Spanish ads compare women with genital cutting to fuck toys

by guest contributor Lisa Wade, originally published at Sociological Images

Disclosure: My dissertation, called “Female Genital Mutilation” in the American Imagination, is about how different U.S. constituencies (mainly doctors, activists, journalists, and academics) have framed female genital cutting over the past 30 years. I offer this context for the images below (submitted by Craig C. and Breck and found via boingboing and adsoftheworld).

There is great conflict among feminist activists over how to go about decreasing the prevalence of “female genital cutting,” better known to most as “female genital mutilation.” One of the reasons for this conflict is the tendency of “Western” feminists to impose their own worldview onto communities where we find cutting (mostly among some ethnic groups in Africa, but also found in the Middle East and Asia). For example, the importance of sexual pleasure derived from the clitoris, and the relationship between orgasm and women’s liberation, is a central tenent of post-second wave feminism in the West. From this perspective, reduction of the external clitoris (clitorectomy) appears particularly horrendous and an obvious sign of women’s oppression. However, many women who are part of communities where cutting occurs find this logic to be irrelevant to their lives. Sexual pleasure takes a backseat to the benefits that come with cutting for the women themselves (group membership, attainment of adult female status, marriageability, becoming fully feminine — it varies tremendously, but be sure that the practices are important and meaningful in their own contexts). In any case, if “Western” feminists are going to try to “help” women in other parts of the world, many women say they’d much rather have clean drinking water and freedom from penalizing economic policies imposed by the U.S., than sexual pleasure. (I should point out, by the way, that whether and which and how much genital cutting practices actually do eliminate sexual pleasure and orgasm is hotly debated.)

These images are part of a campaign to raise awareness about and opposition to female genital cutting in Spain (I editorialize below):

I try not to get too emotional on this blog, but this hits me right where it hurts, and I find these images utterly appalling. The idea, of course, is that when women’s sexual pleasure has been excised (and remember, this is a controversial assumption) they feel nothing, but the implication is that they ARE nothing. These ads suggest that women who have experienced genital cutting are equivalent to fuck toys. Everything else about them disappears in these ads. They are completely defined by the status of their genitals, and the status of their genitals is the status of their souls. Even if it is true that these women no longer experience clitoral orgasm, or even experience pain during intercourse, they are still multidimensional human beings who love others and are loved by those around them for their uniqueness and individuality… yes, even the men they sleep with.

What a horribly offensive ad campaign. The fact that it is likely made for people in Spain and may never be seen by women who are genitally cut makes it no less offensive. Instead, it is an excellent example of the kind of ethnocentric, arrogant transnational activism that makes people in the West look like total assholes.

I should clarify: I am making these observations as a sociologist, not as an activist. I do have opinions about various sorts of male and female genital cuttings, but that’s not my point here. My point is not whether or not FGCs are oppressive to women or whether individuals in the West should be involved in eradication efforts. My point is to interrogate how we go about expressing opposition and intervention. There are many ways in which to go about this. As you can tell, I do not particularly like this one.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Sociological Images » WHAT WE’VE BEEN DOING BEHIND YOUR BACK (MAY 2008) on 02 Jun 2008 at 4:39 am

    […] because it’s worth a look to see how differently my commentary was received on this versus that blog.  It might make for an interesting discussion about audience and […]

Comments

  1. Persia wrote:

    I find these ads especially offensive, and probably ineffective, because the ‘fuck toy’ is generally seen as a punchline– something humorous and silly. If you’re going to advocate against FGM/FGC, the emotions you want to evoke are shock, horror, and anger, not a nervous titter.

    I don’t want to turn this into a debate about FGC but:

    In any case, if “Western” feminists are going to try to “help” women in other parts of the world, many women say they’d much rather have clean drinking water and freedom from penalizing economic policies imposed by the U.S., than sexual pleasure.

    One of the concerns I’ve also heard expressed about FGM is a safety issue, though– potential for infection during the initial procedure, and potential to increase the chance of HIV/AIDS exposure during later sexual activity. Isn’t that also a legitimate concern?

  2. kiki wrote:

    Are familiar at all with AMAM or Mama Samateh?

  3. beth wrote:

    That is incredibly offensive and hurtful, and unfortunately some people won’t even go as far as making a distinction between female sexual pleasure and the worth and value of females, or the two notions will just blur. Who came up with that idea??

  4. kim h20s wrote:

    Reading your post provided me with a new view on this topic. Case in point, I how hesitate to call it “mutilation” because that reflects my African-American / Western view of the practice. I hope that a movement will arise that will recognizes the right of women to do what ever they want with their bodies (even if it means altering their genitalia) in a safe fully informed environment.

    It is amazing how quick Americans are to decry female mutilation when we spend so much on plastic surgery!

  5. Michelle wrote:

    I agree with your assertion that this is an offensive campaign; you put it well. The problem is, Spain has quite a large Muslim and African immigrant population and I’m relatively certain these images will be seen by that community. Its sad, because it only puts more distance between those trying to eradicate the practice, and those whose culture it is a part of. We have made substantial progress here in the west, but things like this show that we have so much further to go.

