The Vagina Monologues

PART 4 OF 4

I agree entirely with Barbara Bergmann's comments and have always found
bizarre the insistence on the part of some feminists that any criticism of
something done in any other culture must immediately be matched by something
as bad if not worse in our own culture.   I cann't understand political
action not based on the ability to draw distinctions and say some things are
worse than others.  I also often think that behind this is a very peculiar
bias against one's own country (if it's the US), and even embarrassment at
ever recognizing the many ways in which people here  -- gasp, even wmen! --
are better off than many people in other countries. The bad faith of such
attitudes seems to me evident when one compares the apparent respect for
"local culturs" of other countries only -- but not of fundamentalists, or
Mormons, or white supremacists here?  all of which, after all, represent
particular subcultures or local cultures.  This, to me, is an incoherent
feminism.  Yes, it was nice to get over ethnocentrism and other limited
views -- but simply reversing them is hardly an improvement in the quality
of our thinking or action.

D. Patai
daphne.patai AT spanport.umass.edu

I'm not sure that Daphne's post was in response to
mine, but I just want to note that her notion of
"matching" FGM to something just "as bad" in our
culture couldn't be further from my point.  Once
again, I'm simply talking about providing a context
for discussing this issue, and hey -- we practice
genital mutilation here in the U.S., so there's some
easily available cultural references for comparison
and analysis.

Just to make it as clear as I possibly can:  I often
find that my predominantly white students here in SD
are pretty unfamiliar with anything to do with
racial/ethnic groups that are not Scandinavian.  So I
find it very helpful to point out that white,
educated, wealthy, Christian Americans practice
genital mutilation on a regular basis when I teach
about FGM.  This allows students to understand how
culture, religion, societal norms, and so on factor
into these kinds of social problems.  It opens the
door to discuss other ways in which cultural practices
have painfully altered women's bodies (Barbara
mentioned footbinding, for instance, or we could talk
about the epidemic of anorexia in the U.S.).

Perhaps part of the issue here is that I'm not talking
about deciding that "some things are worse than
others," as Daphne feels is necessary.  I don't see
why it's necessary to even think about it this way --
I mean, can't we agree that something is bad and work
to end it?  Why must we decide that something is worse
than something else?  I'm not interested in presenting
a hierarchy of bad things to students -- I'd rather
have them think through the implications and try to
come to a greater understanding of what the cultural
issues are and what is then necessary in order to
create change.

I guess I'm just not understanding why, in order to
talk about FGM, some seem to feel it's necessary to
ignore any sort of contextual discussion.  Frankly, I
think not providing any such context does a real
disservice to the students.

Jessica Nathanson

Dr. Jessica Nathanson
Instructor, English and Gender Studies
Augustana College
Kilian Community College
janathanson AT yahoo.com

To: WMST-L AT LISTSERV.UMD.EDU

Hello!

These might have already been suggested, however there are a couple
readings that I feel are **quite crucial** in approaching and addressing
issues & debates around female circumcision/genital mutilation/genital
surgeries, as well as issues & debates around veiling, sati and others.

I find them crucial in terms of (among other things) supporting a politics
of solidarity built on the *refusal* to reinscribe the very relations,
ideologies, and systems of oppression and privilege that so many claim to
want to eradicate.  The following books are also crucial, I believe, in
terms of challenging discursive colonization (including the construction
and representation of "third world women" as "other"), challenging the
"action/no action bind," and last but not least, the critical importance
of self-reflexive analysis with repsect to all of the aforementioned.
Borrowing from Gunning, good intentions are simply *not* enough. Critical,
self-reflective anlaysis and constant vigilance must be continuously
undertaken. Please take a look (or perhaps another look) at the following:

*Chilla Bulbeck "Re-Orienting Western Feminisms" (see especially her use
of Gunning's work on 'world travelling' and her use of Val Plumwood's
strategies for thinking outside of and deconstructing dualisms)

*Chandra Mohanty "Feminism Without Borders"

*Adrien KAtherine Wing "Global Critical Race Feminism"

*Lewis and Mills "Feminist Postcolonial Theory"

