Wow, that is a very powerful image.

I think these ads are great. They don't just aim to shame people out of the harm they are doing to their daughters, but they also cast the actual procedure in a negative light - as destroying something beautiful. It is creepy to think that the knowledge that genital mutilation hurts women would not be enough to stop it, but we need to be getting the message out in as many ways as possible.

The image is definitely powerful, but something about the vagina = flower thing makes me uncomfortable.

I think the ads are very powerful and hope they'll make a difference, but I do not get why our vaginas still have to be considered flowers.

The whole flower thing is weird but I can see how people everywhere would get it and I think that out-weighs the "my vagina is not a flower" complaint.

I feel the same way, Ruby.

If you think the vagina = flower thing is bad... then what would you do differently? I think the ad is ggreat, and honestly in this instance I think the flower is an appropriate symbol. I have no problem with the symbolism here because I feel like it shows something beautiful being destroyed. Just because the vagina=flower symbolism is overused and sometimes used in completely idiotic ways, I don't think that means it can't be used in a good way also. I mean, really, what else do you use to get this point across? A sewn up apple? An actual mutilated vagina (something I think would be too over the top to even get the point across, other than with shock value) ? I think the flower is fine, it's effective and makes the point, and I'm not bothered by the fact that it's a flower.

Why are people discomfited by the flower image? I'm just curious, because although it seems a little old-hat to me (how many Georgia O'Keefe paintings have we looked at already?) I don't really think of it as a problematic symbolic representation. Further thoughts?

The vagina/flower thing gets me too. When I first saw the picture I thought it was the new abistenence-only campaign ad. Still, I think increasing awareness about FGM is extremely important since a lot of people don't know what it is or they consider it to be similar to male circumcision. It's just really hard to get that message across without, say, showing the effects of the procedure, which would turn everyone off.

It's not vagina+flower, but labia/vulva=flower, and since the resemblance is pretty strong (O'Keefe, anyone?) I think it's right on.

or they consider it to be similar to male circumcision.

Which is something that should also be deconstructed/challenged as a norm! (Although I realize it doesn't do the same sort of extreme physical damage as FGM).

When I was 16, I decided to take a mirror and check my stuff out, and was shocked to find that the entrance to my vagina really did look like a closed up rose. Now...not so much, but I guess that's why I don't mind the vagina-as-flower symbolism. So long as the analogy isn't used to say how delicate we little girls are, I don't see it as a bad thing. Vulvas are gorgeous and as Georgia O'Keefe has shown, have a striking resemblance to flowers. I especially like how brutish the thread looks on these vibrantly colored roses. I think it brings a sort of visceral point across, but maybe that's just b/c I'm already so upset about FGM.

I have no objection to the flower=vagina imagery. And I think it's a great image. It is a bit misleading, though. In FMG isn't the clitoris removed (ok - makes me wince just typing that). This doesn't even come close to getting at that horrifying reality.

i think the ads are great--very striking.

the flower/vagina thing is kind of overused, but it's still a widely recognized symbol and i think it can be effective here. i also don't really have a problem with analogizing the lady parts to something beautiful in nature, like a flower.

I wince just thinking about the specifics of this issue, too. It's not that I have a *better* metaphor or something, I just don't particularly think vulvas (NOT vaginas) resemble flowers. I don't think vulvas are gorgeous. Sorry. Nothing against vulvas.
I wonder how many young men are surprised, when they first encounter a vulva/vagina, to find that they don't look, feel, or smell like roses?

My problem with the flower concept is also how often it is overused. No offense to dear Georgia O, but I'm tired of people comparing women to delicate roses and hearing terms such as "de-flowered" and "ripe for the picking". Eww.

The only thing that's stopping me from loving those ads is the fact that there's a need for them. I feel sick just appreciating them.

On an artistic note, I think they're fantastic, effective, and incredibly bold.

Also, I have no problems with associating vulvas with flowers per se. I love flowers, I can see the similarities (orchids, anyone?) but I do object to people using the image to demean or condescend women. Flowers in and of itself are neutral, it's what we make of said image that needs to be fixed.

