However, the discourse is so polluted with racism that it’s difficult for that statement to stand on its own — worse, I would say that most kneejerk western proposals for eradicating fgs are predicated on a colonialist kind of misunderstanding about the cultural contexts in which FGS occur.

It’s not necessary to remind feminists that men rape because of social signals in our culture; we know that; we live that; we address it via talking about the rape culture and how to change it. It is necessary for western feminists to talk overtly about the context in which FGS occurs, because it often gets flattened or distorted within the conversation about FGS (which is a conversation had both by feminists and by westerners in general, sometimes to support anti-Islamic or anti-African prejudices).

FGS often comes to us through the mainstream media largely divorced from context, so our understanding of it is distorted and our proposed solutions strange and decontextualized.

I also don’t think this is a phenomenon unique to feminism; I am only thinking of it w/r/t feminism because of how this discussion is being framed.

And honestly? i wasn’t trying to make a point. It just came to mind as I was typing the rest of my post. And it seemed interesting enough to mention.

But I can sympathize with your overall stance. I’m a big fan of properly placed intolerance and disrespect.

tigtog, but perhaps a hardline stance on abortion helps Republicans get elected, who in turn curb abortion rights for all women. In this case, the hardline stance is counterproductive. But I understand why feminists will not respond kindly to calls for moderation on the abortion debate, when so often ‘moderation’ consists of agreeing that yes, women who have sex deserve to be punished with pregnancy, and the hierarchy of importance goes 1. 2000 year old goat herders’ sex superstitions, 2. a month old foetus, 3. that display of the Ten Commandments in that Alabama courthouse, and then 4. women; but just not ALWAYS, depending on if we feel like it. We are not perfectly rational beings, most of us find counting beans to be rather boring, and if feminists’ emotional response is not cave in to such disagreeable notions while simply riding out conservative religion’s stranglehold in America, I wouldn’t necessarily fault them for it.

I think you’re comparing apples and oranges there.

Asking Western feminists to be less culture-warring about the FGC issue because it’s actually counterproductive in reducing FGC is not the same as asking American feminists to be less culture-warring about abortion because it’s counterproductive to some people’s plans for the Democrats’ re-election campaign.

One has been shown to have a direct negative effect on the specific issue feminists wish to change. The other is a demand for women to stop viewing what they want as important at all.

I don’t find those two statements incompatible with being complete, factual, and respectful.

Isn’t this slipping pretty strongly into moral relativism territory? I don’t have to be either understanding or respectful of the assholes who practice FGM. That doesn’t necessarily imply ignorance.

I *am* being intolerant, as per the dictionary definition. But I’m intolerant of FGM just like I”m intolerant of rape. Just like they feel entitled to believe FGM is moral, I am entitled to believe their morality sucks. In fact, not only am I not required to respect people who practice FGM, I am almost guaranteed not to respect people who practice FGM. Can you explain why I should?

Obviously, this is completely different from the “what is the most effective way to stop FGM?” question. It may be that vocal opposition to FGM, or a hard-line position, is actually detrimental to the goal of stopping it. All well and good*, but that’s a tactics issue and not a morality issue.

*And on another line with the “moral relativism” issue…. Seems that the claim is sometimes made that American feminists should “back down” on a particular subject, with the suggestion that the overall goal would benefit from a less hard line tactic. I can’t say I’ve ever seen that view get support. Any ideas why it seems appropriate to everyone in this circumstance?

Of course, as Mandolin discussed rather eloquently, it isn’t possible to end FGC by fiat. In fact, it often makes the problem worse by driving it underground, valorizing it, etc etc etc. But these are *strategic* difficulties, not fundamental moral issues. I think that needs to be kept clear.

I agree with this quote. When people quickly dismiss it as disgusting and immoral, it’s easy for the opposition to argue that we make no effort to understand it or that we are simply being intolerant. The thought of FGC makes my stomach turn and it’s difficult to speak about it in such a… mild way, I guess, but being too harsh doesn’t exactly help our argument.

It’s also going to erode the populace’s support of the authority, who will be seen as bowing to the West. They may decide to support an alternative authority, one that wears masks and runs around with guns.

I have no problem in condemning this as a horrible practice and as flat wrong and immoral. But to assume that someone born and raised in a culture that has been doing this for millenia is going to automatically agree with me when I assert this (or even be open to debate) to them is foolish.

The word “effective” is key, here.

the point is that what’s most effective may be different from what seems most uncompromising and hardcore.

It’s interesting to me how many things this is true of. I mean, it could be the epitaph for our entire political situation.

—Myca

Amen.