Best,
Jesse U.
**********
Jessica LeAnn Urban
Interim Program Leader and Assistant Professor
Women's Studies Program
Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA 95521
jlu5 AT humboldt.edu 
**********

"For positive social change to occur we must imagine a reality that
differs from what already exists." --Gloria Anzald+¦a, 2002

> Just to make it as clear as I possibly can:  I often
> find that my predominantly white students here in SD
> are pretty unfamiliar with anything to do with
> racial/ethnic groups that are not Scandinavian.  So I
> find it very helpful to point out that white,
> educated, wealthy, Christian Americans practice
> genital mutilation on a regular basis when I teach
> about FGM.  This allows students to understand how
> culture, religion, societal norms, and so on factor
> into these kinds of social problems.  It opens the
> door to discuss other ways in which cultural practices
> have painfully altered women's bodies (Barbara
> mentioned footbinding, for instance, or we could talk
> about the epidemic of anorexia in the U.S.).

A good way in I have found for this is talking about the "reality shows"
where women go under the knife and are resculpted to some weird model.  Or
botox.  Or breast enlargement [which they should understand gives women no
pleasure in their breasts but instead removes pleasure.]  Liposuction.

All the tortures to which women including teenaged girls are putting
themselves through, mutilation as bad as foot binding.  these are
mutilations with which they are totally familiar.

marge piercy

>>If a black New Yorker deplores a crime committed by a white in
Mississippi, where the ethos is very different, is that ethnocentrism?
If the anwser is no, then why can't we deplore a crime against humanity
committed in Africa?<<

We can, but:

1.  It is incumbent on us to truly understand what it is and what it isn't.
Much of the Western rhetoric about FGM is full of faulty understandings of
its causes and consequences.

2.  It really does make sense to follow the lead of insiders -- members of
these cultures themselves -- in working against the practice.  Western
pronouncements often sound like cultural imperialism even to anti-FGM
activists in the countries concerned.

3.  We ought to give feminists in the countries concerned enough credit to
assume that if this item isn't the top one on their agenda, they might have
a good reason.

  -- Gina Oboler <roboler AT ursinus.edu>

    I submit that the problem with Ensler's take on FGM is that her method,
essentially snowball sample ethnography, is inherently poor at placing
cultural practices in their social context.  The same problem exists with
Western discourses upon "Intersex Genital Mutilation" (IGM).  In particular,
neither examines the possibly surprising links between FGM, IGM, lesbianism,
and feminism.
    In "The Renaissance of Lesbianism in Early Modern England", Valerie
Traub examines 17th century anatomy texts to find that European physicians
were not only aware that clitoridectomy was practiced culturally in Africa,
but recommended clitoridectomy , and presumably practiced it, upon any
"girl" born with a clitoris that might become long enough to permit "her" to
penetrate another female or male.  I place "girl" in quotes because, given
the lack of medical knowledge, a large number of these children were
probably sexual males with unfused scrotums, although many were also
fetally-androgenized females.  At any event, western European physicians
sought to practice a very similar "therapy" as Dr. Money and the pediatric
urologists actually "accomplished" with the "John/Joan" case, 300 years
before.

    Why?  According to Traub, the physicians sought to eliminate "tribades",
women with a clitoris long enough to penetrate another women, a word and
concept that originates with the ancient Greeks, who spoke of "tribas."  In
the 1600's, while western Europeans were confident that "normal women" were
both physically and emotionally incapable of making love to each other--then
often called the "amor impossibilis"--they believed with equal certainty
that a "tribade" was BOTH emotionally and physically likely to seek a woman
for her lover.  Therefore, whenever a woman or girl was suspected of having
made love to another woman or girl, her genitalia were physically examined.
If she were found to be such a "tribade", she was often presumed guilty of
"sodomy" or "buggery," which was usually punished by execution.
    As Europeans knew that genuine "tribades" were rare among Europeans,
they presumed that tribades must be nearly universal among Africans, since
they knew that clitoridectomy was nearly universal among African females!
Of course, this deduction was congruent with the general tendency of
Europeans to exoticize Africans of all races.  Moreover, 17th century
Europeans clearly saw the Africans themselves, not their practice of
clitoridectomy, to be strange and exotic--moreover, Europeans did not
condemn clitoridectomy (also presumably, related practices like sewing shut
the vagina).  Western and Central Europeans might have also performed
clitoridectomy (and might still today) if they had believed that female
sexuality was uncontrollable by lesser means.

