Warrior Marks or Symbolic Wounds?

While the film Warrior Marks effectively brings attention to the subject of Female sexual mutilation, it does so in a problematic way. The constant reference to female genital surgeries or female circumcisions as mutilation is one of the main points that complicates the film's ability to present a strong argument. I want to explore how Alice Walker is limiting the perception of female genital circumcision by referring to it as mutilation and comparing it to her own personal mutilation and also how she is framing the narrative and perpetuating an argument using her own feminist ideologies and paying little to no attention to other feminist perspectives on the matter.

Walker describes both examples of mutilation, her personal mutilation and the mutilation of African girls as something to overcome, a "warrior mark". She puts a heavy emphasis on turning wounds in to warrior marks and how overcoming these situations makes the survivors. The start of her argument not only situates this practice as mutilation, which is problematic in itself, but it also attributes this mutilation as a result of a men's need for control. She even goes as far as to assume the intentions of her brother shooting her in the eye as equalizes it to the intentions of men's need to control female sexuality.

In an article entitled, 'Virtuous Cuts, Female Genital Circumcision in an African Ontology, author Abusharaf states, "It can be argued that the differences in terminology not only reflect two divergent systems of knowledge, but also indicate some of the shortcomings of the feminist emphasis on the global uniformity of women's oppression irrespective of culture, class, or ethnic differences." (Abusharaf, 3). Essentially, the author is arguing that describing the issue of  female genital circumcision, despite the views on it, can reveal the limitations of some feminist perspective that do not take into account cultural, ethnic, or class differences.

These shortcomings as Abusharaf describes can be found in Alice Walker's comparison of her mutilation to that of what she feels is the female genital mutilation of African girls. As Abusharaf described, the terminology itself frames this topic as being something negative. Walker perpetuates this idea by equalizing her experience with mutilation to the mutilation of African girls. The connection she draws to justify her comparing the two is the idea of patriarchal control. While this idea is smart in that it reinforces Walker's argument, it does not take into account the feminist perspective that does not view this practice as mutilation at all.

Unlike the interviews that Walker places in the film, Asusharaf presents testimonials, in a sense, of several different women and their views on the practice of female genital circumcision. She does this in order to highlight the differences in ideologies and knowledge surrounding this topic. What is important to note is that she is not attempting to condemn or support this practice as a positive or negative thing. She is simply presenting the information and attributing the information given in the testimonies and translating them in support of the different ideologies.

Walker's framing of the questions during her interviews, by using phrases such as "don't you think" and "would you stop the tradition if you could", perpetuate her ideology of the practice, reinforces the idea that African women do have the freedom or power over the men in their community. And while these assumptions may be true on some level, Walker problematizes the perception of this practice by not exploring the very feminist reasoning for continuing the practice.

Walker's strong focus on the pain of the procedure, with the interpretive dancer and the voice over testimony of the women describing her surgery, all attempt to reinforce this practice as mutilation by evoking an emotional response from the viewers. Walker's lack of focus on the reasoning or societal benefits behind this practice and the beliefs that support it limit her ability to make a strong argument. In a narrative by Saadia, in Abusharaf's article, another ideology of the practice is presented. Saadia states, " I still remember the operation being painful, but to this day I believe it is necessary."(7)  Saadia, being a woman who has gone through this surgery, views this as a beneficial practice because she believes, unlike Walker, that this practice ensures women's beauty. Abusharah goes on to state, "the narrative above is a powerful reminder of how female bodies are recreated and socialized in different cultural contexts." (8) Essentially, Asbusharah states that in a community that strongly believes that the clitoris being homologous to the penis, it is understandable to view the removal of it as an ultimate display of femininity. Some consider what Walker deems a warrior mark, a "symbolic wound" (8), representing their own formulation of feminism.

Eurocentric Views on FGS

While watching the movie, “Warrior Marks” I was overcome with many of the same critiques Gunning articulates in her essay “Cutting through the Obfuscation: Female Genital Surgeries in Neoimperial Culture.” The film spends an incredible amount of time exotisizing various stereotypical representations of “Africa.” The film rests on close up shots of despondent looking women and girls, and clips of a women performing African dance. Her dance is striped of any original meaning and recontextualized to represent the pain of genital mutilation surgery with an “African” twist. Interspersed between clips are interviews with Walker posing extremely leading and outright condescending questions to her interviewees. Problematic, to say the least.

