How not to be a feminist
Example A: endorsing female genital cutting.
Let me clarify that what I really mean is “how not to be a public feminist.” It sounds funny as a post title, though.
48 Responses to “How not to be a feminist”
-
votermom says:
Since FGM is still illegal in the USofA, isn’t the AAP advocating criminal activity? Is there a statute for that?
May 10th, 2010 at 4:59 pm EST -
Toonces says:
Yeah, I saw that. Of course she argues in favor. And of course the first comment is about male circumcision. All those parents who have had to get their little boys circumcised when they’re old enough to remember it because they were getting horrible infections? LIARS!!!
-
anna says:
Well, I’m not wild about male circumcision. Getting medically unnecessary surgery for an infant who can’t consent seems wrong; if later they do require it for infections, then that would be sensible, but not to just do it routinely a few days after birth.
That said, if anyone wants to compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation they can fuck right off. A circumcised male can still enjoy sex and have orgasms; the whole purpose of mutilating women’s genitals (no, I will not call it female circumcision since it is nothing like male circumcision) is to remove all sexual pleasure and make sex painful so they will be good little faithful wives and not have sex before marriage.
-
PaulA says:
anna said : Getting medically unnecessary surgery for an infant who can’t consent seems wrong
I agree with anna, but I would go even further:
Getting medically unnecessary surgery for an infant who can’t consent IS wrong.So is, btw, cutting girls’ genitals.
-
Pat says:
Most Americans are blind to the fact that what is routinely done to newborn boys here, whether for religious or dubious “health” reasons is no better than the FGM they vehemently rail against. Not to mention the AAP is just talking about a “prick”, far less invasive than foreskin amputation.
-
Sameol says:
My opinion of her couldn’t be any lower, but I’m still kind of stunned, frankly. Good thing the ERA never passed, the feminist issue of the future will probably be relegating women to official, legal subhuman status. That would have made it harder.
-
Violet Socks says:
Hey, you know what, Pat? You’re full of shit.
-
Big Fat Feminist says:
Wow. So FGM is okay, as long as it’s only a little bit? And we should nick baby girls’ clitorises so that we aren’t culturally insensitive?
I am without words.
-
quixote says:
We’re living in The Handmaid’s Tale.
It’s not even the barbarism. It’s that people no longer see anything wrong with it. How did this happen? When did it happen? {o_O}
The appalling ignorance of plain old anatomy is also shocking in its own way. I wrote a post about female genital mutilation a while back. There’s more detail there, but just for the “circumcision” crowd:
Based on the density of nerves, removing the foreskin from the clitoris is like removing a person’s eyelids. Removing the male foreskin is somewhat like exposing the inside of the mouth. Even at that level (for most women involved it’s way more mutilation than that) the two are not remotely the same.
-
Violet Socks says:
If only Amanda and the AAP had been around to help with the Chinese campaign against footbinding back in the day. They could have worked for a nice in-between solution, ritually breaking little girls’ feet and letting them heal over.
Or when they outlawed suttee in India — if only Amanda had been around to propose ritual burning instead. Scarred, but still alive! Better for everyone.
-
Carmonn says:
What on Earth happened to Amanda? I understand she’s wanted to be an access blogger and join the big boyz’ club for a while now, but my god, when did she morph into Camille Paglia?
I expect to see her on a book tour to introduce new techniques in compassionate stoning any day now.
-
Astraea says:
Oh my god I was so angry when I saw that! I posted a link to the press release from Equality Now, which points out that the AAP has now removed all reference to gender discrimination in their policy. And that people whose only way out of being forced to subject their daughters to FGM while living in the US was that it is illegal and legit doctors won’t do it now don’t have that. But I didn’t go back to read any comments after that because I just couldn’t take it.
-
votermom says:
I will say that learning about FGM (which I never heard of before immigrating to the USA) has actually made me realize that all unecessary medical operations on children are unethical. I don’t care how scary the deity who tells you to do it.