    In short, both the European search for "tribades" and the African
practice of clitoridectomy arise from the same patriarchist determination to
seize and control female sexuality.  Likewise, present-day IGM is often
motivated by the same urge to control female sexuality; physicians commonly
pressure parents of intersexed children to authorize genital surgery by
asking them, "Do you want your girl to be a lesbian?"  History will likely
marvel that physicians in the 20th and 21st centuries connected the desire
of girls and women for other girls and women with the length of the clitoris
like their counterparts 400 years earlier.  Moreover, IGM is clearly a
feminist issue, because it is not only a violation of human bodies, but a
manifestation of a most violent homophobia: A desire to eliminate lesbians
and an abiding refusal to accept lesbianism as a valid expression of
sexuality.

Hannah Miyamoto
hsmiyamoto AT msn.com

Recommended source:  Traub, Valerie.  The Renaissance of Lesbianism in Early
Modern England.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.   (494 pp.)

from "Barbara R. Bergmann" <bbergman AT WAM.UMD.EDU>
>>If a black New Yorker deplores a crime committed by a white in
Mississippi, where the ethos is very different, is that ethnocentrism?
If the anwser is no, then why can't we deplore a crime against humanity
committed in Africa?<<

That's not quite the same. In court, I could object that you are being
argumentative, nonresponsive.
You're deflecting.
Ostensibly, the United States is all one culture. Even though it is not, it
is one nation with the same federal laws that apply everywhere and equalize
behaviour.

I didn't argue for not deploring crimes against humanity. I find FGM
appalling and awful.
But I put on the brakes before I ready to go charging in and violate another
culture's right to its own practices and beliefs.
Is that my place to tell another culture how to function based on my views
shaped within my culture?

For all that, I would stop FGM if I ruled the world. But I urge for
recognition of the grey areas in these "judgements."

>When I teach FGM in my classes, I tell the students that though we make
>think this practice is abhorrent, (and I do), that for the women in that
culture
>it is normal. They feel a bond because of it and pity women from other
>cultures who do not experience that same bond because of that shared
experience.
>
>>How do you know that? Is a "bond" worth a mutilation that affects sexual
functioning and can have serious health effects? Even if  many are glad
about it, those who aren't  shouldn't  have to go through with it. How
horrible does the "shared experience" have to be before you will say
it's a bad custom and decent people everywhere on earth should fight it?
Would you have also been against criticizing foot-binding?<<

I am not against criticizing either, as is clear even in this section you
quoted.
I do think both customs are awful. I was just trying to get my students (and
you) to see that this is not so black and white. It's not like a totalitarian
regime that wrongfully incarcerates and tortures and if those prisoners were
freed, they would not perpetuate the same torture and imprisonment against
others (in most cases). These are women who are mutilated as children and then
later as adults mutilate children.
Do the women in the culture want to stop the practice of FGM?
I think it should be stopped. But I don't think the practices of another
culture should be decided by me or by you.
Perhaps if educated and shown another way so that they would want to stop on
their own without being forced to stop by some other culture that arrogantly
believes it knows better would be the better solution.
Then again, if presented with options, perhaps the women in these cultures
would opt to continue the practice under more sterile conditions to avoid the
"serious health effects." What then? Just because we find their practice
abhorrent, if they choose it, does that give us the right to force them to abolish
it? And that wouldn't work anyway. It would go on in secret for at least a
generation or two.

Star Trek has the Prime Directive. It's like that.

Daphne Patai <daphne.patai AT SPANPORT.UMASS.EDU>
>>Yes, it was nice to get over ethnocentrism and other limited
views -- but simply reversing them is hardly an improvement in the quality
of our thinking or action.<<

True. But I did not argue for reversals. I was simply explaining my views.
I think there is a dense grey area in this issue that makes me put on the
brakes.
Recognizing my own ethnocentrism, doesn't change the fact that I find FGM
disgusting.
But it does give me pause before I tell others what they should think and do.


peace
chris tower
Western Michigan University
gmrstudios2 AT cs.com

It's interesting to see how this conversation has mushroomed into various
topics concerning female genitalia and the effectiveness of Ensler's VM.