  6. Tiffany wrote:

    I can’t believe they used this as a campaign ad, its beyond offensive..

  7. Tiffany wrote:

    Good point kim h20s on the plastic surgery..

  8. sylvie wrote:

    what i find so offensive about these pics is that they reduce FGM to strictly a sexual issue. while FGM’s “purpose” is to reduce sexual pleasure for women, i think essentially it’s another way that men dominate and assert oppressive power over women. plus, the image of the blow-up doll is indicative of kinkiness or fetishes which completely debases the severity (and reality) of FGM.

  9. uu wrote:

    I think whoever came up with the ads are confused to what the woman use to define themselves. I think in this western culture if a man were to lose his genitals for whatever reason, his whole identity is called to question and the answer may be he’s not a man anymore. (One has to remember that some straight men even feel that way if his sexuality is compromised, by being emasculinated in someway.)

    For there I would think that maybe men had a large hand at coming up with this ad. That somehow a woman having her genitals mutilated is equivalant to having a man genitals mutilated and the same issues of worthlessness may arise.

  10. Daomadan wrote:

    I find these adds horribly offensive. While I have not undergone FGM; I cannot imagine being a woman who has and seeing myself portrayed as a blow up doll.

    I think these ads completely miss the point. I much prefer the ad campaign with the roses sewn shut, at least that did not objectify women as blow up sex dolls.

  11. Daomadan wrote:

    “It is amazing how quick Americans are to decry female mutilation when we spend so much on plastic surgery!”

    I think the bigger issue is that in plastic surgery there is the “choice” to have it (though I might debate whether some people are having plastic surgery for themselves or due to certain societal pressures) so in that sense I don’t feel we can compare it to FGM when often some young girls aren’t given a choice or an understanding of what is happening to them. Every situation is different, but overall I find the two exclusive of the other. If I had reconstructive surgery after a bad car accident, say my nose, that is different than FGM which is essentially taking something away instead of giving something back…if that makes sense.

  12. wendi muse wrote:

    and might i add, lots of plastic surgery to the vagina. vaginoplasty, or the practice of altering one’s vagina cosmetically, is becoming pretty popular. while some women must do it for medical reasons, a lot of the requests are for reconstruction of the hymen, labia reduction, and/or simply to make their vaginas “prettier” (aka like the ones we see in porn…b/c really, who cares what her vag looks like unless they have some sort of model they see frequently that influences them to think that it should look like that?)

  13. wendi muse wrote:

    i wonder how to fgm activists who are survivors feel about this ad…it would be interesting to get their perspective. they are often left out of discussions for and against the practice, unfortunately

  14. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ Lisa, this is a great post! I co-sign with what wendi, kim h20s, and Daomadan said about plastic surgery on genitals in the West. What also offends me is the photos depict women of color as the blow-up dolls, which feeds into the idea that women of color are objects of passive sexual gratification.

    Is there a writing campaign or some other activism against these ads that we can sign up or donate to or join?

  15. Fatemeh wrote:

    I agree; Lisa, this is a really great post. I’m linking to this on MMW!

  16. Abu Sinan wrote:

    A few things here. I dislike the fact that many articles about this issue in the Western media make it out to be a Muslim issue when it is practiced by Christians, Muslims and animists.

    Another thing this add does is to dimish the role of women in keeping the practice going. I fail to see what blowup dolls does to address the fact that many mothers make the choice to do this to their own daughters.

    I read a poll somewhere that said a vast majority of women in Egypt who have under gone FGM would want their daughters to do it as well.

    This issue is very complex and the add does not reflect this.

  17. kiki wrote:

    i wonder how to fgm activists who are survivors feel about this ad…

    I believe that the ad was created for AMAM that is run by Mama Samateh who is a FGM survivor from Gambia who now lives in Spain.

  18. Chica Dificil wrote:

    The problem with advertisement intent on advocating or promoting a social message is that it can be misinterpreted or misread — similar to text messages. Personally, this ads are disturbing to me because they simply the issue of FGM. However, without knowing the context behind their creation it’s difficult to know what the real message is behind these appalling images.

  19. Deborah wrote:

    Female genital cutting has become just this…ultimate copout for Westerners. I cannot tell you the number of people who have used it as either a reason why feminism is a ridiculous concept (“If women are so oppressed, then why are they often the ones perpetuating this?”), or a reason why it is so great to live in the West (“Things may not always be great here, but at least we don’t have FGM!”). It’s devolved into a way of deflecting serious criticism of the West’s own problems; everything can be countered with “Well, we may do X, Y, and Z—but there’s no FGM here!” I think you can really see that in our incredibly naïve, simplistic, and outright offensive treatment of the subject: we like to think of it as an issue with a clear villain and a clear victim, to the point that we don’t even view those involved as people—not even the victims. It’s like we’re trying to set it up as this standard of evil, by which all our own misdeeds towards women can be judged (and found not so guilty after all).

