Female Genital Mutilation: Exploring Gender and Religion as Axes of Difference - Essay Example

Female Genital Mutilation: Exploring Gender and Religion as Axes of Difference “The dream of a system of torture that has crippled 100 Million peoplenow living upon this earth and every year takes at least two million more into an existence of suffering, deprivation and disease --- the torture is Female Genital Mutilation.” Rosenthal, A. (2005) Most people often assume that axes of difference and bases of inequality revolve around independent spheres. Gender discrimination, for example, is to be studied separate from class discrimination; race discrimination is to be studied separate from class, and so on and so forth. However, in many cases these spheres overlap and interact with each other. Here we discuss the notion of intersectionality – that which looks at the multiple, socially-constructed categories that interact in complex and multidimensional ways to produce and reproduce structures of inequality. It is hinged in the idea that themes of gender, race and class should be perceived not as independent from each other, but as overlapping structures of oppression and exploitation that must be addressed and resisted together as it “shapes those upon whom it bestows privilege as well as those it oppresses.” (Frankenberg: 1993: 131).” Intersectionality: Tracing the Concept If we begin to trace the root of gender differentiation, and even subordination, it is imperative to consider the notion of gender as social construct and see how men and women are assigned different social roles and are treated or considered differently because of perceived biological differences. As expressed by Lorber (1994: 56) – Western society’s values legitimate gendering by claiming that it all comes from physiology – female and male procreative differences. But gender and sex are not equivalent, and gender as a social construction does not flow automatically from genitalia and reproductive organs, the main physiological differences of females and males. In the construction of ascribed social statuses, physiological differences such as sex, stage of development, color of skin, and size are crude markers. As a result of this, women were then considered less able than men and therefore must be submissive to the husband. Her greatest asset is her purity. Women have been considered as the weaker sex, unable to carry out masculine tasks and duties requiring intellectual development. In the past, a little girl would learn from her mother that a woman’s place was at home – doing household work like cooking and cleaning and watching over young children. Indeed, societal norms have greatly affected women in many cultures. Women, in most cultures, are considered to be inferior, a situation that has continued to hinder their career progress. In many societies, men and women are assigned distinct social roles which are restricted by certain norms. The perception of the role of women in the workforce has widely changed over time in the society. Historically the society viewed women as in the home taking care of the husband and children. Social norms required the woman to be submissive to the husband and should not leave the home for work. We must bear in mind that these “dichotomous, mutually exclusive categories that shape our understanding of the world are gendered and they are key to the production and reproduction of violence at all levels” (Confrontini 2006, p. 333). It is wrong however to look at female subordination without looking at other axes of difference. This now brings us to the concept of intersectionality. The concept of intersectionality was conceived by the United Nations in 2001, such concept stating that: An intersectional approach to analyzing the disempowerment of marginalized women attempts to capture the consequences of the interaction between two or more forms of subordination. It addresses the manner in which racism, patriarchy, class oppression and other discriminatory systems create inequalities that structure the relative positions of women, races, ethnicities, class and the like … racially subordinated women are often positioned in the space where racism or xenophobia or class and gender meet. They are consequently subject to injury by the heavy flow of traffic travelling along all these roads. (United Nations 2001). Intersectionality was first used as a concept to trace the layers of oppression undergone by black women. Frankenberg, the famous feminist, for instance, admitted that she she had at first considered race far removed from her work as a Marxist Feminist. To quote her, “I saw racism as entirely external to me, a characteristic of extremists or of the British State, but not a part of what made me or what shaped my activism.” (1993: 53) Her race consciousness was triggered by the observation that unlike those she campaigned in the All-Cambridge campaigns who were whites like her, those she worked alongside in the feminist movement in the United States were “lesbian women of color and white working class women” (ibid, 54) – bringing forth a heterogeneity that