In his report on Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s talk at the Sydney Town Hall as part of the Writers’ Festival, Pommygranate comments:
That she is a polarising figure is indisputable. Blog chatter in advance of her talk had produced some of the most vitriolic dialogue that I have seen since arriving here last year.
You can judge whether that’s so for yourself by reading the comments thread on my post about her work (and other things, and I probably made a mistake in trying to analyse too much together) and in the two responses to my post at Tim Blair’s (perhaps soon to be joined by a third, who knows?).
I don’t want to adjudicate that, and I don’t want to re-open the debate. I do want to clear up some misconceptions about what I was arguing, which wouldn’t have arisen had people been reading for meaning and context.
Firstly, some seem to think I was downplaying Ali’s own experience. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I had no intention whatsoever of minimising her pain and suffering. My choice of words in the comment that’s been singled out left something to be desired. Blog comments are often written in haste, but fortunately the medium also gives us the chance to correct misunderstandings and ambiguous or poorly chosen words.
Secondly, her experiences do not put her beyond criticism. Those whose worldview caused her suffering in the first place, and those who would seek to silence her through threats and intimidation are acting in an evil and abhorrent fashion. But to subject her views to reasonable criticism is not the same thing. She herself vehemently argues for the values of Enlightenment reason. Fundamental to those values is the ability to criticise and to subject others’ views to reason and through argument to approach the truth. It’s in that context that I criticise the substance of her political views. To argue that any criticism of her means that one “sides” with those who against all liberal principles wish to silence her is to totally misunderstand the very same traditions of debate and argument she argues are of paramount importance to a free society.
Thirdly, my criticism of “loud denunciations” of FGM (and I fail to understand why some commenters believe that to use an acronym is to downgrade its horror) does not mean that I don’t believe that it should be denounced by all reasonable and compassionate people. What I’m talking about is expressions of outrage which primarily have a political or religious motivation.
What has been entirely overlooked in much of the criticism of what I have written is that I’ve consistently argued that people who are as horrified by FGM as I and many other feminists are have chosen to do something practical about the issue by giving financial support to women working in African countries who are working within their own communities to convince others that the practice is wrong and abhorrent (as I said in my original post) and should cease. Links were posted to reports of such work on the thread here at LP - you can read some reports of this work here and here. I would strongly urge those who wish to see FGM disappear as a source of horror and trauma for girls and women to give financial support to this organisation. I continue to believe, and agree with Matthew Yglesias and Samhita at Feministing, that this is the most practical and effective way of working to eliminate the scourge of FGM. I believe that Ali does useful work in highlighting the horrific realities of FGM, as I said on the original thread, but I believe that the best step that can be taken to work against it is to give support to those who are best placed to do so where it occurs, not to politicise the issue.
Lastly, as Irfan Yusuf points out, FGM is practiced in many sub-Saharan African countries where Islam is not the majority religion, for instance in Burkina Faso where religious beliefs are overwhelmingly tribal and animist. To ignore this is disingenous, at best. FGM is also practiced by some Jews and Christians, and I don’t think that the cause of opposing its continuance is at all served by turning it into a religious or a political issue.
No doubt I have made some mistakes in some of my arguments, and like everyone else who blogs, have at times chosen my words too quickly. I apologise for that, but I absolutely don’t resile from the four points I’ve made above.
Those interested in Ali’s visit to Australia can also read some arguments from Islamic Australians here and here.
Update: Some very worthwhile links from commenter A. for those who want to read more about the lived experience of women who have suffered FGM, and learn more about other NGOs working against it. Via Mark in comments, this UK NGO has a variety of resources on FGM, including this information on FGM and Islam.
Further update: I see Tim has updated his post to rebut my arguments in this one.
There’s also a great post from Yasmin over at Dervish on Ali’s howlers. Also worth a look is this guest post by Kizzie at Pommygranate’s place - giving an African Muslim woman’s perspective.
And there’s another post here, as the debate enters the MSM.
Well said and well argued, Kim.
Ho hum. As per usual, the left “speaks truth to power” only when there’s no chance that the “power” is going to cut off the speaker’s head and post it to Al-Jazeera.
Kim hems and haws:
A multicultural feminist takes a real feminist to task for giving aid and comfort to “the Right”. A better illustration of Strocchi’s Law of Cultural Leftist ideological contradiction could hardly be imagined.
