Female
genital cutting is a topic that is much more complicated than I originally
knew. After reading Virtuous Cuts: Female
Genital Circumcision in an African Ontology by Abusharaf, I question the
extent to which Walker uses a context based intersectional feminist lens in the
film Warrior Marks. Abusharaf states
that “in
this essay, I want to shift the emphasis from agency and autonomy to a
discussion of the ideology that shapes women’s participation in the ritual”
(@). Throughout the essay, she emphasizes the importance of listening to women’s
stories, understanding the cultural context of genital cutting, and
understanding the reasons why it is perpetuated. It seems that Walker uses this
film to further her own feminist beliefs rather than considering the context of
the topic.
A critical
distinction between Abusharaf’s text and Walker’s work is their understanding
of who perpetuates this practice. Abusharaf claims that women continue this
tradition, stating that “as far as this ritual is concerned, women have the
upper hand in determining when, how, and where a girl will be excised” (@). Abusharaf
highlights the voices of women who have experienced genital cutting and crafts
her argument around these testimonials. She emphasizes the importance of the
anti-colonial context in the perpetuation of genital cutting that Walker does
not mention in the film. Furthermore, she attempts to understand how women like
Najat view circumcision as having power, why circumcision is viewed as making
women more beautiful and pure, how it distinguishes men from women in some
regions, etc. She summarizes that “To Saadia, Aziza, and Zakia, circumcision is
important because it gives voice to gender and collective ethnic identity” (@).
It is thus important to note that “there is no singular, oppressive patriarchal
discursive practice that leads women to perpetuate their own injury. Within the
complex symbolic and social context of circumcision practices, women see their
participation as voluntary” (@). Abusharaf takes time to consider the context
of this practice and how the women who experience it view it as relating to
their identity and power.
However, Walker
sees female genital mutilation as a sign of patriarchy, a practice controlled
by men that makes women passive and voiceless. Yet the women she chooses to
interview are either educators who work for NGO’s or other organizations, or
the woman in a village who performs the cuts. During this conversation, Walker
counters the legitimacy of her work, asking questions in a superior tone, like
she is the more informed feminist and she is blaming them for perpetuating a
practice that she views as torturous. She treats another woman she interviews (who
has just circumcised her 4 year old daughter) similarly, asking her questions
that start with “don’t you think”, which basically imposes other beliefs onto
someone. She speaks for the excised women, which is what Abusharaf rejects. All
we see as viewers is the faces of terrified young girls and the interpretative dancer
who recreates the pain of the cutting. This reinforces the image of African
women as primitive, unable to make informed decisions. To further problematize
this, Walker bases her entire understanding of genital cutting on her own
visual disability, comparing them to such an extent that I think disregards the
context of the practice disrespectfully. I was bothered by Walker’s insensitivity,
and although I do not particularly agree that culture always justifies all practices,
Walker does not begin to seriously consider the voices of women who support this
practice.
Anouk
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that your perspective is very valid in respect to Walker framing the documentary to villanize those who are performing the excision and victimize those that are receiving it. Abusharaf does the work that Walker fails to do by considering every woman's story without an unbiased understanding.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that Alice Walker was entirely wrong for penetrating this culture with her opposition on a traditional practice particularly because there are women of that culture who are inviting her in on the discussion of FGM who are also against it; there is an ally-hood involved rather than the persuasion of an outside culture on another.
This particular topic is one that is very layered and complicate what could be seen as a "do" and a "don't" of engaging in conversation and activism concerning the topic of FGM. There are a few reasons that it is hard to turn a blind eye to the tradition: women are hurting and even dying at the hands of this cultural tradition, there are women of the culture who are in opposition of it, and the most noticeable aspect of the merit behind it seems to be as if it serves men more than the women undergoing the procedure. Feminist like Alice Walker is having this difficulty.
I believe that feminism is about women being able to choose their path without oppression or pressure men and/or from a culture at large. Because there are women who are not choosing and some of those women have an issue with the fact that they don't feel like they are choosing, FGM then becomes problematic for me regardless of the difference in culture. There is nothing wrong with being an ally. It is just important to know your place as an ally. Alice Walker crosses this line when she tries to aim to extinguish this practice from the entire culture at the expense of women who are choosing.