demonstrated the unities and linked experiences of women from all over the world. Indeed, keen understanding of the notion of intersectionality and the multiple axes of difference that impact on women and their lives should inform human rights work and human rights interventions in the field of development. Many theorists, however, feel that whilst the intersections between race and gender are absolutely important, there are other intersections, and implications in other geographical regions, that are underanalysed. According to Riley (2004) for example, There is as yet limited discussion of intersectionality in terms of class/economic status and race and gender in the global South. If an intersectional approach is to be useful in the development field, it needs to be informed by the experiences and views of women in the South. We need to know how understanding the situation of an HIV-positive woman living in South Africa as an intersection between gender, race and HIV status would affect development work. Looking at race of class, a good example is to examine the positionality of women living in conditions of poverty and vulnerability. For example, in the developing, particularly in underprivileged communities, women often find themselves charged with running the household, running the whole gamut of tasks like cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, etc. These are important tasks and contribute to the welfare of the family, but because a low value is put on these tasks by the community, those who perform them are valued in a similar inferior manner. So deeply embedded is this perception of women that the assertion of their rights and agency remains to be a continuous struggle. Gains must be fought before they are won. Gender and Religion: Female Genital Mutiliation Now I discuss the intersection of gender and another axis of difference, which is religion. I discuss it in light of an oft-discussed cultural practice: female genital mutilation. This is the thinking that underlies Female Genital Mutilation, which is a practice that is believed to date back to over 5000 years ago, with its origin believed to be ‘among tribes residing on the western coast of the Red Sea ( Todd –Chattin, 2005). The World Health Organization (WHO, 1995) defines FGM as; “Female Genital Mutilation comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of female genital organs for cultural or any other non – therapeutic reason”. The whole conception of Female circumcision is a deeply rooted cultural practice that different societies conceive differently ranging from rites of passage from girl to womanhood, reduces sexual desires, cleanliness and preservation of virginity. The most intriguing aspect about the framing of female circumcision is how the term kept changing as those behind the push for eradication of female circumcision wanted to express the magnitude and horror of the practice. Initially the terminology used was ‘female circumcision’ but the advocacy groups claimed that the term did not fully capture the ‘torture of the event’, later the procedure got another terminology ‘female genital cutting’, this too did not last long as the WHO “wanted to heighten global awareness of the severity and brutality of this procedure by calling it mutilation” (2008).The practice of female circumcision first drew the attention of the Western orld back in the 17th century when the Christian missionaries made attempts to stop the practice as harmful. This attempt was of course resisted vehemently, like anything during the time as a colonial project attempt to destroy the cultures of their subjects. After the development of the universal framework for human rights protection through the universal declaration of human rights (UDHR), female circumcision as an agenda of the UN, came up in 1958 ( Todd –Chattin 2005). In February 2008, ten UN Agencies issued a joint statement pointing out that “Female Genital Mutilation is a manifestation of unequal relations between women and men with roots in deeply entrenched social, economic and political conventions”. Patriarchal societies mostly lack or have no balanced structures that assure substantial rights. It is rather ironic that women who are supposed to protect their children from all harm are the ones who conduct the FGM on the young girls and women. This is happening because “in many of these societies, men dictate what is considered the virtuous and acceptable female image. Control over every aspect of the woman is accepted and women gladly acquiesce in an attempt to gain higher societal status and to be deemed more acceptable for marriage”. (Lynnette, 2010: 169). In patriarchal societies, women generally depend on men, their husbands and fathers for social, economic and moral support. The case of unequal relations and female body and sexuality control in a patriarchal society was rather graphically captured by Ayaan Jirsi Ali who had a personal testimony “I was a Somali woman and therefore my sexuality belonged to the owner of my family, my father or uncles. It was obvious that I absolutely had to be a virgin at marriage, because