The function of flowers in our society is to beautify our surroundings. They are passive objects, and their role is to be pleasing to our aesthetic and olfactory senses. And while I certainly find vulvas beautiful and (sometimes) nice-smelling, I think that this metaphor sells the vulva short. It misses the strength, resiliency, power, and functionality of the vulva. So, in that regard, I find it disempowering.

It also makes me think of the term "deflowered" which makes me want to throw up.

The function of flowers in our society is to beautify our surroundings. They are passive objects, and their role is to be pleasing to our aesthetic and olfactory senses. And while I certainly find vulvas beautiful and (sometimes) nice-smelling, I think that this metaphor sells the vulva short. It misses the strength, resiliency, power, and functionality of the vulva. So, in that regard, I find it disempowering.

It also makes me think of the term "deflowered" which makes me want to throw up.

The ad also seems to not address the fact that the most common FGM procedures have to do with removing or damaging the clitoris to ensure that women cannot receive sexual pleasure. I think this is a really, really key component to FGM that the campaign is overlooking. It would be easy for Western people to look at this ad and dismiss this as a certain culture just being barbaric because of their lack of Judeo-Christian values (as we tend to do), without examining the actual, deeply misogynistic reasons that this practice exists.

Also, I take issue with the idea that FGM is wrong because it's "destroying something beautiful." Yeah, my vag is beautiful and all that hippie shit, but it exists not to look pretty for people, but for very real and important purposes.

Using the images of the destroyed roses doesn't convey pain or sexual repression to me - just the visual destruction of something that formerly existed primarily to be looked at. That's why I don't particularly like the vag as flower comparison.

That being said, I'm not sure how any of the above points could be addressed in a successful ad campaign. I think they did the best with what they had to work with. The ads aren't bad - I just wish they were better.

Yes and yes, Ruby. You said what I was trying to say, but way fucking better.

Wow, SoyMilkConspiracy, you put it very well. Those are the exact reasons why the flower imagery is bothersome.

soy,
Exactly, this issue is incredibly difficult to convey with a singular image. Taking all things into consideration I think this is a really good way to raise awareness of the issue.

The images are definitely striking, but what worries me about the campaign is that they're still striking in a beautiful way. The flowers have clearly been altered, but they haven't been DESTROYED, so they still look beautiful, even sewn up. And lord knows beauty has NOTHING to do with FGM.

I think that pictures like this might generate sympathy for the fight against FGM, but the problem with sympathy is that it's passive. You can say "Oh, gosh, that's so horrible" and still not do anything. Ads about this subject need to create OUTRAGE, and I think an image with more of a violent overtone would do more on that front (and also create a more accurate metaphor). I'm not exactly sure how you could make that work, because you still want people to look at your ad long enough to read the text, and not automatically turn away, but you still want them to be horrified. I think these flowers are too tame.

Also, TheSoyMilkConspiracy, I completely agree. Well said.

The function of flowers in our society is to beautify our surroundings. They are passive objects, and their role is to be pleasing to our aesthetic and olfactory senses.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with this on a couple of grounds: flowers have significant function outside of our society. They act as herbicides, insecticides, attractants to pollinating "benevolent" insects, they're harvested to provide medicines and foods, the list goes on.

I suspect that they're rather under-appreciated and misunderstood, valued only for their aesthetics. Sound familiar?

I think that these images are quite powerful.

Ruby, if I wanted to nitpick, I'd say that the purpose of flowers is not to beautify our lives but to allow plants to reproduce, except that some flowers are twisted into sterile decorative forms, sort of like women's reproductive equipment. But that would be nitpicking and it would leave out the part about about women's "flowers" being a source of pleasure. I respect your concerns, but I just don't think they are shared by the average consumer that is the target of this ad.

Personally I think it's a great way to get a sensitive subject into the public eye. My only beef would be that the tied-up flowers look too decorative and tidy, especially the red one. The pink one is a bit messier and more painful-looking. But I could actually see some chucklehead thinking, "Hey, that red one looks kind of pretty. It will be beautiful when the stitches come out!"

TinaH, you said what I was trying to say, only better.

The function of flowers in our society is to beautify our surroundings. They are passive objects, and their role is to be pleasing to our aesthetic and olfactory senses.

Using the images of the destroyed roses doesn't convey pain or sexual repression to me - just the visual destruction of something that formerly existed primarily to be looked at.

