The example of foot binding in China is particularly relevant, though.

From http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/studpages/vento.html :

Formally outlawed in 1911, the practice continued into the 20th century, when a combination of internal Chinese and Western missionary-inspired pressures generated calls for reform and a true anti-footbinding movement emerged. Educated Chinese realized that it made them appear barbaric to foreigners, social Darwinists argued that it weakened tile nation (for enfeebled women inevitably produced weak sons), and feminists attacked it because it caused women to suffer.[33]

The work of the anti-footbinding reformers had three aspects. First, they carried out a modern education campaign, which explained that the rest of the world did not bind women’s feet and that China was losing face in the world, making it subject to international ridicule. Second, their education campaign explained the advantages of natural feet and the disadvantages of bound feet. Third, they formed natural-foot societies, whose members pledged not to bind their daughter’s feet nor to allow their sons to marry women with bound feet.[34] These three tactics effectively succeeded in bringing footbinding to a quick end, eradicating in a single generation a practice which had survived for a thousand years.

Apparently, the “natural-foot societies” did play a big role; if mothers are doing this to daughters so that the daughters will be able to find a husband (and thereby acquire needed economic support) then spreading the idea that mutilated genitals will be a bigger detriment than an advantage in the marriage market will fight it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/problematizing

I tend to switch to using it in situations where the text I’ve read used the term circumcision, which is often because I’m paraphrasing words that were spoken by women who are from affected cultures. I also flip into using FGM sometimes, often when I’m discussing articles that used the terminology. Writing here drains a lot of time; I’m not always as careful as I could be.

Balom,

I certainly hope there’s a tongue-in-cheek undercurrent to your comment.

You have encapsulated why I have felt so uncomfortable about the whole debate around FGS: I also think that it is a bad practice, but never thought it could be as simple as “the west” insisting on and applauding bans elsewhere. Thank you.

I’d like to note that there’s a really thoughtful post about this very subject on Shrub.com here: http://blog.shrub.com/archives/dora/2007-05-11_600.

It talks mainly about how the discussion of FGS in the west is colored by centuries of imperialism and racism. It really helped give me some context to the arguments I was hearing about it.

Yes, women and girls are dying. However, there is no solution that will work within ten years, any more than there is a way to eradicate rape or child abuse within the United States in that time.

I think your argument suggests that if education isn’t working immediately, then we need to advocate for bans, because they can’t make things worse.

That might be accurate if I included anything about immediately. Nothing works immediately. But after a few years, if something isnt working or very affective, then its not working and taking 10+ years to change beliefs is unacceptable when you look at the numbers of girls who will die in that time.

Changing cultural beliefs through other methods is a result of western pressure as well. So far it seems that change is being resisted on all fronts, be it through activism or bans.

So whats the answer, other than the bite the bullet and try to ride it out option, which is presently what we’re doing and isn’t working either.

It’s fine and well to say approach X wont work..but Im more interested in finding an approach that will and so far nothing is being offered as an alternative that hasnt already been attempted and thus far, has failed.

Which leads me to the possibly thread derailing question of whether illegalizing something ever reduces its incidence. And if so why does it work sometimes and not others? Anyone have any ideas or reading material on the subject. If it isn’t too far off the subject of the post.

I think economics has a good answer to this; bans will work when demand for the item being banned is flexible, and when there are readily available, acceptable substitutes. As I wrote in a post about abortion bans:

Let’s say we ban drinking alcohol. That will lower demand for alcohol - but there will still be a huge demand remaining, and the black market will be substantial. That’s because demand for alcohol is pretty inelastic; you can raise the cost a lot, and people will still want it. People want alcohol very badly.

Compare that to banning RCA brand alarm clocks. Such a ban would probably be totally successful, because the demand for RCA alarms is very flexible; people will switch to Sony or Panisonic alarms and never notice the difference. Pretty much no one wants an RCA alarm badly.

Which would you guess the demand for abortion is more like - the demand for alcohol, or the demand for RCA alarms? I’d say the former. Women who want abortions often desperately want one; they’ll take on substantial trouble, risk and expense to get one.

Will you lower demand on the margins by banning abortion? Of course. But it won’t make a very big difference, because the demand for abortion is pretty inelastic. …When demand is high enough, the market mostly finds a way around barriers - and that includes legal barriers.

It’s really fucking horrible, but until approaches like empowering women and education have a greater impact, I think the demand for FGS may be too high for bans to be effective.

So, while you’re attempting to frame the activism as the status quo, and the ban as the new measure, in fact it’s the other way around. The ban is the thing we’ve tried, and we’ve seen what happens: things get worse. Activism through education and economic opportunity is the new method of making things better.