War of the Roses: Amnesty International’s Newest Campaign against Female Genital Mutilation
by Racialicious special correspondent Fatemeh Fakhraie, originally published at Muslimah Media Watch
Amnesty International has run a new campaign to raise awareness about female genital mutilation. These images of flowers sewn up are visually striking because of the implied violence against a delicate object. The ads are effective because they give the viewer a graphic idea of what exactly is implied by female genital mutilation (though the campaign leaves out “lesser” forms of FGM, such as clitoridectomy). While the idea of using a flower as a metaphor for a woman’s genitals doesn’t sit well with me (it really just makes me think of comparing women to flowers and pearls, i.e., things that need protection), this is a really good way to get this message across.
I was especially thrilled to read the copy at the bottom of the page (click on the images to see them up close): “Every year, two million girls suffer the pain of genital mutilation – a clear violation of their human rights. No government should continue to ignore this crime. Help us to stop violence against women. Give your support at…”
No mention of Islam. No mention of Muslims. No mention of geographical locations associated with Muslims. No pictures of veiled women. Just a statement that condemns an action without entangling politics or religion. Often, FGM is used synonymously with Islamic practice, though this is incorrect. Muslims who practice FGM do it in certain parts of the world because of cultural traditions, not because of Islamic ones.
This campaign is a perfect example of how to condemn an act without extending the condemnation to everyone that happens to be in the same religious/ethnic category of those who happen to practice said act.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
dnA wrote:
So true. I think the thing that struck me the most about your last post was that the Huffington poster seemed to be engaging Islam only in order to affirm her own cultural superiority, not to thoughtfully consider an act of injustice.
Posted 18 Dec 2007 at 4:26 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:
I’m kinda hesitant to post this comment, since I know the subject being referred tends to invoke a strong reaction, and I don’t want to take this too far off track.
BUT – I have a wording issue with the term “female genital mutilation.” It is culturally-biased. I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting Molly Melching, founder of Tostan, an organization working (I think still active) to end the practice of female genital cutting in West Africa. One thing her organization insists upon is the removal of the word “mutilation.” Why? Because parents have their daughters undergo female genital cutting. Parents, regardless of what harm may come of their actions, are generally motivated by love for their children, and a desire to act in that child’s interest. Some people would argue that gendering children – which we do aggressively in this country – can be just as damaging psychologically as cutting… just something to think about going forward.
Posted 18 Dec 2007 at 4:59 pm ¶
jd wrote:
Fiqah – I totally agree with you about the use of the word mutilation when dealing with communities that practice cutting. (I used to work for a group that funds grass roots efforts to end the practice in East Africa, and cutting was the preferred word there too.)
However, this campaign is aimed at Westerners who are not familiar with the practice, and for them, I think FGM is the better term because it gets across how invasive and harmful this can be. (yes, I know there are various traditions and some versions are more harmful than others) That’s important for a variety of reasons – getting funding for groups like my old employer, making sure immigration judges hearing asylum claims understand how serious FGM is, etc.
As for the ad itself, if it’s meant to symbolize the more destructive versions of FGM, then those roses aren’t nearly damaged enough.
Posted 18 Dec 2007 at 9:31 pm ¶
jd wrote:
oh, and as for equating cutting with Islam, I would love to see more education about how it’s all about local traditions going back way further than that. not only are there Muslim communities that cut and those that don’t, there are also Christian communities that cut (Catholic and Protestant), and mixed-religion communities that cut.
Posted 18 Dec 2007 at 9:33 pm ¶
al wrote:
i can see why the flower analogy wouldn’t sit well with you. but that said, it would have been interesting if the flowers they used were orchids, which look remarkably vulvular, complete with clitoris looking parts.
Posted 18 Dec 2007 at 10:18 pm ¶
Rachel S. wrote:
The set of practices that encompass female genital mutilation/cutting expands beyond Muslims. They’ve been doing it in my partner’s culture for a long time, and this ethnic group has not ever been Muslim.
Posted 18 Dec 2007 at 10:28 pm ¶
latinamericanprinces wrote:
I always thought of roses as needing nurturing but also being tough (the thorns). I think all humans need nurturing in order to bring out the best in them (not just women). But they aren’t without some built-in means of protection. The orchid idea is intriguing. A very vaginal O’Keefe comes to mind. But that might be too0vertly sexual and turn some people off.