-
anna says:
“And that people whose only way out of being forced to subject their daughters to FGM while living in the US was that it is illegal and legit doctors won’t do it now don’t have that.”
It is still illegal. The AAP have made a recommendation to legalize this “ritual nick” disgusting idea, but it still remains illegal.
However, it is NOT yet illegal to send girls to other countries for the purpose of female genital mutilation. PLEASE call your congresspeople and ask them to support the Girls Protection Act, which would illegalize this.
-
anna says:
I hope everyone will call their congresspeople and encourage them to support the Girls Protection Act, which would illegalize taking girls out of the country for the purpose of female genital mutilation.
You can find your congressperson’s contact information here: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
-
anna says:
Oh sorry for the double post, my first post didn’t go through. Anyway, I’m heading over to Pandagon to see if I can bring some sense to the conversation.
-
Ciccina says:
Just read Amanda’s piece and the items she linked to. I am beyond horrified.
What is wrong with these people? They act like an ostensibly little “nick” that ostensibly won’t lead to physical disfigurement is no big deal for a girl- they have completely forgotten that these girls are living, feeling, trusting human beings?
Male circumcision is a serious issue in its own right, but the comparison to female circumcision utterly counterproductive. What adults should consider is not an analogy between procedures performed on infant-adolescent girls vs. infant boys. What they should consider is how they themselves feel, as adults, about invasive procedures.
Amanda et al should think about how they feel about the “little nick” of novocaine. Many adults find the prospect of an oral injection terrifying, despite understanding why these injections are necessary and knowing that the pain will last only a few seconds. They dread the dentist’s needle even though they themselves elected to have the procedure and showed up for the appointment of their own volition.
Can they not extrapolate from that how a child would experience being forced to undergo a similarly if not more invasive and painful procedure? Being restrained and violated by medical professionals after being betrayed by her own parents? (I mean, do these people think 5 year olds just lay there quietly and calmly while terrifying things are done to them?)
From the victim’s perspective, I see no distinction between this act and child sexual abuse. Sure, the perpetrators don’t “get off” and they think they’re doing the right thing, but from the child’s perspective this is violation, betrayal, trauma – a horror.
That people would even think to bring up the much storied example of an adult woman who chose to undergo FGM is outrageous. Its like comparing rape to sex.
The terrible irony is that more and more progress is being made every day in changing the laws in African countries to outlaw all forms of FGM. Government ministers, medical communities, religious leaders – more and more people in Africa have not just lent their support but taken strong action to eliminate this practice. And then we have no-nothing “cultural-sensitivity” fetishists here in the U.S. thinking they’re doing something positive for people they know nothing about, undermining all that work. People who don’t seem to have taken the time to think about what it would be like to actually experience the procedure they endorse.
Horrifying.
-
Shannon Drury says:
Ditto Votermom and the rest. As a pro-choice mama who believes strongly in bodily autonomy, I was put to the test when I learned my first baby was a boy. Why, all boys get cut, don’t they? I wondered, this after weeping my eyes out at Alice Walker’s reports on FGM. I came to my senses, though.
-
m Andrea says:
Oh my god I was so angry when I saw that! I posted a link to the press release from Equality Now, which points out that the AAP has now removed all reference to gender discrimination in their policy.
The AAP has removed all reference to gender discrimination in what policy, precisely? And can I get an actual source, please?
-
julia says:
Anyone who thinks female mutilation is comparable to male circumcision is utterly ignorant. If you can, read Alice Walker’s Warrior Marks. It will give you nightmares. The look on the little girl’s faces, afterwards, total emptiness, deadness. Their mothers had told them they were going to a party, going to get some sweeets.
Mary Daly has a lot to say about what the male medical establishment has done to women, all in the name of purging us of our filth, in Gyn/Ecology.