However, I would say that there are two key issues we must never forget:

1.  The need for intersectionality in our discussions of gender.

I really appreciate Hannah Miyamoto's shared insights on how race, gender,
and sexuality play a historical role in the medicalization/pathologization
of female sexuality - from Eurocentric views of Africa to homophobic
responses to "ambiguous" sex organs to misogynistic expressions about
female genitalia.

As already pointed out by others, Ensler's problem - as well as those who
UNCRITICALLY defend VM - is her failure to intersect gender with race,
class, and sexuality.  And, I find it extremely disturbing that some
self-identified feminists on this list cannot distinguish between feminist
intellectual, critical responses to other feminists and woman-hating,
anti-feminist and racist rhetoric from the right that simultaneously
dismisses Ensler's work for using the "V" word while also viewing
practices like genital surgeries as a "barbaric" practice in an equally
"barbaric" continent that is Africa. If we're going to critique genital
surgeries, or what others have called FGM, the more politically charged
term, then we need to make sure our criticism does NOT mirror
ultra-conservative racist sentiments about "Africa." In order to NOT
mirror such sentiments, an intersectional analysis toward the issues
surrounding female genitalia must be in place, and as feminists, we MUST
be able to listen to and respond CRITICALLY when other feminists call
these issues into question.

Eve Ensler is not above criticism from other feminists, and we should all
be wary if we think that we should refrain from criticism, which is NOT
the same as attack. How else are we supposed to grow and evolve in our
thinking?

When African feminists walked out on Alice Walker's "Warrior Marks" years
ago, for instance, they weren't saying that they didn't agree with her
stance against genital surgeries.  They were saying that they had serious
problems with her uncritical, neocolonialist gaze on the entire African
continent.  According to the film, "Africa" was one big COUNTRY, one big
CULTURE in which this "barbaric" practice emerged. Unfortunately, plays
like VM perpetuate a similar "Western gaze."

The fact that we talk of FGM as an "African" practice, and not one person
can tell us which "African" culture and which "African" country to which
they are referring is a problem.  Are we not aware of the vast nations,
cultures, languages, customs that exist on this gigantic continent? Yet,
when we talk of Africa, when we imagine the bodies of African women, we
immediately focus on their "mutilated vaginas," and quite frankly, it's
pretty hard to recognize a woman's shared humanity with us when we're too
busy staring between her legs.

When men do this to our bodies, we're pretty clear that we've been reduced
to sex objects.  When women do this to other women's bodies, what
different power dynamics are at play, which relate to race and
nationality, especially when those races and nationalities exist in a
political and socio-cultural hierarchy?

Which brings us to key issue #2:

2. The need for our dismantling of colonialism and racism.

As long as we continue to see African women in this way, we will never be
able to connect this topic to other issues affecting women globally.  As
long as we perpetuate the colonial gaze, we will never be able to critique
U.S. imperialism and the effects of its own colonial gaze on the "rest" of
the world.  And as much as Ensler makes efforts to "internationalize"
V-Day, if she's unable to engage on an equal level of trust, respect and
mutuality and in true spirit and solidarity with other feminists around
the world (which is all the Bring Our Daughters Home group was asking of
her in their open letter), then what is she doing that is so different
from other colonizing forces associated with the "West"?

If Western feminism can't extricate itself from Western imperialism, then
not only will we cease to be effective in building global women's
movements, but our "feminist rhetoric" will easily be appropriated by
those who wish to perpetuate global dominance (warfare, global
corporations, etc).

Peace,
Janell Hobson
jhobson AT albany.edu

I find FGE (female genital excision) to be a more descriptive and
less inflammatory term, and see that it is being used by African
activists also, such as the Kembatta Centre for Women in Ethiopia,
founded by Boge Gebre. See http://www.kmgselfhelp.org/
Like Tostan in Senegal  http://www.tostan.org/news_dec07_03.htm  they
do community education using theater, video, and other modes, and are
active in forced early marriage and HIV education and prevention.