A Wet (ie minority diverso-phile) cannot at the same time give consistent ideological support to both feminism and serious multiculturalism. Respecting ethnic traditions means turning a blind eye to the most important rule of pre-modern tribalism: respect the patriarch. Watch them tie themselves up in knots trying to talk their way out of it.
It is infantilist to decry female oppression in principle and enable female oppressors in practice. If one wills the individual autonomist end one must will the institutional authoritative means. The powers that be must must not tolerate the intolerant. The very opposite of touchy-feely, happy-clappy, diversity-celebrity policies.
Kim right you look like GW Bush flailing away at the obstinate reluctance of circles to square. Why dont you just give up, fess that your cultural philosophy is fatally flawed and start from sound first principles.
Excellent piece of wriggling Kim.
You got “done” on the first thread, live with that.
Specific legislation banning FGM has been enacted in all States and Territories bar Queensland and Western Australia, where legislation against FGM relies on the Criminal Code in relation to assault. In those states where legislation has been passed penalties of up to 7 years imprisonment apply to persons convicted of intentionally performing FGM, or for taking or arranging for a child (defined as a person under 18 years of age) out of a jurisdiction for the purpose of performing FGM. Exceptions are made in the case of medical procedures that have a ‘genuine therapeutic purpose’.
Your home state of Queensland amended sections 323A and 323B of the Criminal Code expressly prohibit the practice of FGM. Legitimate medical procedures and sexual reassignment procedures have been excluded from the definitions.
Doctors can go to jail for performing FGM.
There are no ifs, buts when it comes to FGM in Australia and whether it is religious or cultural or practiced in the sub Sahara is irrelevant.
Here it is illegal. And wherever it is practiced it is barbaric and immoral.
Excellent piece, Kim.
Nonsense, Jack. There’s no suggestion in the post that FGM should be seen as anything other than as a crime and an evil act. The difference of opinion is on how to counter it, and whether it should be used as a plaything in domestic political debates. As usual, you’re arguing against a straw-feminist-multiculturalist.
Thank you for the information about the current state of Australian criminal law, saint, but not a single person on this or the previous thread has done anything other than say wherever it occurs it is an evil and criminal act.
Possibly resembling this
Much better. This separates the FGM issue from the liberal interventionism issue, which is where the first post went wrong. Pommygranate is right though - some people are just polarizing. Having, briefly, been such a polarizer myself, I can assure you we often have only the dimmest idea as to why.
I wasn’t aware that Christians follow this practice as you state Kim.
Could you tell where and what denomination/group does this?
Another Kim, this is what Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Christianity
I’m so glad you’ve pointed out that Islam and FGM are not inextricably linked. It’s a fact that seems to pass most people by.
Tostan is an excellent organisation but operates only in a small area. There is progress being made elsewhere too, eg Kenya where alternative rites of passage have been devised. There are a number of articles on the IRIN website, and for a more medical point of view The Lancet.
For anyone interested in what the effects of FGM could be like, there is a French blogger of Senegalese descent who was mutilated when she was four years old. “It ruined my life”. She blogs at Le Chemin de ma reconstruction which is, obviously, all in French. She is extremely articulate and not without a sense of humour. She has been posting about her progress and feelings as she plans, and now has had, reconstructive surgery. I have been translating, not especially expertly, on my own blog and with her encouragement, in an effort to reach a wider audience. The first translated post is here. The posts are consecutive with links from one to the next. Quite a few of the commenters have suffered the same thing.
Mark on 4 June 2007 at 11:24 pm
No. It is remarkable that Leftist political agitators, heirs to the tradition of hard-headed materialist social analysis, should be reduced to falling back on hot air to avoid making hard choices.
I am bored and cynical about the Cultural Lefts propensity to engage in moral narration at the expense of social insitutionalisation. As Dr Knopfelmacher used to say: “there is such a thing as a proposal which has theoretical moral validity and empirical social absurdity”. Any fool can spout ideological attitude. What is needed is some savvy institutional rectitude.
This debate has arisen because feminism actually cannot be consistent with multiculturalism. This is not a plaything of the wedging Right. Many principled old-fashioned Leftists have denounced the cruelties and oppression to innocent women and children inherent in the diversity philosophy.
Nor is it a straw man, especially since the emergence of massive ethnic ghettos in some Atlantic states where liberal civil norms are now a thing of the past. We have the evidence of Ms Ali’s mutilated femininity to prove it. (Or is that yet another one of those annoying events that have popped out of the “Strocchi-verse” to irritate you?)