  20. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    If what kiki says is true, then that definitely complicates the message and, perhaps our outrage. (I know it complicates mine and my need to fight the ad.) If this ad stems from a FGM survivor, how do we express our upset w/out negating or silencing what AMAM and Mama Samateh are advocating? Do we say, “Could you have used another representation besides the blow-up doll?” How will that critique be met? There are other questions, but these two pop immediately to mind.

    Hmmm…I have no answers, so I’m interested in hearing what others think.

  21. vodalus wrote:

    I spoke against this ad on Feministing as well. Why, why is it so hard to grasp that you should never depict people as inhuman? It’s such a simple rule of thumb for deciding if something will be offensive.

    Does your statement involve reducing individuals to animals or inanimate objects? If yes, do not pass go and do not collect $200.

  22. Ecee wrote:

    I co-sign with all who said this ad was offensive and all who related it to practices in the west. The way the media frames this is the source of a lot of frustration for me. I think the issue is very complicated and can not be painted with either an ‘it’s all wrong’ or ‘it’s all right’ brush. The language around the issue however strikes me as hypocritical and poss. racist. When it happens to little brown girls it’s “mutilation,” when it happens to majority white boys it’s simply “circumcision.” To me the issue, though not the same are linear; often done to children, can have painful and harmful side effects, some claim to limit sexual pleasure, etc.

  23. Korolev wrote:

    This is a botched ad - the group which did this is actually a group called AMAM, the Association of Women Against Genital Mutilation. I think (and this is only me trying to guess what the ads intention was), that the ad was trying to portray the attitude men have to women who undergo this procedure. As in, the ad suggests that the purpose of female genital mutilation is to deprive women of an sexual stimulation during intercourse, thus in effect, making sex only for the pleasure of the male, and treating women only as an object to be used for a man’s pleasure. I think the ad tried to communicate the fact that female genital mutilation makes sex one-sided, only for one person (the male).

    Now, that is only what I think the ad was “trying” to say. I’m pretty sure the makers of the ad didn’t set out to imply that “women who cannot achieve orgasm are essentially worthless inanimate objects”. The ad certainly fosters that impression, however I think it was unintentional.

    As to Female Genital Circumcision/Mutilation, whatever people call it, I respect it as surgery done to CONSENTING adults. I am against any type of surgery (except in the case of life-threatening situations) performed without consent. That’s medical ethics 101. I know that in certain circumstances a parent has the right to consent *for* a child, but I still believe that should only be done in the case of a “life-threatening situation”.

    Female Genital Circumcision/Mutilation, whatever it is that people call it, is pretty much IRREVERSIBLE. It cannot be undone. You are altering the body of a woman without her consent, before she has the capacity to MAKE that decision, and she cannot reverse that decision. At the end of the day, her body IS HER BODY ALONE. It belongs to NO ONE ELSE. And thus, any decision which will have an irreversible effect on her body, must be HERS and HERS alone.

    I understand that many women want their child to undergo this procedure. However, I still think that the girl or women undergoing the procedure has the ultimate say, not her parents or her religious officials, and she can only make that decision when she reaches the age of suffrage. I fully respect the decision for a woman to get this done to her, provided that she made that decision without any pressure.

    I know that not all Muslims practice Female Genital Circumcision/Mutilation (again, depends on what you want to call it, but you know what I’m talking about), but some do, and I think that it should only be done with the girl/woman’s consent. I don’t understand why the procedure cannot be done when the woman is old enough.

    And before anyone starts the issue up, yes I am also opposed to mandatory circumcision for Jewish males. I also believe that procedure should be done when the boy is an adult. You can get adult circumcisions in the Jewish community, but I just want ALL circumcisions to be adult circumcisions, with the choice being made by the individual human being undergoing the procedure.

    Call me an Imperialist western, agnostic pig, but that is what I believe to be the fairest compromise between Religion and Human Rights.

  24. DiosaNegra1967 wrote:

    And, yet another example of how low advertisers sink….

  25. RainaWeather wrote:

    I didn’t find the ad offensive. From what I understand the ad is saying that men who are part of this practice view women as nothing more than objects created solely for their sexual pleasure. I agree with Korolev, if a girl consents to this then that is her choice but a mother forcing her daughter to go through with this procedure is wrong, IMHO

  26. kim h20s wrote:

    The ad IS effective because it got us talking about the issue. I have known about this subject for years, I read this blog several times a day, but this the first time I’ve ever been moved to post or join a discussion. After reading the article about the ad, my view changed from a Western-centric condemnation to a more humanist “how can this be made safer for those who choose to do it” thought pattern.
    That’s a lot for an ad where I couldn’t even read the text!

  27. kd wrote:

    I have to say that I see what everyone is talking about. I don’t think the ads were that offensive. I actually do sort of get what the creators of ads were trying to get at. That a woman who’s experienced FGM might feel like toy or inhuman. I don’t mean to sound sexistm, but from what I’ve read some of the women are over-thinking and over analyzing.
    I don’t think the intent was to talk about how multidimensional, etc. the women are. I think the intent was to shock people.