While I understand this argument, and get the weaknesses of this imagery as a way to convey women's sexuality (without explicit anatomical images, which would offend so many people that they would defeat the communication necessary--sad, but true), I think that you're selling horticultural imagery short! Plants are growing things, and historically they've also been associated with sex and reproduction in ways that were sometimes quite political! In the nineteenth century, people debated the appropriateness of women studying flowers, for example, because of the sexual overtones. And on a most basic level, I like the association of sexuality and women's sexuality with growing things, things that are alive.

It's not that I'm denying the passive/looked-at nature of flowers in our culture--I just think that, like so many things, the cultural messages are complex and varied.

Am I the only one who thinks these pictures almost romanticize the practice? Sure, the roses are sewn shut, but they're still quite pretty.
They remind me of a lot of abstinence-only ads, to be honest.
Guard your diamond, protect your petals, blah blah blah.

To be fair, I'm not sure how else you would present the issue. A rose with a huge chunk ripped out, or a butterfly with its wings torn off, maybe. Maybe not. Bottom line, this falls a bit short of ideal, for me.

Everyone is so smart and articulate with their reactions. I love it!

I'm not bothered by the flower image, personally. The ads are primarly meant to strike interest, to be visual and to be what starts a discussion on FGM. These ads do not define what it is or how we should treat it as an issue. I think AI will do much more on the issue, include provide people with accurate information and ways to get involved.

Additionally, if you see a flower either as a beautiful object or as a functioning part of nature, you still see it as something to be valued. So I like that aspect- if we care about flowers, we definitely need to care about women's vaginas (vulvas and clits, too)!

Plus, these ads will catch the attention of people who might tend to think of vaginas as flowers and use those gag-worthy metaphors and hopefully wake them up to REAL problems women all over the world face in relation to their sexual autonomy.

The images are definitely striking, but what worries me about the campaign is that they're still striking in a beautiful way. The flowers have clearly been altered, but they haven't been DESTROYED, so they still look beautiful, even sewn up. And lord knows beauty has NOTHING to do with FGM.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes. I noticed that too. I was looking at the ads and I kept thinking "why am I not more disturbed? These images are actually beautiful." They remind me of those "Vote or Die" (or whatever campaign) ads they used to have that showed pictures of beautifully made up celebrities' mouths sewn shut, which were actually MORE creepy than these FGM ads.

As I perceive it, the flower metaphor typically has little to do with biology and much more to do with socially constructed meanings (beauty, reverence, etc.), and I am therefore critiquing the social meanings of flowers and that relationship to the social meanings of women's bodies. Sure, there are biological parallels as well, but in the case of mass marketing, I don't think that scientific functionality is the point.

people see things differently but I just dont see how you can see those images as beautiful in any way. The beauty of these flowers has been marred greatly, notice the size and starkness of the stitches, I think this is just one of the ways these work as an effective tool to raise awareness. perhaps we should all take a day to let the image soak in, sometimes thats what it takes with images like these.

Obviously everybody here realizes that flowers exist for reasons other than to be looked at and enjoyed by humans. However, our incredibly narcissistic culture often fails to notice any function of natural things unless they're serving the needs of humans (i.e. "animals are meant to be eaten" etc.). So while flowers obviously play a much more important role in life on this planet other than looking pretty in a vase, most people don't recognize or acknowledge this.

And that's, again, why I don't like the vagina=flowers thing, yet I DO think it's accurate. It's a pretty blatant example of how an oppressive culture (patriarchy vs. women, humans vs. nature) ignores the biological function of something in place of appreciating it for its aesthetic "beauty" and how said beauty is beneficial to those who look at flowers/vaginas/breasts etc., not OWN (or are) them.

Christ, I hope that made sense.

Soooo off topic, but...

Whether or not the image is actually "beautiful" (values aside) is completely, totally, 100% opinion. Yes, the meaning behind it makes it ugly. Yes, the reason the ad was made in the first place is disturbing - we can ALL agree on this. But asking people to "let the image soak in" in hopes that they eventually will see it the exact same way you do is a little...condescending.

Speaking STRICTLY on aesthetics, I can see why one believes that the image isn't beautiful because the natural beauty of the flowers has been compromised. Yet, I can also see how the altering of them could also be, artistically speaking, ENHANCING their beauty.