Anouk- I totally agree with your (and actually Holly's) view on the Euro-centric view of the FGM film. I think it ignores a lot of the finer points of the FGM, but I also somewhat feel that Abusharaf does a bit of the same ignoring. I felt that the movie and then Abusharaf's piece explored some of the very ends of the FGM spectrum. Yes- there are situations as Walker highlights when girls have their entire clitoris and labia removed, and then are painfully sewn up so there is only a small hole through which all bodily fluids are forced to pass. And on the other end, is circumcision (which is the term Abusharaf uses and is itself much kinder sounding) which can entail a simple cutting that does no permanent harm and is much more similar to the circumcision that many males undergo. You don't see people arguing against male circumcision, even though it does have some profound effects on that male's sexual experiences. I think it is extremely problematic to only be seeing the ends of the spectrum highlighted while the middle (and in case of Walker, the opposite end) is ignored. This issue is something foreign to many of us raised in a Western world with a Western worldview. Therefore, we need to be extremely aware of creating sweeping stereotypes about issues we are unaccustomed to. I think Walker in particular falls prey to this stereotyping. As pointed out by Anouk, she takes an extremely one-sided stance.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that unsafe FGM does occur and that sewing up a girl to control her sexuality is wrong, she needs to acknowledge that her statistics about "girls at risk of FGM" include many women who are experiencing something akin to male circumcision. I think there was too much dramatizing and not enough actually reviewing the facts.
That is not to say that cultures should never be questioned. It was for centuries Chinese culture to bind women's feet to make them appear smaller and thus more attractive. That behavior is seen as heinous today and now is practically non-existent in China. I don't see anything wrong with being critical of cultures that are harming people, especially people without voices (like children). I don't think that FGM that involves removing the clitoris and labia and sewing up should be allowed. It does too much damage later in life (causing birthing problems and health complications). But there is a way to go about raising awareness and creating change. I don't think Walker went about this properly. She went straight to the extreme and was very insensitive. On the flip side, I think that while Abusharaf did a better job, she also could have done a better job framing some of the truly negative consequences of FGM. Because those dangers are something I have read about extensively and are very real and I do think that they extend from a patriarchal system that is trying to control women's sexuality. Which i disagree with.
So I guess my biggest take away was not the facts that the two women brought to the table, but the manner in which they relayed their information. I think both could have done a better job and it's a solid reminder of the necessity of sensitivity in dealing with cultures outside our own.
I really appreciated your take Anouk. It was really hard for me to watch the video during class. I even have to take a moment to myself and step out. The movie was very one-sided. They posed the female circumcision as something to fear, and to be against. I felt very uncomfortable the entire time because it seemed like every scene got more intense and brutal in its descriptions of the process. The interviews focused on the negative opinions and experiences with the female genital cutting. The information that we received as viewers only coincided with the opinion of Walker.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I don't want to take away from any validity from the film. It was most definitely one-sided but it was still the story that was true for some women. Some women have personal connection to female genital cutting that is real, and that is negative. For this reason I think that it is important to get knowledge of the perspective that Walker presented.
This is why I also feel that it is important to look to several different sources when researching and learning about different topics. For example, reading Abusharaf’s piece on the female genital cutting informed us about the cultural context and about how it is not always something to be feared and hated, Like Anouk said, we got a chance to learn about how it is something very powerful for some women.
We received valuable information from both sides. We can't get all of our information from one place. We have what we need and now we are able to form some sort of opinion for ourselves.
Anouk,
ReplyDeleteYou make a very good point: Walker does seem to be belittling the practices of this culture. I agree that there is a difference between agreeing and disagreeing with different cultural practices, but to infiltrate as she did and point fingers and condescend and shame those who actively participate is wrong. And Walker's interviews were extremely one-sided in that regard.
However, as Octavia stated, some women are undergoing this practice without consenting to it. It is forced onto them by those who are engrossed in tradition, and as the video claims, some girls are badly traumatized by the experience and in worse cases die from it. I'll say this: I don't honestly believe that any cultural practice is wrong, because each comes into existence for its own reason, but I'll ask, whatever that reason is (cleanliness), is it worth killing another to prevent? What is gained then if the young 4 year old girl ends up dead? What does it all mean then? Does it mean that she wasn't strong enough, that she did deserve the power that Najat from the Abusharaf article talks about, or was her life not enough to bat an eyelash about? When the lives of little girls are at stake and are seemingly held with little regard, that's when it becomes a problem in my opinion; non-consensual FGM that ends in death has got to mean something more than being clean or looking as though the girl will grow to have a penis, or that sex might feel just a little bit better. The lives of these non-consenting little girls have got to mean more than that.
This all is not to say that I disagree with you, Anouk, because I believe that your criticisms are all true and that Walker's approach is insensitive if nothing else. But on both ends, in my opinion (Walkers and FGM), the line has got to be drawer somewhere, and both sides needs to not cross it.
Thank you so much for sharing your very insightful and thought-provoking thoughts, Anouk. I appreciated reading your opinions on the subject.