I'm attending the IMI 9th Annual Conference at American this week and am actually blogging about the conference - check out my musings and those of the other super cool scholarship recipients at http://imiannualconferenceblog.blogspot.com/.
For those of you who are into this sort of stuff (you must be if you're reading this!), IMI is a great networking and professional development tool, I definitely recommend that you consider joining.
This website may just be my new favorite thing ever: www.cal.org/co
In particular, I highly recommend the following resources for those of us working with Iraqis:
http://www.cal.org/co/iraqi/iraqitxt.html (written in 1995, but still good)
http://www.cal.org/co/muslims/muslim_refugees_final.pdfIt's been a good day for cultural insight, as this is my fourth post today. I cringed while I was reading this article, as I do anytime I read anything about this topic. The thought of anyone holding a knife down there really makes me queasy. I doubt anything could bring me around the idea that infibulation (the most drastic form of FGM, usually performed without anesthesia or sterile instruments) is anything less than barbaric. It's a way of controlling method by physically (and permanently) restricting their ability to walk or do much of anything without excruciating pain, much like the Chinese foot-binding tradition. Recently though, the Western media has been seeing more and more articles like this one urging Westerners to at least take into account the cultural reasons why parents (including mothers) choose to have the procedure performed on their daughters. This is step away from outright bans adopted from the top down, which tend to only drive practitioners underground. I applaud this approach for its pragmatism; lasting change is more likely if it comes from within a society, and for international rights groups to be effective they need to understand the cultural reasons why women in particular believe that FGM is beneficial. I was struck by this quote from the (male) chair of social services of the Assalaam Foundation"
“One, it will stabilize her libido. Two, it will make a woman look more beautiful in the eyes of her husband. And three, it will balance her psychology.”
To me, "stabilizing the libido" means reducing the likelihood of infidelity by reducing (or removing completely, in some cases) female sexual pleasure. From my cultural perspective (ie, as a Western woman) this is unacceptable, and I find the implied assumption that a woman who can feel sexual pleasure will be unfaithful to her husband demeaning. But I accept that this assumption is part of the cultural reality in many parts of the world.
The second reason I find very interesting - I'm not sure how FGM would make a woman "more beautiful in the eyes of her husband," but maybe some of my male readers can enlighten me here. However, there is a striking parallel with elective plastic surgery as performed in the West, including so-called "vaginal rejuvenation" surgery. The key difference though is the FGM is performed on young girls, including infants who have no say in the matter, whereas in the West elective plastic surgery is performed on adult women, with their consent. This isn't to discount the normative pressures from the media, society, or a woman's partner that women are under, but there is an element of choice that simply isn't present in the majority of FGM cases.
Finally, I'm not sure I understand the reference to "psychology" - any thoughts? Please don't be shy!
Posts
All Comments