-
Shannon Drury says:
Speaking of sense, where did Amanda Marcotte’s go? Since when should vaginas be subjected to only a LITTLE mutilation? Is that like being only a little pregnant?
-
Swannie says:
Contemplating, even for a moment ,any American suggesting or condoning, or rationalising for this “pricking” is enough to make my whole stomach turn violently , and then I could weep for years. Yes, lets condone child abuse by scalpel shall we? And ANY comparison to circumcision is utterly without merit or intelligence.
And to be deliberately redundant , this is what I posted yesterday at Murphys about thisNOW needs to address this as well, and I believe the individual members of the AAP need to get SERIOUS HEAT behind this ..hell somebody stop me from looking them up online and finding where they live and throwing a damn brick thru their windows, and then have them thank me for not burning down the whole fu*king house..
-
Astraea says:
The AAP has removed all reference to gender discrimination in what policy, precisely? And can I get an actual source, please?
The source is the Equality Now press release on the matter, which is on their home page (emphasis mine):
The current policy is a regression from the AAP’s 1998 policy statement Female Genital Mutilation and raises great concern because it denotes a clear shift in addressing the issue. The World Health Organization and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics have unequivocally opposed FGM as a “medically unnecessary” practice, and it is widely recognized that all types of FGM are a form of gender-based violence. Stemming from this perspective, the AAP’s 1998 statement sees the practice as a human rights violation, opposes all forms of FGM, and cautions pediatricians about their role in “perpetuating a social practice with cultural implications for the status of women.” In contrast, the new 2010 statement no longer uses the term “female genital mutilation” but refers to the practice as “female genital cutting (FGC) or ritual genital cutting,” makes no reference to the discriminatory aspect of FGM, and selectively opposes only those forms of FGM that in its view “pose the risk of physical or psychological harm.”
-
Astraea says:
I meant to say “linked on their home page.”
-
K.A. says:
Why are so many commenters shocked that Amanda is a total fucking moron misogynist piece of shit? It’s not a new development!
-
K.A. says:
My comment got eaten because I used too many expletives to describe Amanda. But why is everyone shocked to hear this coming from Amanda? She’s always been a Category 1 a-hole moron.
-
Gayle says:
Can anything be done to overturn this?
-
Ciccina says:
Since this was done in the name of cultural sensitivity, I imagine African feminists would be the most effective messengers. These people need a dose of reality. Child psychologists might be helpful as well.
My impression of Amanda’s comment was that she wasn’t paying attention to what she was writing – it struck me as overly casual, sloppy, like she didn’t do her research or talk to anyone who really works this issue and/or has first-hand knowledge of its impact on children.
-
m Andrea says:
Thanks Astraea!
I read the full length press release at AAP earlier this afternoon, which turned out to be the one you are referring to, and amazingly enough, it seems to have been severely truncated when I went back to quote from it just now.
In their original press release on the subject of FemaleGenitalMutilation, AAP mentioned that Denmark or Sweden (information is no longer available) had a problem with immigrants wanting to mutilate their daughters, and the practice was COMPLETELY eliminated by 1) criminalizing the procedure and 2) placing into foster care the children of any parent who inflicted FGM on their daughter. So if the purpose of the AAP is to “reduce the harm” then clearly they are already aware of the best way to do so. It is absolutely not necessary to negotiate away Human Rights.
Can anything be done to overturn this?
Sure, do what I did, and call the AAP. Be warned, though, it took me four tries to get anything other than someone immediately hanging up on me. Or send them an email — and include my previous paragraph!