Simply pointing to Kim’s lip-serving, half-hearted, tokenistic denunciations of a barbaric practice wont get the Cultural Left off the hook here. She endorses a philosophy, multiculturalism, which if taken seriously mandates tolerance of barbaric practices.
Fine words are not enough. If one is serious about stopping FGM in AUstralia one must start by forcing the more backward immigrants to adopt liberal civil norms. Or stop them coming in. Or send them packing.
Cultural Leftists need to be honest about the fatal contradiction in their ideology and the deadly threat to freedom inherent in their electoral strategy. They cannot give freedom to pre-modern tribalism and expect this to coexist with fairness to post-modern feminism.
This sums up the dilemma of the multiculturalist in a nuts hell. A Janus-faced phrase heavily armoured in boilerplate, covering layers of contradiction. Kim’s shabby and sloppy posts on this subject exposed the contradiction with painful clarity. Her shame-faced back-pedal has not improved matters.
The Cultural Left, like the Martial Right, is slowly drifting into a world of solipsistic relativism where empirical corroboration and logical consistency are optional, depending on political expediency.
A good, forthright and honest post, Kim. I still think you are fundamentally wrong about much of this (and that’s just my opinion), but congratulations on the post anyway. Took some guts.
Mark, with respect (and apologies for talking about Kim in the third person here) one of Kim’s comments included this statement:
And I haven’t gotten to the rest of the statements Kim made in that comment alone which really are not addressedby Kim’s clarification above.
Well put, Kim.
Much and all as I would like the rest of the world to become a liberal secular social democracy tomorrow, it’s not going to happen tomorrow, the next day, or even the next generation. So we do the best we can to make the world a better place, a step at a time. And that sometimes means that we have to deal with people whose values are different to ours, and often not very likeable, and try to persuade them something is wrong within the terms of their own value system.
Jack,
Posturing aside, how many women have you saved from FGM today? How many bucks have you kicked into organisations that are actually working on the ground - in whatever ways work, even quiet, patient persuasion, however deficient you might consider that when a good energetic finger-wagging is obviously in order?
Me - well no, I haven’t saved any today, don’t expect to save any tomorrow. Which is why I’m not exactly farting up a storm about it.
saint, I hadn’t been aware that it was occurring in Australia. I admit that maybe I’m naive to think so, but only anecdotal evidence has been produced. As I said to SL on the Catallaxy thread where this was also discussed:
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2883
I do think that if there are organisations working in Australia to counter the practice, then giving them support rather than writing op/eds and denunciatory blog posts which seek to stigmatise Islam rather than to genuinely work against this evil would be the preferred way to go. That’s on the same grounds as set out in this post.
I’m more than happy to admit that I’ve got stuff to learn about FGM, and I think education about its deleterious effects and the best methods of working against it is in everyone’s interest. That’s what I’d prefer this thread to concentrate on, rather than politics and culture wars stuff, which is why I have no intention of letting myself get diverted into the Strocchiverse here.
Many thanks, Rob, I appreciate that.
I have no intention of avoiding this topic in the face of criticism. Where the criticism is valid, I’d like to take it into account, but I won’t resile from what I want to say just because some choose to personalise or politicise the issue.
And thanks to others who appreciate the post.
SL, again as I said at Catallaxy, I wrote the original post fairly quickly, and though I could have I think made the point linking to Bone’s position clear, I didn’t succeed as well as might have been ideal. Nor was the point about Algeria made as well as it could have been. That’s the thing with blogging - it’s a fast medium, and one often has second thoughts. Fortunately it also enables corrections and clarifications.
Oh, and A., thanks very much for your comment and the links.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/04/ayaan-hirsi-ali-and-the-fgm-debate/#comment-374211
I’ll update the post so that readers can easily access your links.
Bone and Algeria are linked. I’m a utilitarian, so I’m happy to admit there may be cases where liberal interventionism works. Algeria is probably an example of that (that’s certainly the impression I got when traipsing through the place looking at Roman ruins). Iraq, I think, is a pretty clear example of failure. Of course, the initial circumstances were entirely different, and - also of course - it’s a facile truism that history loves to teach its lessons once only.
Bone, Algeria and Ali all rolled up together? Weeeelll, that’s a bit of a stretch.