I think the term excision is also preferable not simply because it is
less inflammatory but less hurtful to women who have undergone it as
well. How does it feel to a woman to be told, You are mutilated?
Being  considerate does not require keeping silent, or minimizing the
harm. We don't say rape victims, we say rape survivors.

On this subject, I am putting together a presentation Taming the
Female Body which addresses not only the historic forms of binding,
cutting-off, breaking and confining women's bodies, but links them to
current patterns, especially those involving plastic surgery. An
analogous form of genital excision in the US today is called "labial
reduction", in which the inner labia are sliced off, but there are
also "vaginal tucks" for aging women fearful of husbands' straying.
These interventions are not equally severe, but I see a continuum
here, as with footbinding, as Marge has pointed out. And she is right
that the home-grown varieties tend not to be perceived as harmful. We
all know about breast implants, and then there are the high-risk but
increasingly popular gastric bypass surgeries, the unnecessary
caesarians and hysterectomies, and so on. (Taming the Female
premieres in Berkeley CA on Mar 30, interested local people can
contact me offlist for details.)

Max
--
Max Dashu
Suppressed Histories Archives
Global Women's History
http://www.suppressedhistories.net

[In response to Jessica Nathanson]

Be frank: Do you think we should stop paying attention to FGM in Africa?
Who are you trying to help  when you get us to do that? Or do you think
that letting African societies off the hook is more important than
preventing African girls from being painfully mutilated?
As to who does more mutilation:. In many societies in Africa FGM is
universal.  Ambiguous genitalia are quite rare, and in any case, there
is now a movement in the US to stop operating on them. Circumcsion of
males is also going out , and in any case, it does not have the severe
effect that FGM has.

******************
Barbara R. Bergmann    bbergman AT wam.umd.edu
Professor Emerita of Economics,
American University and University of Maryland
Mailing address: 5430 41 Place NW, DC 20015
*******************

Responding to Barbara Bergmann's post:

I think if you'll reread my post you'll see that I am
not arguing that we should stop paying attention to
FGM in Africa.  I am arguing that we should START
paying attention to genital mutilation in the U.S.
(and other countries).  I am also arguing that we
should start presenting FGM in a different context
rather than perpetuate the (quite frankly) racist ways
in which it is sometimes presented, as something that
"backward" societies who don't know any better
practice, and as an issue that African women need
American women to take the lead in.  (Remember the
negative response that Alice Walker got from African
feminists re. her film on this issue (was it "Warrior
Marks?")?)

If you believe that I am suggesting we let African
societies "off the hook," then you have misread me.  I
don't understand why you see arguing for a broader
context in such discussions as equivalent to ignoring
FGM.

However, it seems from your comments that you feel
that genital mutilation in the U.S. is not worthy of
attention because ambiguous genitals are rare and
because male circumcision is less widely practiced
than it once was.  I don't think either argument is
convincing (or very reassuring for those who have had
their clitorises excised).  Either we are against
genital mutilation or we are not.  But my own personal
views on this issue aside, don't you think that
bringing all of this into the classroom would be a
valuable exercise for students?  And wouldn't it avoid
the ethnocentric approach to teaching FGM that so many
feminists have been frustrated by?

Jessica Nathanson

Dr. Jessica Nathanson
Instructor, English and Gender Studies
Augustana College
Kilian Community College
janathanson AT yahoo.com

I thought the list would be interested in this.  My
student's father is a scientist who spent twenty years
in Madagascar (returning to the U.S. several years
ago).  Here is what he had to say about FGM in
Madagascar:
"There is no female genital mutilation in Madgscr. It
is an issue in East
Africa (Kenya and Tanzania), however.
Male circumcision is a cultural thing in Madgscr. Just
south of Diego
hundreds of young boys (5-15 years old) are
circumcised every 5 years or so.
My issue was that they used the same bloody knife. A
risk for HIV transmission."

I thought this supported the idea that genital
mutilation, in general, is more complex than it
frequently seems to be in our classroom conversations.
 I don't really want to begin this argument anew --
just thought you all would be interested if you didn't
already know about this.

Jessica Nathanson

Dr. Jessica Nathanson
Instructor, English and Gender Studies
Augustana College
Kilian Community College
janathanson AT yahoo.com