National Headquarters:
The American Academy of Pediatrics
141 Northwest Point Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, IL 60007-1098
USA
847/434-4000
847/434-8000 (Fax)Washington, DC Office:
The American Academy of Pediatrics
Department of Federal Affairs
601 13th Street, NW
Suite 400 North
Washington, DC 20005 USA
202/347-8600
202/393-6137 (Fax)Not sure which email address is the most appropriate, here is the page:
-
Sameol says:
K.A, I don’t know, I guess we just wanted to believe there was still some line there between destructive and toxic to the cause and truly pathological self-hate. Genital cutting just boggles the mind, even as low as my personal opinion is of Amanda. (Also, she’s never been exactly overflowing with cultural sensitivity so yes, I was a little surprised that it’s all of a sudden become her banner when it means bringing physical and sexual harm to little girls, though it wouldn’t surprise me coming from most anti-feminist liberal and leftist men, so, yes, it shouldn’t coming from their enabler, either).
-
m Andrea says:
I understand she’s wanted to be an access blogger and join the big boyz’ club for a while now, but my god, when did she morph into Camille Paglia?
Carmonn, your comparison is frighteningly astute.
-
sam says:
Accepting specious harm reductions instead of harm eliminations is perhaps the biggest mistake made by modern liberal feminists.
It certainly ranks up there with framing abortion in the language of capitalistic choice and the continued use of backhanded bitchslap “sex positive” to refer to anything.
-
anna says:
I hate when people say “sex positive” as though objecting to porn, prostitution, stripping, etc means you are “sex negative.”
Also, it seems like only abuses of women are given the old “we’ll never eradicate it, the best we can do is legalize and regulate it” line. Can you imagine someone saying that about sweatshops, organ selling, or even murder (hired killer is at least as old a profession as prostitute.)? Never. But when it comes to porn, prostitution, or stripping, men simply can’t imagine a world without their access to living fucktoys. Or they don’t want to imagine it, so they claim it’s impossible. Oh the poor poor men, without the precious privilege of sex from a stranger who is not attracted to you at all, but simply needs the money to eat. How can they live without this grand privilege?
-
sam says:
But anna, what about the millions of men who marched in the streets to earn the right to call and order “escorts” 24 hours a day in every major US city?
Men worked for decades writing letters and lobbying legislators so that they could be entertained with naked women dry humping them in public places. Men chained themselves to the White House gates and went on hunger strikes to win their right to purchase porn in convenience stores. Men are so routinely shot at when trying to enter strip clubs and porn stores that entire teams of padded volunteers are needed to secure their hard-won rights to access a pussy on demand.
24/7 cock-servicing isn’t just the natural state of affairs men never had to lift a finger to attain, not like the how suffragists just walked past the Supreme Court building and got the 19th amendment tossed to them through an open window.
Not everyone who uses “sex positive” understands it is intentional antifeminist propaganda meant to replace the too-obvious insults of “prude” and “frigid”. Amanda understands the bitchslap effect of the term and uses it anyway.
-
Feminist Blog says:
Call your congress people and encourage them to support the Girls Protection Act!
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Sam, your points are great – but I have to say, I find the term “bitchslap” to be extremely misogynist.
-
sam says:
I hear ya, tinfoil hattie. Please let me explain my intentions.
The sex positive/negative point has been made before by many, many others. All ways of explaining have thus far failed to puncture through the strong wall of femininity brainwashing that’s got sincere feminists calling other women frigid prudes and pretending that’s not what they’re doing.
Maybe my way of explaining it will pop someone out of their rut enough for them to start the necessary evolution beyond “sex positive”, wherever that leads. Maybe it won’t. Thousands of feminists with thousands of divergent communication styles and we haven’t yet chanced upon the potion that begins to cure this movement’s poison. Maybe the odds are as slim as the infamous monkeys banging away at Shakespeare for eternity, but I figure my trialing and erroring is bound to produce something effective eventually.
Every time a feminist uses the term “sex positive” it is a misogynistic act. Every time. They could send it the way of “that’s gay” and “retard” and “bastard”, but they haven’t. Eventually they will. And I’ll make an effort to stop using “bitchslap” from now on too.