  28. kiki wrote:

    Yeah, obviously Ms. Wade knows more about all of this than Ms. Samateh. Guess that’s why we always ask whites to speak for us since we can’t do it for ourselves. And we’ll all go along with the white lady’s assessment too, since, well she somehow knows better.

    Ms. Samateh seems to be trying to convey how this abuse made her (and women like her) feel but luckily Ms. Wade is here to tell us how she REALLY feels. No need to actually look at what Ms. Samateh has said and done.

    Ironically, IMHO it’s Ms. Wades piece (more than the ads)that is an “excellent example of the kind of ethnocentric, arrogant transnational activism that makes people in the West look like total assholes.”

  29. B. wrote:

    Everything else about them disappears in these ads. They are completely defined by the status of their genitals, and the status of their genitals is the status of their souls.

    Definitely.
    I saw the ads earlier and understood the message they were sending (and thought they were powerful). But I agree with vodalus. Whenever marginalized people are depicted as anything other than themselves, the message is lost. It’s as if those depicting us feel we’re just inches away from being subhuman - or not human at all . And while I don’t think that defining a “real” woman solely on the state of her genitals was the intention of the ad whatsoever, I definitely appreciate that interpretation. In order to make powerful statements, do we always have to sacrifice some part of ourselves/our experiences?

  30. octogalore wrote:

    I agree with Kiki. I don’t love the execution but believe as it’s Ms. Samateh’s expression of her feelings, we may disagree with implementation but I’m not sure that we take at face value Ms. Wade’s assessment.

    Also, I must admit that I disagree with most here. I believe there are some absolutes. Women deserve to vote. Women deserve the same education and pay that similarly situated men have. And women deserve authority over what happens to our bodies. Mothers or anyone, even well-intended, cutting little girls, are wrong, IMO.

    We could likely have found women before we got the vote claiming happiness in our non-voting state. Similarly, women denied or experiencing lessened sexual pleasure — because that’s the deal, not hard to corroborate — that’s not just an acceptable cultural phenomenon.

    I’m not arguing that where there’s help to give, we ignore the stated preferences of women to be helped. But that we don’t pretend involuntary mutilation is OK because we don’t understand it. It’s not OK.

  31. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ kd–”I don’t mean to sound sexistm, but from what I’ve read some of the women are over-thinking and over analyzing.”

    “I don’t mean to sound sexist, but…” is usually a phrase used to say something sexist, like the women overthinking and overanalyzing the ad. Singling out the women–as if the men who are offering the same critical analysis in different words *aren’t* doing the same thing–comes off as sexist.

    IMO, kd, I would have been cool with your differing opinion if you’d said something like, “hey, I don’t see the offense. I don’t think it’s all that deep. I think the point is the shock the viewer to think and do something about FGM and nothing more.” Once you pointed out the women as thinking too much about ads, though, you lost–and offended–me.

  32. Daomadan wrote:

    “I don’t mean to sound sexistm, but from what I’ve read some of the women are over-thinking and over analyzing.”

    But you do sound sexist. And wow, what will happen next when women over-think and over-analyze the world around them? Perhaps…change for a better world?

  33. Treacle wrote:

    To Kiki:

    While I certainly respect Mama Samateh’s perspective as a survivor of female gential mutiliation, I can’t believe it’s the only one. Ms. Wade’s piece is grounded in a literature that contains a multiplicity of opinions from other survivors of female genital mutiliation. In dismissing the literature her piece is grounded in, you’re also dismissing the perspectives of other survivors who may disagree with Mama Samateh.

    Furthemore, one’s critical eye should not be turned off because an advertisement claims to be feminist. It’s important to ask questions like “What audience is this ad reaching?” “What message do you want them to get?” and “What message are they really getting?” From the comments I’ve seen here and on other webforums, it seems this advertisement missed its mark in that no one is entirely sure -what- the message is.

  34. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    ::high-fives Daomadan::

    Thanks for the back-up!

  35. Treacle wrote:

    Also ( and I’m trying to bring race back into my personal analysis of the ads) we already live in a world that consistently depicts women of color as less than human.

    An ad which supports that view, even if it has good intentions, is problematic.

    I’m not trying to discount Ms. Samateh’s interpretation of her own experiences ( if this ad is an interpretation of those experiences which is what people seem to be assuming).

    However, I’m not okay with taking this ad at face value without any kind of critical analysis either.

  36. H.K. wrote:

    If anyone’s interested in seeing a film on this subject, check out the 2004 Burkino Faso drama MOOLAADE by the late Senegalese director Ousmane Sembene–it’s about a woman who decides that she dosen’t want her daughter to go through the process because it was so painful for her. Despite the constant pressure from her neighbors,family and husband, as well as the group of women in charge of performing the ritual, she holds her ground. Worth seeing just to get a African perspective on the subject–plus it’s a good film. On the DVD extras, the director explains that he made the film specifically to address the subject of why he felt certain traditions, such as FGM, had outlived their usefulness, and how he was using the film to open up a dialogue about that (the actress who stars in the film also talks about the subject,saying that she’s against it too).

    Here’s an IMDB link to MOOLAADE:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416991/

  37. BlurpleBerry wrote:

    Am I the only one who does not find this ad offensive?

