan, picked up a pair of scissors. With the other hand, he caught hold of the place between my legs and started tweaking it like Grandma milking a goat. "There it is, there is the kintir," one of the women said.

Then scissors went down between my legs and the man cut off my inner labia and clitoris. I heard it, like butcher snipping the fat off a piece of meat. A piercing pain shot up between my legs, indescribable, and I howled. Then came the sewing: the long, blunt needle clumsily pushed into my bleeding outer labia, my loud anguished protests, Grandmas words of comfort and encouragement. "It's just this once in your life, Ayaan. Be brave, he's almost finished." When the sewing was finished, the man cut the thread off with his teeth.

That is all I can recall of it.

But I do remember Haweya's [her younger sister] howls. Though she was the youngest--she was four, I was five, Mahad six--Haweya must have struggled much more than Mahad and I did, or perhaps the women were exhausted after fighting us, and slipped, because the man made some bad cuts on Haweya's thighs. She carried the scars of them her whole life."

(Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, pg. 32-33)

Cracksmoker--

I am not sure that Samhita's post was promoting the type of cultural relativism that you suggest. In fact, if you are familiar with this debate you will know that calling the practice FGM signifies an oppositional position (rather than using some other euphemism ).

You have failed to provide the proper context of this quotation although you do provide the citation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a controversial figure and not necessarily a representative of all muslim women living in Africa. This is precisely what is wrong with so-called western feminism is that it fails to allow the complexity of other women's lives into the picture. Rather, it simply represents them as victims of a horrible and brutal culture, which, of course, has racist repercussions.

I don't see how saying that the western feminist movement is generally monolithic in its world view is in mutual exclusion of standing in solidarity with muslim women's criticism of FGM.

I'm sure this is an unbelievably tough job and certainly these health activists have to do whatever they can to better the situation. That said, when you give in to arguing about what the Quran (or the Bible, in other cases) says or doesn't say or is supposed to say or should be interpreted to say, you give up your ace in the hole, which is reason. You're playing on their turf. If people are educated to reject superstition outright, then then they are subject to the rules of reasonable debate, and FGM is quickly dismissed as middle-ages nonsense.

I know their situation probably doesn't allow much of this. But it would be nice to get to the root of the problem.

jeff, I see your point but FGM is done for (ostensibly) religious reasons. Rather than change someone's entire culture and tell them that their religion is wrong and that they should be smarter than to believe in such fairytales, it's a lot easier to use the religion itself as a tool. Telling people that they shouldn't believe in a religion which is deeply entrenched and holds great meaning for a lot of people will alienate them, using their own holy book to make them see something like FGM as wrong may lead to them examining other aspects of their lives in a more reasoned way.

Calling Islam superstitious and calling the western point of view "reason" is part of the reason other cultures to see women's rights as a white, western movement. Calling all religions superstitious and unreasoning alienates feminists who might also have religious beliefs, and frankly, we can't afford to alienate anyone.

Genny, I personally am an atheist and have a strong distaste for any and all religions. I do, however, agree with you that alienating these women by telling them that religion is bullshit is not the way to go.

I also don't really know that religion IS the problem here-- the relgion, it seems to me, has merely been a cover for misogyny. Since FGM isn't actually in the Quran, how CAN we say that it's an issue of religion? Perhaps it is an issue of organized religion, where by religious leaders are appropriating the religion for their own personal gain. But (and I say this as an atheist) I think it would be a great service to everyone to learn to differentiate between those two things.

Genny,

Your first point is well taken. However, the claim that Calling Islam superstitious and calling the western point of view "reason" is wrong is to bury your head in the sand. That kind of relativism just leaves us spinning our wheels; to deny that this particular culture has fallen under the shadow of nasty and archaic practices, and that these pratices are religiously motivated, will not help to end FGM in the future. Islam is by definition superstition, so is western Christianity (and proudly so, just ask any person of faith). It's not about sitting back on my western high horse and patting the heads of the poor little third world types; I am fully aware of the circumstances surround their (and my) reality. But it seems impossible to deny that secularism is the only way to a peaceful future, and whatever of culture is lost in the transition, it is in trade for an end to this kind of violence.

Cara, it is my understanding that FGM actually has been around in Sub-Saharan cultures longer than Islam has, which is why I said that it is done for "(ostensibly) religious reasons". Using the clerics to speak out against the practice is smart because it doesn't leave people with a leg to stand on, and could lead to the practice dying out.

I don't deny that secularism is a way to a peaceful future, but not the only way. There are plenty of secular leaders who are just as violent and misogynist as some of the worst religious leaders and there are religious leaders who are kind and tolerant. Look at the Dalai Lama versus the communist governments of Russia, China, and Cuba, all secular governments. I understand the point of view that religion can do more harm than good, it's why I'm a lasped Catholic rather than a practicing one, but I don't believe that there is any one "right" way to believe.

I concur that the best way to eradicate FGM is to say that it is not required (or even sanctioned by) religion. It's a lot easier to do that than to get people to stop believing.

I do wish that we would not call this "circumcision." IMHO, female circumcision would resemble what we call cosmetic surgery in that area - essentially would not change the function of any parts.

Whether religious or not, this barbaric practice must be stopped at all costs. if invoking Islam is the means to do so, by all means let them stop it like that. Cruelty needs to go.