Clinique had some of the most popular magazine ads of all time when they started photographing their cosmetics all fucked up and smooshed. Remember those? Lipsticks that we smashed and smeared across the page, eyeshadows that were broken and crumbling, foundation that was spilling out of the bottle, ruining the usual "perfection" seen so often in makeup ads. Every single girl I knew in high school tore those ads out and put them on their walls because, even though the "perfect" objects had been "destroyed," they were still beautiful and interesting to look at.

Art is fucking art, and if we're speaking strictly on how the images look, I don't think it's constructive or necessary to try to convince people that they're ugly just because you see them that way.

Wow, a lot of anti-flower feelings; I wasn't expecting that.

TinaH, you took the words out of my mouth.

AI is trying to sum up an extremely complex and terrible issue with one image in order to get people's attention. They're not going to be able to address all the nuances of female sexuality, so we have to let that go.

Yes it's trite, but I like the comparison of flowers to vulvas. There is so much vulvaphobia out there (among men and women alike), that comparing them with non-judgmental appreciation to something of varying color, proportion and smell is needed balance.

Feminists often come up against this problem of not wanting women to be ignored, but not wanting them represented in any particular way because it's limiting. Well, if I have to choose how my vagina is represented, I want it equated with something pleasant, something in nature.

I bet all the anti-flower people would be equally offended if it were represented by a stitched up piece of steak or a Gucci bag, in order to capture the "not so sugar-and-spice" reality of our multi-functional organs. Any symbolic imagery can be demeaning insofar as it is not totally representational, so sometimes you have to go with what is going to make the biggest impact on your desired audience.

I have to agree with MsDirector and Vervain. The roses are still, in spite of the sewing, intact and beautiful.

I think perhaps roses with chunks missing or butterflies with their wings mutilated as someone else suggested might have been a more accurate allegory and more impactive.

i think the images can be artistically interesting to look at and "beautiful" in that sense and still work as a message.

anyway, good points made by all who weighed in on the flowergina issue. it's something to think about and i certainly don't like "precious-diamond-hymen-deflowering" usage of the metaphor.

I don't mind the flower as vulva thing, but I do think the pictures are beautiful. Also I think sewing them up makes them look MORE like vulvas. my the way my lips are arranged does not look like an open round thing. it has the shape of the sewn flowers.

Maybe it blood were dripping from where the thread poked the petals it would add an element of greusomeness. something like this SHOULD disgust, and I don't think these images don't do that.

I agree with FEMily, the image alone looks almost positive as if it is promoting something (such as abstinence.)

I'm not entirely sure the campaign is meant for anyone who would consider equating women and their vulvas to flowers a problem.
That is, many feminists who might care about the imagery are already aware of and against FGM. This campaign isn't really meant for us. It's meant for people who are unaware of the issue.

My first thoughts on seeing this was that it was powerful on the surface, but the more I looked at it, I realized that although the image was disturbing, the rose was still beautiful, and something was missing.

Then it kinda hit me. What's missing is the human quality. The most important element of this campaign should be the women and girls it affects, and it's just not represented well. In the end, this isn't about flowers, disembodied labias, or metaphors - it's about real women and real torture.

I understand what they are trying to do, and I'm not offended by it, I just think the might have missed the mark. They need to show who this affects, as a whole and very real woman, and stop with the metaphors. Female torture does not seem to be an appropriate time to try and soften the truth.

The other thing that bothered me is that to me, this looks like an entire labia sewn shut. From what little I understand about FGM, I thought the clitoris was removed (as several others have mentioned), and the vagina was sewn shut. Like everyone else said, this would be a lot more mutilating then just a loose string of stitches like the picture shows.

But, again, I suppose its better to try to get the word out then not at all.

I think geeky_girl has a good point to keep in mind with these types of public awareness campaign. There's always the issue of diluting the message, but the most important thing is to put the issue on the radar of people who aren't already thinking about it as something problematic.

Another question I have (and forgive my ignorance, but I haven't stayed on top of this particular issue as well as I might have): how is this campaign being incorporated into cultures where FGM is the accepted? Is this a campaign directed toward them? Or a campaign for "western" audiences? Or both?