 My own concerns with the film were mirrored in Gunning’s essay. She discusses the “Eurocentric” lens Walker and Parmar take in making the film, which promote a decontextualized representation of FGS. This representation failed to acknowledge Walker and Parmar’s own privileges as Westerners and wipes away all of the incredible diverse and complicated ways FGS are enacted in a variety of settings. Though Gunning’s essay does not specify or elaborate on any of the diverse ways in which these practices are realized in different societies, she simply offers a claim at the end of her paper for more research into the matter.

While I appreciate Gunning’s acknowledgment of the problematic discourse surrounding FGS, I am still questioning what right the west has in intruding on another culture. What allows “us” to conduct this unsolicited research on other societies and decide if it needs further legislation? I would assume researchers must proceed with caution to avoid the age-old trap of “othering” a community and further imposing Western help on an issue with which communities aren’t asking help.

            Abusharaf’s essay addresses the more specific practices that Gunning’s essay only alludes to. Abusharaf delves into the stories of women who have had direct experience with FGS. I found this to be an extremely enlightening ethnographic work. She presents their narratives in full, allowing their work to (for the most part) speak for itself. Though the questions she asks, and the contexts in which she spoke with these women are absent, the narratives still provide great insight into the complicated ways these women are navigating very specific societal practices.

In Aziza’s story, for example, it appears as though she used her surgery to avoid marital rape. She says, “I got married and from the first day, I suffered. After giving birth, like the rest of women, I demanded re-infibulaiton… Now, I only have sex on Thursdays” (9). From her story it seems that she married young and after not desiring sex, used her FGS as an agent in securing that goal.

Conversely, Suaad used the practice for increased sexual pleasure. She says, ”When the vaginal opening is narrow and tight, the woman enjoys the friction, and the man enjoys a long intercourse…” (10). Abusharaf’s article does a great job of presenting the many complex ways in which women narrate their navigation through their cultures, oppressions, lives while asserting agency. Women use FGS in asserting their power in their married life, and in their communities.

Warrior Marks: A Story of Blindness

            At the beginning of Alice Walker and Pratibha Parmar’s film, Warrior Marks, Alice Walker includes a story of her own experience with mutilation as a child when her brother shot her in the eye and blinded her. She expressed the lack of support she felt from her family, the stigmatization she experienced at school, and the disability that this mutilation created. While I in no way mean to belittle the harm that befell her as an individual, I was very taken aback by her blatant comparison of her own wound and those created by the practices of female circumcision. I was relieved to read in the first few pages of Isabelle Gunning’s article that I was not alone in this thought. Gunning points out that “Some see her analogy between female genital mutilation and her own partial blindness, the result of an accident caused by her brother, as self-aggrandizing” (205). While I am not sure that I would make quite as strong a claim as that, I certainly felt that this comparison implied ignorance of the practice on Walker’s part, or if not ignorance, a willingness to reduce the practice to its most basic state.

            Rogaia Abusharaf’s essay on the same topic takes great care to speak through the voices of women who have themselves experienced the practice through the use of narratives, rather than speaking on their behalf or for them as Walker seems to do in utilizing her own narrative as a comparison. As such, I would like to explore the instances where Walker’s own story diverges from those presented in Abusharaf’s article to better understand how Walker’s comparison may have muddled her own idea on an appropriate approach to addressing the issue of what she calls female genital mutilation.

First, Walker recounts in her story that after a week after her mutilation, her parents ignored her pain and suffering, leaving her to endure it alone. While some of the narratives spoke to this, Najat recalls that “people around you pay no attention,” others expressed great concern for their own daughters after their circumcisions and are sure to take care of them (11). Asha, for example speaks to the complications her own daughter experienced with great concern (14). As such, I feel that Walker’s comparison encourages a very detached, unaffectionate, perhaps even hostile view of mothers who circumcise their daughters, which many of Abusharaf’s recounted narratives dispel.

 A second consequence of her mutilation that Walker recounts is the dismissal that she experienced at school as a result of her injury. This experience greatly diverges from those recounted by Abusharaf. Zakia informs readers that “A lot of people I know who live there practice sunna for cleanliness” (9). Most of the narratives in this piece, in fact, recount that circumcision is very common, if not the norm in Douroshab. As such, the likelihood that any girl would face any prejudice within her community for being circumcised is highly unlikely. Rather, it seems as if there is more of a stigma surrounding not being circumcised. As such, Walker’s comparison projects her own feeling of being an outsider onto the women who engage in this dominant practice, which encourages viewers to sympathize with these “victims” of circumcision, not for the physical pain they endure but for the feeling of being an outcast, when this is not the case.