to do otherwise would damage the honour of my father and his whole clan – uncles, brothers, male cousins – forever and irretrievably. The place between my legs was sewn up to prevent it. It would be broken only by my husband” (Ali, 2007) It is interesting because we see here cross-cutting spheres of difference. On the one hand, you have the subordination of women as a result of a cultural practice. But on the other hand, this too is an example of how the Western frame of thinking imposes its way and subordinates other cultures. Unthinking statements expounded by activists in popular mass media, usually smugly Western, conjures the idea that indeed Africa is a ‘Dark Continent’ where for ages past, up to and including the present the parents of Africa have been torturing and maiming their daughters and women and curtailing their capacity for a satisfactory sexual response. Mutua, Makau a leading human rights scholar in commenting on such critical discourses on cultural practices of Africa states in an equally searing choice of words: Perhaps in no other area than in the advocacy over FGM is the image of culture as the savage more poignant. The word ‘Mutilation’ itself implies the willful, sadistic infliction of pain on a hapless victim and stigmatizes the practitioners and their cultures as barbaric savages. Descriptions of the practice are so searing and revolting that they evoke images of a barbarism that defies civilization ------, although the practice has dissipated over the last several decades, it is still carried out in parts of Africa and the Middle East. Given Western stereotypes of barbaric natives in the ‘dark continent’, western advocacy over FGM has evoked images of machete – wielding natives only too eager to inflict pain on women in their societies. ((2001: 225 -226) Conclusion The case study of female genital mutilation is stark proof of the intersectionality between gender and religion and culture. Because the act of genital mutilation – done to preserve the cleanliness and purity of a woman before her marriage – is the outcome of forces in her religion and culture, we see a complex and intertwined relationship that must be understood if it is to be stopped. At the same time, it is made even more complicated by the fact that the opposition of it from the Western world has often been attended by a certain kind of Western smugness – the “othering” of another’s culture and belief practices. This too is another form of subjugation, and at the end of the day, those who suffer the most are the women themselves, for these women have already suffered greatly throughout generations and need real and meaningful interventions, not judgments on their cultural practices by people whose context are far removed from theirs. An important reminder by Merry is in order: There are fissures between the global settings where human rights ideas are codified into documents and the local communities, where the subjects of these rights live and work. Human rights ideas, embedded in cultural assumptions about the nature of the person, the community and the state, do not translate easily from one setting to another. If human rights ideas are to have an impact they need to become part of the consciousness of ordinary people around the world. (2006:3). In practical terms, this means that human rights and development workers who want to assist in this issue, should take time in understanding the context in depth, and understanding the complex interplay of religion and culture in gender oppression. References Ali, Ayaan Hirsi. (2007). Infidel. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. Confortini C.C. “Galtung, violence, and gender: the case for a peace studies/feminism alliance”. Peace and Change 31.3, (2006). 333-367. Print. Frankenberg, R. (1993) “Growing Up White: Feminism, Racism and the Social Geography of Childhood.” Feminist Review. Vol. 45. 51-84. Lorber, Judith. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Lynnette, S. (2010) ‘Patriarchy: Perpetuating the Practice of Female Genital Mutilation’ Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. Vol. 1-2 (1):160-181 Merry, S. E. (2006) Human Rights and gender violence; translating international law into local justice Chicago: University of Chicago. Mutua, M. (2001) “Human Rights International NGO’s: A critical Evaluation” in Claude E. Welch (ed) NGOs and Human Rights: Promise and Performance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylavania Press. Riley, J. (2004). “Some Reflections on Gender Mainstreaming and Intersectionality.” Australian National University. Available at http://devnet.anu.edu.au/GenderPacific/pdfs/19_gen_mainstream_riley.pdf Rosenthal, A. (1995) “The Possible Dream”. New York Times, OP –ED Page. The World Health Organization: ‘ Definition of FGM’(2008) Accessed on 4 October 2011 United Nations. (2000). “Women, 2000: gender, equality, development and peace for the twenty first century.” United Nations Outcome Document. Beijing, China. Todd, C. (2005) ‘Curbing Female Genital Mutilation: The Role of Information and Libraries’ Accessed 6 October 2011. Read More