FGM is certainly going on in Australia. I’ll get my sister to swear an affidavit to that effect if you like. And a queue of other medical staff, too. That’s why it’s had to be explicitly criminalized across different jurisdictions, as Saint points out above. This is trickier for the common law states, but easy in Qld, WA and Tasmania, where there is a Criminal Code based on Sir Samuel Griffith’s original ‘master’ code.
I’ll second Rob’s praise, too, and ask people to get off Kim’s back. When you all write perfect blog posts that are perfectly reasoned, then you can come back and start flinging poo
Anecdotally, I have heard of one or two cases of mothers who’ve had female relatives visit from the old country and been scared witless of leaving their daughters alone with the in-laws.
Which raises another problem with all the attempts to make denunciation - the louder the better - compulsory. This gross simplification of the issue to a big “They’re all mutilatin’ their daughters” scare.
I love it when the cultural right express their care for women. Such a touching sight:
which is why all those states in multicultural australia have passed laws banning it. But with these comments this fool shows himself to be
the political expediency in this case being to invent a form of multiculturalism which exists only in the ‘Strocchi-verse’, accuse it of importing barbarians who will eat our babies, and then whale on it like a skinhead in a rage. Such a touching sight.
Thanks, SL.
Certainly these sort of comments don’t do anything to advance debate (#103 on the thread):
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/do_not_denounce_them/#255263
I see Tim has updated his post to rebut my arguments here.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/do_not_denounce_them/
Yair, saw that. I’ll be Missing Linking ™ the lot tomorrow, if that’s any consolation. There’ll be a special section just on this stoush (so the rest of you better get your posts written if you want a spot in Missing Link).
That’s good, SL, it would be useful if people were to read the posts by Australian Muslim bloggers on it and I’m sure Missing Link will facilitate that.
Off to sleep now!
Gummo Trotsky on 5 June 2007 at 12:18 am
Its pretty cheeky for you to button-hole me on this subject since Ms Ali’s experience validates my cultural philosophy and refutes Larva prodders. Much to the evident discomfort of mark and kim. Although you seem un-embarassable on this score.
Characteristicly you completely miss the point. The political issue for Northern Hemispheric-type states is not how much they can reduce the spread of FGM in the South. It is whether we can prevent FGM spreading in the North, through the degeneration of Left wing parties into ethnic racket brokers and Left wing activist into ethnic oppressor apologists.
When I point out these inconvenient facts I get smeared as a “racist”. No doubt internal disquiet and cognitive dissonance on the Cultural Left tends to get dampened by the ever-rising tide of wishful thinking.
FTR I have always supported liberal charities that focus on improving the condition of women in the less-developed regions of the Southern hemisphere. eg Medicins Sans Frontiers. I even make the occasional ostentatious donation to such causes on other blogs.
But I generally prefer to let my words speak louder than my deeds. Cultural Lwftists are addicted to the fatuities of their over-spent youth. And we know that the first step in the cure of addiction is to admit there is a problem. They need to be told, loud and clear.
Gummot Trotsky says:
It has not stopped you from hand-wringing, finger-wagging and thumb-sucking about the comparatively trivial evils of the Howard govt. Out of political expediency you just turn a blind eye to this sort of thing in your own backyard, whilst indulging your moral vanity in the grandstand.
Thank you for the link, Mark.
It does state that Jews do NOT practice FGM.
It further states that it continues as tradition in Ghana, NOT as a part of the Christian faith.
Another Kim, from the Foundation for Women’s Health, Research and Development, a UK NGO:
http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm
I’d recommend the site as an educational resource generally.
That’s the point, though. The practice predates Christianity, Islam and Judaism. While some Muslims justify it using religious arguments, as do some Ghanian Christians who practice it, many Muslims would argue that it’s not part of the Muslim faith, just as we as Christians would (correctly) argue against the African Christians who practice it that it’s abhorrent to our faith. Whether or not it’s a religious or cultural practice, it’s still evil and abhorrent, and specifically prohibited by UN conventions as a violation of human rights. But we don’t get anywhere if people persist in stigmatising an entire faith because some misuse religious precepts to justify it, and particularly not if people have political scores to settle by making such points.
On FGM and Islam:
http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm/fgm-islam
This thread is going to take a break over night while moderators are asleep. Normal service will resume in the morning when a moderator is available.