-
m Andrea says:
Contentious laws passed by congress are subject to debate, and most people do recognize the power of any law as being able to change the social narrative. But the American Association for Pediatrics is institutionalizing the idea that human rights for girls can be negotiated away, and this is being done without debate. The AAP is operating from a position of authority, so their current policy on FGM is extremely harmful by reinforcing misogyny and sets a terrible precedent for dealing with culturally sanctioned discrimination.
Pressure should be kept on these folks until they change their policy to one reflecting the idea that human rights are not negotiable.
-
Gayle says:
Accepting specious harm reductions instead of harm eliminations is perhaps the biggest mistake made by modern liberal feminists.
Seconded!
That boot binding analogy Violet used runs through my head every time I hear a harm reduction argument made (typically about prostitution or porn) on the Third Wave blogs. Harm reduction is a crock.
-
Gayle says:
Foot binding– opps!
Oh, and Thanks M Andrea!
-
Kiuku says:
Forezkin amputation? Are you kidding me? I love MRA’s lol. Male circumcision is a matter of -pride-. They don’t like the idea of what their penis naturally resembles. Female genital mutilation is about the male fantasy of what a woman should be..but is not.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
Recognizing and calling out the difference between harm reduction and harm elimination is brilliant and powerful. I’ve learned something today reading this great blog, and I think I’ve finally discovered why all discussions of lesser-evilism make me twitchy. Anybody arguing the side of lesser-evilism is offering up a set of false choices, and the game is always rigged to get you to go along with being screwed over. The thing I suspect, though, is that those arguing the side of lesser-evilism are fine and dandy with the status quo, and without most of the oppressed going along, the status quo is no more. I think my natural tendency to be a refusenik could come in handy right about now.
Also funny how those practiced in the finer points of not being a feminist whilst wearing the feminist mantle like to other women. It’s fine for some other woman to get the center of their female self nicked to keep the menfolk happy, or to get raped for pay to make the menfolk happy, or to step out from behind the wheel to make the menfolk happy, but somehow it’s not fine for the feminist making these proclamations, or for her mother, sister or daughter. I guess sacrifices have to be made, and it’s fine as long as it’s other women making them. Othering women seems to be the dark underbelly of the sexy fun feminist crowd.
-
Gayle says:
I understand the allure of it: A harm reductionist can tweak a few laws at the surface and feel like they’ve done some good in the world without having to really put themselves out there to face and fight patriarchy. They can be the kind of feminists boys like, nice intelligent liberal gals who don’t embarrass their moms by saying the wrong things at family reunions.
But they are not doing good in the world– their kneejerk acceptance of the status quo (and worse!) harms women and girls who are already in peril while pushing the rest of us backward.
I can’t be the only one who’s noticed since the marches and letter writing campaigns and boycotts prevalent during the 2nd Wave have stopped, women have been losing status. Our rights are threatened at every turn.
If they could stop worrying over how to make feminism more palatable, they could start a new movement. For now, the Third Wave is just a name.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
I just love how smart all the commenters are here.
And Sam, thanks for hearing me, and I still think your points are good ones.
-
Kiuku says:
The thing about prosex “feminists” and porn is when you find out that porn stars are actually intergalatic body snatchers from alpha centauri, it makes any argument about the human sexual condition a complete null.
-
Morgon says:
Intact America, an organization against the routine circumcision of baby boys, has taken up the matter as well. They have a petition set up to send to the AAP/leaders if anyone wants to sign it; they just finished with a well organized campaign about the CDC recommending routine male circumcision because of a flawed medical study.
http://org2.democracyinaction......n_KEY=2451
Sorry, long time lurker, but this makes me upset and I thought I’d post the link. Any sort of genital cutting of infants too little to express their opinion on it is flat out wrong, whether they are male or female.
-
votermom says:
I just found out (via the new agenda) that rightwinger Michelle Malkin has been speaking out against FGM for years. I guess that puts Marcotte to the right of Malkin now.
-
Feminist Blog says:
This post should be entitled “How not to be intelligent” Anyone who supports FGM needs to get their head checked.