    I think the ad is trying to depict what many victims of FGM are viewed as by their husbands, fathers, etc. I do not at all believe the creators behind the ad are equating any woman to a sex toy.

    Also, I don’t recall anyone saying women can’t have cltorectomies, if that’s what they want and choose. Last I heard, most women who undergo FGM don’t want to do it, or go along because they are too young to understand what’s going on, or aren’t told what’s about to take place beforehand and are forced into it.

  38. Matt wrote:

    Sexual pleasure takes a backseat to the benefits that come with cutting for the women themselves (group membership, attainment of adult female status, marriageability, becoming fully feminine — it varies tremendously, but be sure that the practices are important and meaningful in their own contexts).

    I agree that it can be difficult to critique female circumcision while trying to also avoid a colonialist attitude. But I don’t think this passage is right. Each of these “benefits” is the flip side of being marginalized in a deeply sexist system.

    (Btw, a few notes on Jewish circumcision. No, you cannot do it as an adult. Has to be on the 8th day. But, while I can understand some objections, it is nothing like the female circumcision discussed here.)

  39. Gouw wrote:

    WHAT THE GOD DAMN WERE THESE PEOPLE THINKING

  40. miss girl wrote:

    i thought these ads were pretty brilliant. especially the two with the blow-up doll juxtaposed next to a real-life little girl.

  41. sfmiki wrote:

    I am outraged not at the ad, but at how PC and silly this whole “western” culture bashing has become. I am glad that at least someone cares enough to provoke us all and start a dialogue (hostile or not) on female genital MUTILATION (and that is what it is–no matter how you try to sugarcoat it with neo-criticalspeak).

    Do i want educational opportunities and clean water for oppressed third world women? you bet! maybe that ad isn’t the best suited in Africa, etc.

    but there is another issue about femle mutilation that the government of Spain and the US and France is dealing with: Certain groups bring those offensive cultural practices WITH THEM when they immigrate, and try to impose mutilation upon their daughters (born citizens of the WEST and “WESTERN CULTURE” mind you) when they immigrate.

    I can’t change what happens in their indigenous countries, but by god, I feel what Spain is doing in their own country isn’t insensitive at all; it is those that immigrate that need to be sensitive to the evil “west.”

    I am a multiracial (african american/mexican american) who has lived in Europe off and on, and i truly feel this is a step in the right direction.

    After so many years of ignoring immigrant women and immigrant issues because one, its easier and two, male dominated cultures insist that this is multiculturalism , i say “bravo” to Spain for getting out there and in your face, and saying, “we will not tolerate this!!!”

  42. InJM wrote:

    I wouldn’t have known that those images someone didn’t tell me.

  43. Michelle wrote:

    I understand on some level the correlation between male and female circumcision, but I think that medically speaking, they are very different things. I am not a doctor so I can’t speak to the differences, but I would say that whether or not a man can achieve an orgasm without his foreskin (or with, for that matter) is not debatable.

    Also, I do think that girls who are have become westernized (just because they live in the West) should not be forced into the practice. I would imagine that it would be incredibly painful and isolating, without reaping the societal benefits of inclusion and achieving a higher social status. Outside of the context of village and tribal life, outside of the context of the culture that practices the tradition, I would think that the tradition would cause a deep sense of pain and shame.

  44. Treacle wrote:

    To sfmiki:

    Calling someone’s comments “PC” is often a method of derailing the conversation and trivializing the person’s remarks.

    In other words, it’s a good way to stop a dialogue, not start one.

  45. lechatnoir wrote:

    @ Abu Sinan. female circumcision may not be a muslim practice but it is practiced mostly by the majority of moslem socities. Of course you would not know since you have never explored the vast african moslem landscape. countries where the majority of citizens are moslems are not neccessarely islamic.As a Futa-toro an a Mourid i am know what i am talking about.

    @smfiki,

    they are targetting villagers ( the lower class ) and you are happy with it ? you just glance at the add while drinking tea then you decided to post. Models such as the late er.. Katoucha Niane has been through the genital circumcision ( her parents were diplomats) . Waris Dirie has been through it as well she was also a model.

    France’s posh femi Nazi are not dealing with any issues involving female immigrants and especially the brown ones.
    racism is a very profitable business it sells only when there is a controversy

  46. jd wrote:

    Korolev - the problem with equating Female Genital Cutting with Islam isn’t just that it isn’t universally practices within Islam. It’s also problematic because it’s usually universally practiced in a region or among an ethnic group, and many of the groups that cut are religiously heterogeneous. Focusing on Muslims that cut ignores all the Christians (protestant and Catholic - don’t know why the Pope can’t get off his ass and at least TRY to talk about that) and practitioners of other religions that also cut.

  47. dramelyrique wrote:

    The dolls are also in traditional, “ethnic” roles.. Working in the fields and carrying wood on their heads or their backs. My impression is that FGM also happens in urban centers and this ad seems stereotype the kind of girl or woman who has undergone it. Some might even assume that it only takes place in rural communities in underdeveloped countries and is more of a cultural or religious issue after seeing that ad, while those campaigning against FGM are arguing that it is a feminist issue.