I’d hazard a guess and say there isn’t a poster here who has direct experience with female genital cutting. I can’t quite believe I’m writing this (as a Muslim feminist who knows the practice is cultural and *not* religious, and that only around 10% of the world’s Muslim women live in countries where FGC is practiced) but believe it or not, there *are* some women who claim it as empowering, and question the hysteria and hype around Western denunciations. For example Fuambai Ahmadu has written:
(She has an article in Shweder’s Why Do Men Barbecue on the topic)
Just on Another Kim’s question, it would seem that Ethiopian Christians (the majority) from one particular ethnic group also practice FGM:
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10098.htm
The link came via one of Tim Blair’s commenters:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/do_not_denounce_them/#255369
Yasmin, that does really raise the cultural relativity argument. I’d still argue the practice to be absolutely wrong, just as I’d argue that forms of Indigenous traditional justice in Australia such as spearing (I was repulsed when Oodgeroo Noonucal advocated the spearing of young men from her mob who were gay) are.
On that question:
http://www.forwarduk.org.uk/key-issues/fgm/human-rights
Yasmin, women who find it “empowering” to have their private parts sliced off are free to make that conscious choice when they are adults.
Mutilation of the body is practiced by many adults, just gotta see the amount of tattoos & pierced ears in our society for evidence of this.
But chopping up 5 year old girls is an abomination.
How can those who slice up girls, reconcile themselves with the islamic view on body mutilation such as ear piercing & tattoos?
Is there a fork on the road to paradise, where all FGM perpetrators are diverted to eternal damnation?
Juliet Rogers at the University of Melbourne has researched female genital mutilation extensively. I heard her give a paper on this subject in 2001. It was my understanding at the time that FGM is practised in Australia.
http://www.criminology.unimelb.edu.au/staff/Juliet.htm
SATP, no-one here is disagreeing with you. That’s the point. We all agree that it is wrong, and we all agree that it should be stopped.
The question is, though, whether it’s an effective use of people’s efforts to screech loudly that something is evil when those you seek to convince find it empowering. If we genuinely do want to stop it, rather than to feel all morally superior, then we must do what’s most likely to work.
That so many people in this debate seem to prefer loud screeching, when even a six year old can tell you that that’s rarely effective, suggests that some of this concern is superficial at best.
Indeed, Anna.
Despite the link to Kim’s new post at Tim Blair’s place, none of his commenters have grappled with the issue of supporting practical measures via financial or other forms of support for people actually working against FGM.
Instead, we see comments like this:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/do_not_denounce_them/#255311
Yep, intervening against FGM by posting blog comments which call people “trash”, a “twat” and “a worthless piece of shit”.
I guess that discharges his “duty”.
I agree lots of the concern is superficial Anna. Why else would there be lots of talk of “cultural” claptrap, instead of “criminal mutilation”?
I’m tempted to suggest that the consciousness of the women in question tends to become invisible in this ‘debate’, even when testimonials are invoked and native informants located by both sides. It may be problematic to extend the criminalisation of the act into a pathologisation of it’s lived consequences.
But I think the really important point here is that Kim is leveraging off her position of power with respect to the global division of labour, to support a kind of ethical intervention that doesn’t strongly reinforce those power differentials. Whereas the implications of the more shrill denunciations only seem to lead to one place. Perhaps a true evaluation of Kim’s position would examine the mechanics and consequences of her strategies.
You lot were called on cultural relativism on this issue for originally arguing that there is no difference between this and the ‘cult of labiaplasty’. When I commented on the ‘bone to pick’ thread I criticised your denunciations of the trend towards making vulva’s more aesthetically appealing - arguing that there were mostly well defined medical reasons for why women would choose to have this done - I failed to point out that many women choosing these procedures are women trying to reverse damage from genital cutting rituals.
So Mark there are degrees of cultural relativism and whether these are predominantly religious or cultural rituals means little to me as the main thing is that the laws are effectively enforced; and although you LPers seem to assert this you shy away from saying this is our problem one that we have to make hard decisions about in Australia. For instance ought our hospitals pop in a few extra stitches after child birth? Do adult women have the right to request Australian medical professionals to perform the procedures like this for them? (Either with or without Medicare funding? and under what procedures that ensure they are not doing so under duress).
What has really made me think outside the square on this issue is recognising that this is often about women and their relationships and not necessarily about maintaining patriarchy. As Papillion describes, her father was angry to learn that his mother and wife had whisked his daughters away when he was travelling. The actual story about what happened to her when she was 4 is unclear as her mother denies that she had anything to do with it and says that it was her mother in law who insisted the traditions be maintained and that she literally kidnapped the children to take them for cutting.