Mutilation is a very ethnocentric and biased term, but as other have pointed better awareness is the real key to understanding the context. It’s definitely a good sign that no group is targeted by the campaign.
Posted 19 Dec 2007 at 10:19 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
i agree with you fatemeh. i first saw these ads on feministing and i really liked them because, like you, i saw the artistic merit but also the fact that they reserved judgment on culture and focused on the practice itself. i say anything a young woman or child is forced to do that could be detrimental to her health is wrong, especially if it’s something that is irreversible and may greatly deter her from fully enjoying her womanhood via healthy sexuality. in the case of clitorectomies, which is the fgm type that involves cutting of both the labia AND removal of the clitoris, it’s pretty obvious what the intent is. if a woman wants to do this on her own, that’s her business, but as a parent, if she allows or encourages this to be done to her daughter, i worry, and my sense of cultural and religious relativism goes out the window…and gives way to the utilitarian harm principle instead. i say do what you want so long as you don’t hurt anyone in the process…and this just doesn’t fit.
Posted 19 Dec 2007 at 12:56 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
ay and sorry for the numerous spelling errors
Posted 19 Dec 2007 at 12:57 pm ¶
Mike wrote:
I am mixed about this.
Although I am disgusted by the act it is a matter of culture, which I do not think I have a right to pass judgement on.
The better point of attack would be education to those cultures that practice it.
And for those who do not understand Islam and the Prophet have made it clear that they do NOT approve of any scaring of the body including genital mutilation.
How people thought this was an Islamic trait I do not know.
Posted 19 Dec 2007 at 4:18 pm ¶
Rachel S. wrote:
Wendi, I think the term for what your talking about is infibulation. I agree that there’s a big difference between infibulation and cutting the tip of the clitoris. Not that I think the latter is great, but the former is quite detrimental to health.
Posted 19 Dec 2007 at 9:06 pm ¶
Rachel S. wrote:
The women I know personally have had the genital cutting that involves the least invasion version of female genital cutting, and none of them believe that it should be done to their daughters, but they seem more ambivalent about their own experience. The one person I actually talked with myself said; she felt like she may be missing something (in terms of sexual pleasure), but she also said she didn’t really know if she was missing anything because she had hers removed as a baby.
I’ve talked with my husband about this issue since they circumcise both males and females in his culture, and for whatever reason he thinks male circumcision is just fine and dandy and female circumcision is evil.
Posted 19 Dec 2007 at 9:13 pm ¶
Rachel S. wrote:
I was rambling….Oh well
Posted 19 Dec 2007 at 9:14 pm ¶
Caroline wrote:
To be non-specific about “mutilation” does not do service to anyone. It we’re talking about infibulation, we have to say “infibulation.” Amnesty surely knows the political uses to which “female genital mutilation” has been used, and to ignore that is irresponsible. They must also know that the connotations of “mutilation” are far worse than “cutting.” That is, after all, the reason that “mutilation” is used. If this is an education piece, then it failed miserably. But it’s not–it’s an advertisement intended, I assume, to increase donations.
I am a little confused about the link to amnesty.se. Is this ad specifically for a Swedish audience? Was it produced in English, or was this translated by someone (affiliated with Amnesty or not?) as it was passed along to English-speaking folks?
Either way, the Amnesty USA uses “FGM.”
Posted 21 Dec 2007 at 7:59 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
I’m curious if those who think this is just a matter of culture would say the same about a culture that gouged out the eyes of half their children or cut off the arms of everyone who turns out to be gay. Someone can clearly live a life that in many ways is very fulfilling even if you do that to them, and a culture could easily come up with a narrative attempting to justify it as cutting rather than mutilation. That doesn’t mean it’s not mutilation. Mutilation means you’re destroying something, and isn’t that what you’re doing with FGM?
I really wonder how anyone can be this sort of cultural relativist and be opposed to racism, genocide, rape, or anything. If the fact that a culture approves of something is enough for it to be morally ok, then there wasn’t anything wrong with slavery or the Holocaust. Cultural relativism is fine if you’re just recognizing that people have different practices and affirming non-moral differences as ok. When you use it as an excuse to avoid moral judgment on genuinely moral issues, you take it too far. It’s hard to see much difference between (a) the person who says FGM is ok because it’s culturally approved and welcomed by the person being mutilated and (b) the person who says rape is ok because it’s culturally accepted and the person being raped thinks it’s her duty to submit.
Posted 21 Dec 2007 at 9:20 pm ¶