    And would they have used blow-up dolls if the settings for the ad took place in Europe? It may be effective in garnering a lot of attention but it seems like more people are going to be preoccupied with the appropriateness of the ad rather than the issue of FGM itself. It doesn’t seem like it would gain much support among actual victims of FGM, who probably have more influence on their communities (that continue to practice it) than anyone else.

  48. DivergentDana wrote:

    Okay, what’s with the “feminazi” appellation? Lechatnoir, why do you believe this term is appropriate? It’s commonly used because of the feminist stance regarding abortion, which their opponents who refer to them in that way see as genocide. Do you feel likewise?

  49. Natalia wrote:

    You know what can also help attain group membership? Honour killing. Both men and women can rally around excising a “bad seed” from their family and community then.

    Now, these ads were more than a little disturbing. I know several women who had FGM performed on them as children, and I doubt they’d appreciate them at all. At the same time, they are obviously one woman’s interpretation of what FGM can do. And yes, I am pretty sure that other survivors of FGM will see this ad - they live all over the world, you know.

    It’s not always “the West and the rest.” People differ in their opinions regarding of their background.

  50. Whitney wrote:

    I am “Western” and I am against FGM is because it is usually done without anesthesia, with dirty utensils, and not done by medical doctors. It is extremely painful and often gets infected. I am against FGM, just as I am against male circumcision because it often is not consensual and causes a great amount of harm to the genitalia. I am not against it because it reduces female sexual pleasure, although I do think that it is a form of control that men have over women, and that many men believe that if they do not have any sexual pleasure, they will not be unfaithful to their husbands. I think that women should be able to make their own informed decisions about this, and not have societal pressure and be forced to do it.

    @kim h2os….plastic surgery is elective and consensual and done by medical doctors and is done with anesthesia. It’s also not required to have plastic surgery in order to be a part of the group or to get a husband. I have never had plastic surgery, and I am accepted by my peers and I have a wonderful boyfriend. He actually prefers “natural” women. If a woman does not have plastic surgery she isn’t seen as “unclean” and correct me if I am wrong, but it is the cultural belief in areas that have the practice of FGM, women who do not have it done are seen as unclean and seen as “less desiring” to men and are thus ostracized from the community.

    Also, most of the time, it is done on female children and without their consent. If it was consensual and done in a safe, clean environment by medical doctors and anesthesia is used, fine. I don’t care, that’s their choice. But if it is forced? No.

    @Korolev–I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

    Anyways, I understand what the ads are saying and I don’t find them offensive after they are dissected. Upon first glance, yes, but I think that many people here have already explained what is meant by them.

  51. Renee wrote:

    One of the most horrible things about FGM is that it happens to girls, not women. A child cannot consent to this procedure. In the west a child cannot consent to having her/his tonsils removed so how could they possible consent to having their genitals cut away. FGM is not a decision made by an autonomous woman.

  52. lowercase tasha wrote:

    “While I certainly respect Mama Samateh’s perspective as a survivor of female gential mutiliation, I can’t believe it’s the only one. Ms. Wade’s piece is grounded in a literature that contains a multiplicity of opinions from other survivors of female genital mutiliation. In dismissing the literature her piece is grounded in, you’re also dismissing the perspectives of other survivors who may disagree with Mama Samateh.”

    @Treacle

    but why do you assume that Wade was basing her intrepretation of the ads on the opinions and literature of FGM/FGC survivors in her research? There’s really no evidence suggesting that in this post. Read the sentence above the first photo and the subsequent paragraphs below. Wade is editorializing and giving HER opinion of why SHE finds the ads offensive, not basing her analysis on the opinions of FGM/FGC survivors that she’s encountered through her research. In the beginning of the post, Wade offers her academic credentials and touches on how Western feminism views achieving clitoral orgasm as an extention of women’s liberation, whereas many women in places where the cutting is prevalent have a different perspective. I’m with kiki on this. Mama Samateh is trying to tell us something, and we ought to listen because she is the cutting survivor who helped develop the campaign, not Wade, and as such, it is Samateh’s perspective, not Wade’s that should take precedence. I respect Wade’s passion and research on this topic, and it looks like she’s shaping up to real insider regarding this issue, but logic dictates that neither Wade, nor any of us, will truly ever attain the level of understanding on FGM/FGC that an actual survivor possesses.

    Wasn’t there this whole dust up about Brown Femipower and Amanda Marcotte from Pandagon, and how she supposedly appropriated BFP’s whole “illegal immigration as feminist issue” schtick on AlterNet? I hadn’t even heard of BFP before that melee, but after reading some of BFP’s work, I couldn’t deny the similarities. To me, this current discussion on these FGC/FGM ads is shades of that. I could be wrong, but I don’t think I saw a shout out to Mama Samateh in Wade’s editorial (sort of like there was no shout out for BFP in Marcotte’s piece). Did she not know that Samateh was involved in the campaign, or did Wade purposely omit Samateh’s role to bolster her argument? This whole discussion has been co-opted and hijacked by Wade’s shallow analysis (and I say shallow because the ommission of Samateh either by error or design is crucial to this debate) and why? Well, most likely because Wade got to us first.