Anyway, I think we may have more of a problem than our liberal minds would like to think. I read about a woman who immigrated to Britain who ironically had not been cut herself describing that she felt her daughter needed some help to overcome the promiscuous culture that she was surrounded by and that she was seriously considering sending her on a trip overseas to have the job done.
Papillion suggests she would go so far as not allowing her children when she has them to be alone with grandparents if she suspected them, or to not allow them to travel without her to Senegal in order to protect them from it. So the issues that can throw this up are not self evident, especially to descendants of the Enlightenment that could no more do this to our daughters than fly to the moon. Cultural or religious in origin Ayaan Hirsi Ali knows the ritualistic demon to its full extent.
I do wish the same could be said of all the comenters over at Tim Blairs place. While I would never suggest that Mr Moral Clarity himself supports FGM it is worth noting that he who demands loud denunciations of everything can’t be bothered either naming or shaming the individuals in question in what was a very long post by his standards.
Steve, it isn’t claptrap to talk about the reasons for something happening – it’s the best way to try and prevent it. Since the reasons are largely cultural, then it makes no sense to discuss FGM without talking about culture.
Informally yours writes that:
Which is why Kim has said time and time again that one of the best ways to combat the problem is to give people who do understand it the means to fight it. We aren’t there, we haven’t lived it – the most useful thing we can do is support those who have, and who want to put a stop to it. Help them, rather than forcing them to also defend their religion and culture against “The West�.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why this is a controversial suggestion for anyone who genuinely supports the aim of putting a stop to the practice.
I agree, Anna, and I think the correct response to Kim’s position is to - if we are really interested in change - either do as she does, or, pose criticism in terms of the actual practice that Kim is advocating ie of a kind of ethical, non-invasive intervention via selective resourcing of involved groups.
As I’m sure has been pointed out elsewhere, there are various types of female genital cutting, and infibulation makes up a very small percentage of women who undergo cutting.
As for the question of choice - then do we have the same horrific response to male genital cutting performed on babies? If not, why not?
Got news for you, twat. If I witness a little girl being tortured and mutilitated, not only do I have a right to intervene, I have a duty to do so.
Using language pertaining to hatred of women,referring insultingly to female genitals while pretending to be on the “right side” vis-a-vis mutilation of women — it’d be a wonderful irony if it wasn’t so sickening.
We aren’t there, we haven’t lived it – the most useful thing we can do is support those who have, and who want to put a stop to it.
Like, Ayaan Hirsi Ali for instance?
From a Melbourne perspective, where we have a sizeable African and Islamic community, I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that performing FGM on minors is widespread. If anything, it is exceedingly rare here. It is also illegal, and medical and educational professionals are mandated to notify authorities if they think it has or is likely to occur. It is also illegal for a minor to be sent overeas so that FGM can be done. Whilst FGM is difficult to detect as a result of its secrecy, the few cases of which I am aware caused significant health problems for the young women involved, and they did come to the attention of doctors and statutory authorities.
As for the Blairites parading their new-found sympathies for women, and demanding public denunciations; a variety of women in different roles have attempted to dissuade refugee communities from the practice of FGM in Melbourne. Whilst denunciations might make the rightards feel good, they are clearly insufficient on their own. The pressure to perform FGM on minors often comes from matriarchs within the relevant communities, and FGM is also bound up with notions of sexual worth and marriageability. The difficult task of changing these latter attitudes is far more important than indulging in a bit of self-righteous chest-beating and Muslim-bashing.
As for the Blairites parading their new-found sympathies for women
To be fair, teh evil conservatives have always been about protecting women. From themselves more often than not.
This is not about perfect blog posts it is about wrong ideas.
Talk about double-beat-about-the-bush speak.
or this
What do those statements mean at the hospital - do the women get their extra stitches after child birth or not? Or their reconstruction via Medicare?
Talk about setting up silly false dichotomies - this one established between Kim’s ‘moderates’, and the ’shrill denunciations’ is a shocker. Exactly who is the problem? Certainly Kim has come in for some shrill denunciation for her position, but who is it that she refers to as being a counterproductive shrill kind of anti-FGM campaigner, people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Pamela Bone no less!
Kim’s point in bringing all this up was not to praise them but to expose them and to do so from what Kim would assert is a left tradition. Rather than take the opportunity to foster solidarity and build bridges where possible.