Finally, Walker spoke to the issues that she had as a child navigating and living her daily life as a result of her mutilation. While it is undeniable, as many of the narratives detail, that there are physical limitations associated with female circumcision, these narratives also include many benefits that those who partake in the practice value. Najat, for example explains, "Pharaonic circumcision is good for women. It protects the dignity of women. The woman will have control over her body...her circumcision will allow her to take control" (11). Similarly, Suaad mentions that she feels that "sex is better with pharaonic" (10).  Others, like Zakia, express that "the people who support the sunna believe strongly that it keeps the genital area clean" (9). I do not mean to overlook the complications and pain that undoubtedly come along with female circumcision. Merely, I mean to draw attention to the fact that Walker's comparison of her own mutilation creates a view of female circumcision that has no other purpose besides wounding or inflicting pain on girls. 

I greatly respect Alice Walker as an activist and feminist and I too see the many problems that female circumcision can present. With that said, I feel that Warrior Marks and the story that Alice Walker includes to personally tie herself to this practice and speak on behalf of these women is a problematic presentation of the issue. I believe that it reduces the practice to nothing more than torture and fails to make any attempt to understand the motivations behind this practice. Until the practice itself is understood, it cannot successfully be challenged, or else all attempts to do so will appear as mere ignorant attacks rather than presentations of alternatives. 

Cultural Context and Genital Cutting

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

Different Strokes for Different Folks

A surface reading of The Project Chick by Nikki Turner might yield an interpretation that that the themes and characters presented in the novel represent a rhetoric that encourages traditional gender roles, and the submission and objectification of women. However after looking deeper within the text and taking account of intersections of race, class and gender, details of the story contain a more feminist framework than what might initially be assumed. A good way to identify feminist tendencies in this novel is to pay close attention to the women, the ways in which they exercise power and agency, and understanding the complexities of the roles the men in their lives play.

Looking specifically at Tressa, it is important to understand that class, access and income are factored into her romantic relationships, thus forcing her to be cognizant of her financial well-being when making decisions regarding the men in her life. While her reliance on men might seem at first to fall within the bounds of gendered norms, much of it is rooted less in companionship and more in the affordances, both material and otherwise, that the men she is involved with can offer her. In the same vein, she must consider what can be lost in severing ties with the men in her life and how it might impact her reality. This is evident in all of her relationships as she closely considers what each potential partner can offer her, measuring the risks against the rewards. The men who are allowed to be in Tressa’s life must have something significant to offer up that will benefit her life and her circumstances. Her relationships with men, while on the surface, seem to revolve around and run by them, are actually motivated by her personal necessities and desires. The men in, or potentially in, her life, are valued for their resources and serve as a source of Tressa’s survival. Tressa’s priority is the well-being and safety of herself and her family, and her environment is set up in such a way that a part of ensuring that security has to do with how a man might able to contribute. Her decisions then, are strategic and while they might not overcome historicized and instutionalized gender, racial and class oppressions, she exercises power by working within her reality and being the ultimate decider over those actions that fall within her control.

If we bind notions and definitions of feminism to specific traits such as, independence, financial and otherwise, from men, we disregard other ways in which women might claim or exercise independence. This therefore excludes as well as disregards, narratives in which women are navigating intersections of gender, class and racial oppressions. Turner’s A Project Chick, and Tressa herself as an embodiment of intersectional feminism, to a substantial degree, help to expand an understanding of feminism which makes it possible to view it through a variety of lenses and from multiple angles. One of the most important characteristics of feminism and feminist thought is its plurality. It is important to be aware of the bounds in which some women with certain identities might be working within, that are different from those narratives that have in the past, and today still, represent [mainstream] feminism.

Women against Men vs. Women against Women

At first I was a little disappointed after reading A Project Chick because I felt like Tressa was very dependent on men throughout the book. I felt as though she was dependent on men for money and that the situations in which she accepted money from men were inappropriate. For example, after engaging in sexual acts with Mr. Bill, “…he handed her a wad of cash, and said. ‘Told you I was gonna look out for you real good, here’s a little something to help you out’” (Turner, pg. 138). 