"jeff, I see your point but FGM is done for (ostensibly) religious reasons. Rather than change someone's entire culture and tell them that their religion is wrong and that they should be smarter than to believe in such fairytales, it's a lot easier to use the religion itself as a tool."

Exactly - condemn the custom, not the whole entire cultures that include it.

Telling certain Somalis to give up Islam in order to give up FGM is like telling certain Americans to give up speaking English slang in order to give up gang violence.

"Calling Islam superstitious and calling the western point of view 'reason' is part of the reason other cultures to see women's rights as a white, western movement."

Right on. If we don't lump together all Muslims' customs together and don't lump together all Westerners' customs together in the first place, then we totally take the wind out of the "you're a hypocrite because domestic violence happens in Canada too!!!" sails.

"Cara, it is my understanding that FGM actually has been around in Sub-Saharan cultures longer than Islam has, which is why I said that it is done for '(ostensibly) religious reasons'. Using the clerics to speak out against the practice is smart because it doesn't leave people with a leg to stand on, and could lead to the practice dying out."

...as long as the clerics speaking out aren't all Muslims themselves. Somehow I doubt a Masai non-Muslim bent on circumcising her granddaughters will change her mind just because Swahili imams call that custom barbaric.

"I do wish that we would not call this 'circumcision.'"

Isn't "female circumcision" a literal translation of what the people doing it call it?

Just want to mention that the more I learn about some formerly-communist, formerly-part-of-the-USSR countries and about Cuba, the harder it is for me to let comments pass where they are used as examples of secular brutality but the United States is missing on that short list. Not saying that Russia, Cuba, or China are bastions of human rights. Am saying that there are kinds of suffering under capitalism and "freedom" that do not take place in Cuba, for instance, and never have. Plus, part of the U.S.'s initial response to the revolution in Cuba was racist/imperialist in basis, and I do believe that part of why we have genuine misconceptions about some goings-on in Cuba to this day is for the same reasons.

"I do wish that we would not call this 'circumcision.'"

Isn't "female circumcision" a literal translation of what the people doing it call it?

Yes, but who cares?

Would we call domestic violence "gentle reprimanding" if husbands called it that? Would we call rape "sex play" if the perpetrators called it that?

Why should we allow the people who do this to frame the issue? "Female circumcision" isn't anything to get too upset about. "Genital mutilation" is a human rights abuse.

If we call it "circumcision," we are stuck arguing why it's okay for men (and even good - doesn't it help to stop the spread of STDs?) but not for women. We need to explicitly separate this horrible act from anything remotely medical. It's like gouging out someone's eyes and calling it opthalmology.

Thank you JoanKelly.

It irks me when people go "Well the USSR was secular and look how people were abused there!" as if the abuse was solely the result of secularism. Tyrants will be tyrants, whether they're religious or not.

And no one ever mentions Scandinavian nations as examples of good secular states.

Sorry, went a bit off topic there.

"Tyrants will be tyrants, whether they're religious or not."

Well, exactly. I was trying to refute the idea that secularism is the one right way to peace, sorry if I offended anyone with my mention of the USSR or other communist countries. Violent people will be violent no matter what their belief system.

Mina, good point about the non-muslim population who practice FGM. I hope that this is the beginning of a more wide-spread condemnation of the practice.

"Mina, good point about the non-muslim population who practice FGM. I hope that this is the beginning of a more wide-spread condemnation of the practice."

...and don't forget the Muslim populations who don't practice it! Bosnian, Iranian, Maghreb, Swahili, Turkish, etc. cultures prove that you can be Muslim without aiming blades between girls' legs.

Speaking of widespread condemnation:

"I am sure part of the problem is that Muslim ideas and Western feminist ideas tend to run in opposition to one another."

On second thought, what's so Western about not doing or even tolerating FGM in the first place?

Lots of not-so-Western cultures don't claim "it's okay for women and even good, it stops the spread of STDs!" either. Maybe Ashanti, Brazilian, Chinese, Hindu, Japanese, Mexican, Polynesian, Rwandan, Vietnamese, etc. feminists could be even more influential than Western feminists in reducing it among non-Muslims who do have that custom? How did the Han quit footbinding, anyway?

Genny,

FYI I also didn't mean what I wrote in a smack-you-down type of way. I took your comment to be an attempt to point out the unfairness of blaming religion for all the evilness running amok. I just personally didn't know until fairly recently that a) there is a history of the Cuban people and the Cuban government - under Castro - supporting people of color in the U.S. since back in the 60's, and b) communist countries are not all scary hell holes with people getting shot trying to escape. Two of my co-workers are from Romania, for example, and grew up under communism, and liked it fine. The fact that some people do want to leave and die trying is, to me, indicative of human rights problems under those systems. The fact that people do want to stay here, ahem, and die trying, is also indicative of a human rights problem in America. Recent immigration raids being a case in point.

That's what I meant to talk about, and also apologize for any hijacking-of-thread related to my comments.

One more thing, related to this topic:

I don't agree that male circumcision is okay anymore than female genital mutilation. I have always been horrified by both, and whether it's cultural or religious as a practice, it all still amounts to slicing off parts of little people's bodies - with no fucking anesthesia even, for god's sake. Can't even believe we have this debate on any front about either practice being okay.