I’ve just heard Hirsi Ali on the radio and unfortunately the interviewer is another ABC hand-wringer who hadn’t done any research and so we didn’t get much past a short explanation of Ayaan’s life, and it was pre-recorded and so there weren’t any questions. Typically unsatisfactory ABC fare.
However one thing Hirsi Ali said that spoke loudly to me was in reference to the fact that this had all been struggled against before in the western struggle against the religious types imposing their witch-burning etc. her comment was that she was just not prepared to wait 600 years.
Struggle had to be one that was waged on the front foot and that IMV is a foundational left stance. Fighting back against oppressors in order to rid the world of the oppression. Standing up for one’s rights in struggle against the oppressors, and siding with the oppressed never abandoning them because the oppressors threaten to kill even more etc.
Progressives name the oppression and those engaged in it, we don’t mince our words. If the oppressors are too powerful to defeat we recommend the tactic of running away with the intent of finding more favorable ground to fight on. But the strategic intent ought to be for a fighting approach to gaining rights where applicable. The whole notion of waiting for the slave owners to set the slaves free of their own volition is a delusional type of stance advocated by people like pacifists that Kim is self declared not to be.
The message coming through loud and clear here is ‘fund and support the groups that never start a war of liberation’ work with the peaceful campaigners who are not so confronting of this world. We used to sing a song that went; ‘Don’t be too polite girls don’t be too polite. Show a little fight girls show a little fight!’
The whole world had to finally make it perfectly clear to the Saudi regime that they were no longer permitted to run a country where people could own slaves. They were dictated to.
Some feminists apparently don’t hold the rights of women that highly as the one thing they don’t approve of is launching an armed intervention to crush the fascists who want to use religion, culture and politics whatever is convenient to keep women and other underlings in their place.
If it were not for the fact that the pseudo-left are white-anting the Iraq war it would be possible to be pushing the coalition of the willing to be doing a lot more to help fight that culture war on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Missing Link is now up. Go here.
You may need to disambiguate this one.
‘Protecting women’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘giving women equal rights’.
So ‘the Blairites’ wanting to keep womenfolk safe from genital mutilation is perfectly consistent with standard conservative rhetoric, like wanting to keep women safe in the kitchen*.
*Straw-conservative rhetoric. I have no idea if anyone actually believes this.
I fail to understand your reasoning, informally yours. Are you calling for a war on FGM across Africa? FGM is not practiced in Iraq or Afghanistan, as far as I know. I just don’t get what you mean in practice - how exactly are “progressives” (who are rarely in a position to decide questions of war and peace anyway) supposed to follow your precepts?
If I were you, I wouldn’t be so quick to jump to conclusions about people’s motivations. In any case, I don’t see any inconsistency in pointing to the way in which the issue of FGM has been misused for political purposes and arguing for practical solidarity with women fighting against it from within their culture.
I don’t see that you’ve addressed Anna’s point at all - you seem to be arguing that “the West” or “the left” or “progressives” are the only relevant actors in fighting oppressive and evil practices.
I think the Luvvies have hammered enough nails in their coffin here, without my rubbing it in.
In time, historians will footnote this thread in university courses titled
“Requiem of the Left.”
“advocating ie of a kind of ethical, non-invasive intervention via selective resourcing of involved groups.”
I’m referring to exactly what Kim says she does. She helps groups on the ground in affected areas. It is an intervention but it is non-invasive, because it gives resources to groups who know the local situation and are already working on it. Which I would oppose to, say, going to war.
“It may be problematic to extend the criminalisation of the act into a pathologisation of it’s lived consequences.”
This is an aside, but I doubt that those expressing their concern in many of these cases are really interested in the women who have unwillingly undergone this mutilation already. Instead, there is a kind of psychotic desire to prevent all violence in advance, by deploying violence first.
“Talk about double-beat-about-the-bush speak.”
If you don’t understand what I write, just admit it, informally yours.
“What do these statements mean at the hospital”
If I had meant them to be about health policy, about the operation of the medical system, or addressed to doctors, nurses and hospital administrators, I would have said as much.
Reducing everything to the zero point, and hysterically demanding answers about that situation from everybody, is not a reasonable way of conducting an argument.
Since on the evidence of every single comment that you’ve ever written, that would only consist of repeating slogans about “luvvies” and “multiculti” and the like, I think we’ll survive John.
John I don’t think you will see the left going anywhere any time soon, unless of course you think that everyone will shortly break the habit of a lifetime and stop thinking of everything as a dichotomy.