However, I did see some positive aspects of the story. It seemed that although Tressa often looked for help from men, especially financial help, it was the women in her life that she could really count on. Wiggles was there for her from the day she decided to leave Lucky, and she provided her with money and shelter. Her neighbor, Joan, also provided support and a job opportunity. The major difference between these women and the men she depended on was that the women did not expect anything in return for their help. They gave selflessly, while the men gave to her expecting her to continue to show them a “good time”. Joan and Wiggles were the ideal examples of how women should support each other. Wiggles who had barely anything to her name still worked to supply Tressa with whatever she could, even if it was just time to babysit the kids. Her neighbor also did everything in her power to help Tressa such as, giving her money, storing her clothes, and giving her the opportunity to work for her sister. These women who were from completely opposite situations and backgrounds did their part to help a women in need despite any class or race difference.

            There were also negative aspects addressed of the relationships between women. Among the black women and Tressa there was often hate and jealousy. Between Tressa and Joan’s sister there was discrimination.  For example, Tressa felt the need to show off her expensive purchases in the hair salon, while Gypsy felt the need to make Tressa feel embarrassed about her financial situation. Tressa states, “Sometimes you just gotta pay the cost and take the lost, simply to put a bitch in her place, and keep their head wondering” (pg. 105). Both Tressa and Gypsy were in tough financial situations and they could have supported each other instead of envying each other. On the other hand Joan’s sister originally refused to pay Tressa at the pay rate she deserved based on the money she brought into the company. She took advantage of Tressa’s situation since she knew how badly she must need the job.

            This novel points out how women can decide to build each other up or tear each other down. It also shows how women can be the support group for other women when they are in unfortunate situations. It shows positive views of how black women and white woman can work together and how black women can work with other black women. It also shows the negative point of view about how dangerous and wrong it is for black women and white women to tear down other black women. Finally, it shows the backbone that the black women have even after being torn down by degrading men, envious women, and unfortunate circumstances.

Gypsy: Tressa's Antithesis

One passage of the novel that I found particularly intriguing was the one that describes Gypsy. Her description to me seems to illuminate not her own feminist power, but Tressa's. Gypsy is described as being a very strong woman. Her motto is that "pussy is power"(114) and that so long as she is able to use this body part, she will have power. She uses it to get money from men by "purposely" (115) getting pregnant or simply prostituting herself. She works as a hair dresser, but this isn't how she makes her money. She uses it to fill in gaps, but mostly relies on men to sponsor what she wants. To her, "motherhood is a business investment," just another thing that she can do to make money. She chooses the fathers carefully so that she knows they will financially take care of her and her children. She is extremely selfish, has no friends, and admits to caring about no one but herself.

This personality is starkly contrasted with Tressa's. Tressa is almost the opposite of Gypsy. She cares very deeply about others. She visits Taj in jail whenever she can, supports him even when she barely has money, dreams about going to college, and never asked for Lucky to shower her with gifts like he does. Were the roles reversed, we can be pretty sure that Gypsy would take Lucky for all he's worth and not care at all. But Tressa doesn't do that. She is a hard worker. And what's more, she cares very deeply for her sons. She doesn't view them as a business enterprise but rather as her family. She will do almost anything for her sons - even Lucky recognizes that. What's more, she works hard to build a good life for herself. When she decides to leave Lucky she takes matters firmly into her own hands and gets an apartment, works to make it clean, and creates a safe place for her sons. She also encourages Wiggles to go to rehab and supports her when she does. Tressa and Gypsy are both single women who are in one way or another empowered (though through different means).

What's interesting though, is that they had extremely similar childhoods. Tressa had an abusive stepfather and a mother who was incarcerated (and later died). She has had to work three jobs to support herself in school and give the leftovers to Taj. Gypsy had a drug-addict mother who couldn't make enough money to feed the family. So Gypsy started doing hair to make money. She became the breadwinner for herself and her mother. But despite such similar beginnings, both women end up becoming empowered in very different ways. This to me is supposed to highlight Tressa's more subtle feminine strength. Gypsy is very clearly independent and strong and at first look, appears to be a clear feminist. But comparing her strength to Tressa's highlights the pure, truly impressive power that Tressa has. And also highlights that Gypsy's power still comes from men. Yes she is independent, but she is gaining power from men. Tressa is truly independent and doesn't rely on men for her power. Upon closer inspection, she actually appears to be the 'freer' of the two women. I think that Gypsy serves to enlighten readers on how amazing and strong Tressa is and show that women can gain freedom without resorting to selling their bodies and reproductive functions.