I know there are activists who are working against these practices within the communities where it takes place, and I truly believe it's a human rights/feminist issue that has nothing to do with "western" values, but I know this issue has always been open to charges of imperialism and cultural insensitivity.

Those are interesting ads; I do agree that they look too "pretty" in some way, to represent FGM.

Relatedly, I stumbled across this blog posting earlier today:

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/a-new-debate-on-female-circumcision/index.html?hp

Feministing-goers might find some parts of it... "interesting".

These ads are amazing. They really bring home how shocking and disgusting FGM is. I do not think the ads are appealing in anyway, nor do they glorify the practice of mutilation. The viewer can envision the beauty of the flower and see what the tearing and imprisoning of the surgery did to it.

I think that if the roses were bleeding the message would be a more powerful representation of FGM, as most of the negative reactions I've read seem to be concerned with the rose's continued intactness and beauty. I agree that they need to push the bloody reality of this a little further if they want to increase awareness of just how horrible this "procedure" really is.

I quite agree with Vervain and MsDirector, too. My first reaction was that the modification to the second rose does not come close to conveying the brutality, destruction, and irreversability of FGM.

I like the flower/vulva metaphor. It's very, very old, predating by far the idea that flowers exist so you can go to the local florist and put them in a vase. It has to do with the resurgence of life and sexuality in nature in the spring, and the fact that flowers are the sex organs of plants, which, in an agricultural society in which gardeners worked to breed different plants would have carried a great deal more weight than it does now. It has, in my opinion, a lot more in common with fruit/vulva metaphors than with misogynist objectification. An important consideration is also that the flower is one of the vulvic symbols that is at its most effective when open, which is what makes this imagery work. Figs and pomegranates are at their most vulvic when cut into, and oysters are only opened up when they're killed. So in terms of making the connection between sewing up/being closed=mutilation, flowers are the right way to go, in my opinion.

I agree that if I were designing this campaign, the roses would have chunks of petals ripped off, but I also think that's nit-picking to a certain extent, because this campaign is not directed at us, from what I can tell. It's an awareness campaign, which means it's directed at people who haven't much considered the issue before, and for them I think this is a good start.

I agree with vavain and others agreeing with her. These images DO romanticize the practice. While dark, these are very aesthetically pleasing images. The flowers are delicately sewn so as not to destroy the petals, merely pierce them with precise holes. The flowers themselves become misshaped from the sewing, but they are not strained and deformed. If they wanted to keep the flower image, in and of itself another problematic issue, they should have mutilated and ripped the petals, shown evidence of bleeding and infection (not at all a romantic image), and maybe even shown the tool that was used.

But really, if they had done that, I would have still hated it and considered it yet another image of brutalization of women. Much like how showing rape in movies always seems to romanticize it. Personally, I think the best bet is to stay away from images. Do we really need images to accompany the phrase "female genital mutilation?"

I agree with vavain and others agreeing with her. These images DO romanticize the practice. While dark, these are very aesthetically pleasing images. The flowers are delicately sewn so as not to destroy the petals, merely pierce them with precise holes. The flowers themselves become misshaped from the sewing, but they are not strained and deformed. If they wanted to keep the flower image, in and of itself another problematic issue, they should have mutilated and ripped the petals, shown evidence of bleeding and infection (not at all a romantic image), and maybe even shown the tool that was used.

But really, if they had done that, I would have still hated it and considered it yet another image of brutalization of women. Much like how showing rape in movies always seems to romanticize it. Personally, I think the best bet is to stay away from images. Do we really need images to accompany the phrase "female genital mutilation?"

I think we do, Marissa. There are many people who are simply visual thinkers. I'm not. I'm a verbal thinker, and my mind basically edits out visual input and I have to make an effort to pay close attention to what I'm seeing if I want to process it. I automatically go for words. But because of that, and because I know people in the visual arts, I am very positive that there are many people out there who are just the reverse, who think visually and don't process words unless they've been given a strong visual cue to do so. So, yes, I do think we need visuals.

btw that new york times piece linked is awful. i skimmed the comments and it did seem like most of the posters were attacking it too, which was encouraging.

I had a very similar idea for an ad about FGM. There's really nothing new under the Sun.

It is very powerful and effective. I hope it opens the eyes of many who are entirely oblivious about this brutality.