Rather I see this thread as a reaction against a certain debased and obnoxious section of the Australian right which deliberately and dishonestly conflates cultural realism, which sees culture as deeply entrenched and difficult for people in general and actors external to the culture in particular to change and cultural relativism, which sees culture as above and beyond moral criticism.
It is these same people who like to get around judging their own and everyone else’s merit based on the conspicuousness of their denunciations of a range of (mostly) third world horrors.
As I write this Tim Blair is demonstration the paucity of this point of view by not denouncing his own pro-FGM commenters.
Janet Albrechtsen gets the wrong end of the stick again in today’s Australian.
I’ll make two points briefly in response to Janet, and in so doing contribute to the discussion on this thread.
Firstly, she repeats the suggestion that FGM is a specifically Islamic practice. Commenters here have made it clear that this is a myth.
Secondly, she suggests that Ali is a voice for reform and enlightenment within Islam. I respectfully suggest that this is like describing me as a voice for reform and enlightenment within Christianity. Of course I don’t want to stretch the comparison too far: my reasons for abandoning the Protestant faith of my youth hardly bear comparison with what Ali had to endure which led her to reject Islam. However the point stands that having placed ourselves outside our respective former faiths, both Ali and myself are very limited in our ability to act as voices for reform from within.
It’s worth recounting an experience from the early 1980s to illustrate this point. In the early 1980s a very sinister and manipulative fundamentalist Christian sect with far right connections set up shop on Melbourne campuses and began recruiting, focusing in particular on individuals in lonely or otherwise vulnerable personal circumstances. I, and other secular leftists, denounced this organisation and did what we could to prevent it gaining an institutional foothold in student union structures, but as secularists there was nothing of any practical value we could do to assist the individual Christian students who had fallen into the group’s clutches. This could only be done by people from the Student Christian Movement who knew how to out-argue the extremists on scriptural grounds and win their victims away on terms which didn’t entail renouncing the basic principles of their faith. I think there is a lesson to be learned from this experience.
Good points, Paul, and very much in alignment with my own understanding and experience.
The harm comes in setting FGM up as a purely Muslim tradition, when the fact is that it is an ancient practise which conversions to (variously) Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the Horn of Africa have been unable to stamp out, as people justify continuing their old tradition using the precepts of the new religions. Traditionalists are anxious that without continuing the FGM tradition they won’t find husbands for their daughters, and they will justify whatever they think will help find husbands for their daughters in any way that they can.
Sorry for not commenting yesterday, Kim: I was out most of the day and then the blog was out for most of the night. Just wanted to add to the chorus: terrific clarifying post.
Paul wrote:
Absolutely. As a Muslim woman who is relatively active within the Melbourne Muslim community, I don’t know of a single Muslim I’ve met who thinks that Hirsi Ali is anything other than a) extremely ignorant of Islam b) a tragic soul who is possibly mentally ill c) has nothing to offer Muslims but actually makes our experiences and lives in the Western world, worse.
In the early 1980s a very sinister and manipulative fundamentalist Christian sect… I, and other secular leftists, denounced this organisation and did what we could to prevent it gaining an institutional foothold in student union structures, but as secularists there was nothing of any practical value we could do to assist the individual Christian students who had fallen into the group’s clutches. This could only be done by people from the Student Christian Movement who knew how to out-argue the extremists on scriptural grounds and win their victims away on terms which didn’t entail renouncing the basic principles of their faith.
I don’t think that holds. It was not members of the extremist sect itself that drove the ‘enlightentment’, but people from outside the movement who were never-the-less intimately involved in the culture, and who just had a different interpretation of the basic text.
Like, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Can we get it straight that FGM was a leftover from the pre-Islamic culture in Africa and in this instance its continued practice is actually an example of Islamic tolerance (for want of a better word) of a preexisting practice that is barbaric? As a strident atheist I have no desire to defend Islam as a benign religious faith but let’s attack it for the right things? The irony of all this is that if she were using FGM to say ‘all African cultures from my part of the world are barbaric’ there would be an uproar of political correctnesss even among her supporters yet essentially this generalisation is closer to the truth than the one about Islam.
I’m sorry - she’s gone through a lot and has some good ideas, yadda yadda but all in all I find her contributions superficial.
Me too, Jason. Far too much of what she writes - apart from the personal narrative - is just sloganeering.
Memo to Janet:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/desperate_for_enlightenment/