  53. ph2072 wrote:

    Until reading this article, I never thought of it this way. What a great sociological take on this topic. You’ve given me food for thought.

  54. PoissantPic wrote:

    I’m African, it’s disappointing when people refuse to condemn a horrible act such as FGM because “maybe it’s “their” culture”…In my culture women are understood to be inferior to men, so I should just accept it? Sorry, but just because it’s my culture doesn’t mean it’s right. As for the ad, I think they’re trying to bring to light the fact that FGM purely exists to prevent women from experiencing sexual pleasure so she stays with her husband. In my country men hadn’t thought of it yet, but they would definitely do it given the chance!!

  55. Treacle wrote:

    To lowercase tasha:

    I do agree that Wade should have at least given credit to Samateh’s organization if not to Samateh herself and the advertising agency which created this ad.

    I also agree that feminists should move beyond seeing academic credentials as some kind of holy grail for public acceptance (that’s the impression I got from your response; please correct me if I’m wrong).

    Finally, I agree that the perspective of survivors of FGM should not take precedence over the opinions of non-survivors.

    However, in her comment on her original post on the Contexts blog, Wade gives several sources from the literature for her opinion. I firmly believe editorializing and scientific research are not mutually exclusive. In addition, as someone who is also in academia, I know firsthand that you can barely say anything (no matter how obvious or benign) without giving credit to at least a half dozen authors.

    I’ve noticed in several posts that people are assuming Samateh herself created the ad. Does anyone know what role she played in the development, creation, and distribution of this advertisement? Her name does not appear on the credits from ads of the world.

  56. Michelle wrote:

    #54

    I think that we, as people who are not a part of your culture, have to be extremely careful not to disrespect or misunderstand your cultural traditions.

    However, if as a woman who is a part of a culture that practices FGM and you say “This is not acceptable” then as a woman I will stand with you. But you have to admit that there are women who are complicit in the acts of FGM.

  57. octogalore wrote:

    Michelle said: “I do think that girls who are have become westernized (just because they live in the West) should not be forced into the practice. ”

    Does this mean you think girls who have not become westernized should be forced into the practice?

  58. kiki wrote:

    Reading a second or third hand account that has been filtered, transcribed an interpreted through probably more than one privileged white perspective for the expressed use of writing a self serving dissertation is not to me the same as the first person account of a PoC and survivor who is a dedicated activist in this field. I grew up in a part of the U.S that is quite popular with women like Ms. Wade. They write about “tribal” issues, they offer “interpretations” of ceremonies and art, they “analyze and “demystify” and put “into context” lives they do not truly understand using stories and events that do not belong to them…all for academic gain and to make a name for THEMSELVES. And let’s be clear, these are lives, lives with intensely personal experiences grounded in a reality she does not share. She isn’t analyzing the cave painting of a forgotten people. The abuse of these children can’t be reduce to a data point on a chart.

    While I agree that the images are open to interpretation, Ms. Wade went beyond that to interpreting them, not from her own pov but from the pov of an imagined group of survivors for whom she fancies herself a self appointed advocate. I was pointing out that there are WoC who offer first hand accounts of this abuse and its aftermath and so I find it unacceptable that Ms. Wade would have the hubris to attempt to supplant any survivors first hand account so that she can posit her own meta-analysis as a more “learned” replacement. It is ersatz understanding combined with the self righteous offense on anther’s behalf that rubs me wrong. PoC don’t need white academics to explain our damn lives to us and I for one get tired of them creating careers over misappropriating and misinterpreting the lives of PoC for their own damn advancement.

  59. Raina wrote:

    While I agree that this campaign is offensive genital cutting is much more offensive. Women may well retain the ability to orgasm but that is not the fundamental issue i have with it. The issue I have is with cultures that value (if you could call it that) their women in this way. Look at these societies most say that education is wasted on women, they have no ability to determine the course of their own lives especially in the case of your girls who are subjected to this. yes their are women who may submit to this but is that choice… let us cut you or leave… let us cut you or you are not a woman, let us cut you or no one will love you. It also means that you have no right to your sexuality its not your own it belongs to the MEN really. The problem here is choice as much as I personally detest the practice if adult women chose to submit to this knowing the possible outcomes (including death, severe infection, etc) then I could respect that but since we know that is not the case in the majority of situations…no.

  60. Treacle wrote:

    To Kiki:

    Activism and academia are not mutually exclusive categories.

    While I admit that academia is based on an exploitative model (as you indicated by saying that people who write theses and dissertations get all the benefit while their subjects do not), it doesn’t mean all research has to be exploitative.

    Not only is that a very narrow, deterministic view, it’s also, honestly, a slap in the face to feminists who are doing activist and policy-oriented research. Ideally, research and activism go hand in hand.

  61. Raina wrote:

    Oh and in case anyone want to be a smarty I know my post has not been edited. lol

  62. Free wrote:

    Where the ad goes wrong is to suggest an connection between the intelligence and the vagina. Remove the sexual parts and the frontal lateral cortex of the brain ceases to function.

    This is a long post, but since Egypt was mentioned, I thought I’d pass on some information to help people understand what goes on here. Women pass on social norms and customs to their children. And in a country where males can commit honor killings women continue the practice of FGM to protect the family and their daughters. Fathers expect this because family honor means money, prospects, business connections, and marriages are contracts that join families, a consideration over and above the bride and groom. There is no religious basis for FGM. There is a true story of a man who married an uncircumcised woman. During the marriage he demanded that she undergo the operation. She refused and ran home to her mother who promptly called a doctor who performed the operation that night.

    In 2003 UNICEF published a demographic health survey which stated that 97% of Egyptian women of reproductive age have been subjected to the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). This figure is inclusive of people from various social classes and educational levels … [Muslim and Christian]. Whether out of religious belief or social pressure, neither excuses the fact that FGM is an inhumane act - one that has been negated by religious officials and outlawed by the government. - The Community Times (Cairo), Issue 141 2007 Oct.

    Interview quotes:

    Some parents believe that by not anesthetizing the girl, the experience will remain engraved and will keep her away from doing wrong things that will dishonor the family. - Amira, 19, 2nd year Sociology student.

    Everyone complains, but everyone has to go through it whether they like it or not. My eldest daughters complain about their husbands cheating on them … - Fawzeya, 51, house maid

    It used to be very difficult in my younger days - before I got married … he [husband] takes care of me and doesn’t make me feel any less of a woman … makes my feelings from him grow, and this replaces any sexual emotions I might lack. - Sahar, 32, accountant

    They’re kind [her parents], moderate Egyptians; traditional but not extreme or devoutly religious. They are both educated. - Sahar

    It’s for a girls reputation. - Hanan, 16, has an Egyptian high school diploma

    I remember that day [of FGM] more than I remember yesterday or even this past hour. - Amira

    …it’s just like any other operation … It is one of the best things that can happen to a girl. - Hanan

    I could have died while doing any other operation, not just circumcision. It’s kadaa we kadar (fate). No one escapes their fate. - Fawzeya

  63. lowercase tasha wrote:

    I also agree that feminists should move beyond seeing academic credentials as some kind of holy grail for public acceptance (that’s the impression I got from your response; please correct me if I’m wrong).

    @Treacle

    Well yes and no. My grievance is not with feminists viewing academic credentials as a “holy grail” per se, because, I firmly believe that Wade didn’t have to be a PhD candidate to inspire this type of negative reaction towards the campaign (do you read this blog?). She could have been any would be journalist or blogger with an ax to grind, and as long as her editorial was the first POV presented and was the most exposed, then her opinion would have expectedly been perceived as the default authority, inspiring legions of lemmings to happily follow her towards the edge of the cliff. On the other hand, Wade’s academic credentials do lend her credibility and cache, especially among the crowd that would most likely be outraged by these ads. But see, now, and here’s my problem. PhD candidate or not, we’ve just established that Wade is guilty of a gross oversight (Mama Samateh) due to negligence or intent, but instead of that omission disqualifying her editorial, there are those who are still intent on following Wade over the cliff. Why prioritize the view of a flawed FGC essayist over that of the FGM survivor who helped create the campaign?

  64. macintyre wrote:

    Oh man, Spain is decades behind the US in race issues, to say the least. There’s a great new autobiography called “Kinky Gazpacho” by Lori Tharps, a black woman who’s spent a lot of time there and married a Spanish man, about the subject. Latoya, I bet you could get a free review copy if you wrote the publisher, Simon and Schuster. It’s a quick, enjoyable read that fits right in to the topics you blog about.

    http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=536527

  65. gorgeous black women wrote:

    Controversial as my view point may be for those in the PC circles, I do think this IS the one of the goals of FGM. I wouldn’t say that women are nothing without all their sexual organs. After all, a woman who has a mastectomy or hysterectomy is no less a woman. There is a big difference between mutilating a girl’s sexual organs to “tame” her and her urges, possibly killing her in the process by the way, and removing them for medical purposes. When taming involves eliminating god-given pleasure and normal function (increasing menstrual problems, infections, pain from sex, complications from pregnancy and child birth), yes, the woman is being reduced to a blow-up doll as well as an incubator for her husband’s seed.

  66. Roberto wrote:

    I’m Spanish. I think genital mutilation is wrong. Any mutilation is wrong. Sorry, but there’s no alternative way to see it. If this makes me an asshole, so be it, we are what we are.

    This ad campaign is just excellent in my opinion and goes straight to the point. Controversial? Of course, that was its intention.

    @macyntire, we may be many years behind the US in terms of racial relations, but I’m pretty sure it won’t take us 200 years to figure out how to deal with diversity. No other country in the world (and that includes the US) has received so many immigration in such a short period of time as Spain has. We are doing reasonably well and are willing to learn and do even better in the future. Patronizing attitudes like yours won’t help.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.