EG, I agree with you in part. I am one of those visual people, and believe me, some people need images. (My career is directly related to the visual arts.) But even as a visual person, who absolutely would defend the important contribution of visuals to knowledge, I still think that sometimes visuals are inappropriate. I think it is inappropriate to depict rape scenes. I think it is inappropriate that there is always a (safely) sexualized image of a woman in conjunction with discussions of breast cancer. (Its not like there are sexy images of men in conjunction with discussions of prostate cancer.) I think it is also inappropriate to depict images of violence against women, especially when the image is so.. pretty. And pretty in reference to the genital region that the violence is being perpetuated against. I guess if there was going to be an image, it should be of the emotional impact to the person or family. We don't need to romanticize this practice in such an explicit way. Are there images of delicately destroyed suggestive objects for men who face violence in war, for example?

sorry,
Personally I am not going to go on arguing any further on the flower imagery. I find more disturbing the implications of these "awareness" ads and their perception in western society. While we think of the practice of FGM as digusting and inhumane, women who do not undergo the procedure in these societies are social outcasts, are rejected by family and will not be wed. More often than not, its women who have undergone FGM who impose the procedure on their young girls, and not men. Its almost a procedure driven entirely by female agency. It is seen as a rite of passage, same as jews regard Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, its seen as a female bonding ritual usually accompanied after by traditionally rich festivities. It is also the only source of income for many women.

The western perspective on FGM fails to do these cultures justice because we'll always see the practice in an eurocentric perspective (guess what? the United States, Britan and France used to practice them too!). It doesnt just take Amnesty International going into a country and abolishing the procedure, it will happen underground nevertheless because so much of a woman's identity in these countries is associated with the procedure! Its a very close tranditional factor to these women's lives, it defines their femininity, they cannot envision NOT doing it. A woman who doesnt undergo the procedure is simply ostracized. And this whole language of "human rights" is really divorced from the enabling situations that would abolish these practices. Human rights mean nothing unless there are means for the women to carry out their traditions but abolish the practice. If you give practitioners venues for other jobs. But the traditions are married to the practice, its not possible to intervene from the outside. Solutions would be promoting awareness in the communities and providing jobs to women whose lives rely on procedures and providing another sense of sisterhood that retains the festivities but abolishes the procedures. Such things are hard to do, and we cant just stand here and intervene on their behalf, they are the ones to do it! If we intervene we are basically saying these women are in incapable of taking action. We are infantalizing them and we're exhibiting nothing short of imperialism, probably even encouraging these practices since outside western culture with its pornographic nature is percieved as threatening to the traditions of countries where female chastity is a defining national factor.

Besides, think of vaginal recostructive plastic surgery and its increasing normalcy? *barf* so really, who are we to talk?

Oh, and by saying inappropriate, I am not making any sort of reference to ideas of religious purity/modesty/etc. I say inappropriate to mean these are contexts where the media/image makers are capitalizing on tragedy as an opportunity to objectify women's bodies.

And also, my comparison to men in war is a little bit of a weak parallel, because, well, men aren't subject to the same kinds of sexual and sexualized violence that women face, at least to my knowledge.

Wait, hold on. Nevermind. Men are raped.

vaginal plastic surgery is performed on ADULTS, not children or adolescent girls. as long as FGM is practiced on children, who are not old enough to give legal consent just about anything in this country, it is abuse and i cannot support it.

the fact that it is a tradition carried on primarily by women is of no consequence to me. that's like saying we can't critique ann coulter or phyllis shlafly or that horrible stepp woman becaus they are female. or even worse, that we have to support foot-binding or sex trafficking of young girls because women are the ones who foist these things upon other females. women can be just as guilty of sexism, misogyny and barbaric behavior.

also, simply because some women, like the ones in the new york times piece, had positive experiences with FGM, does not somehow obliterate all the horror stories of women who were unwilling participants, who were cut on as children, under dangerous and unsanitary conditions, or who have suffered medical and sexual consequences as a result.

nata_was,
I totally disagree.

FGM is a problem. It's not "their" problem. It's our problem. As a woman, it's my problem.

Trying to find solutions to a clear violation of human rights is not infantilizing the cultures and women who practice and are subject to FGM. Education is the key, and it's important that these women be helped find control of their bodies and sexuality. They cannot make their own choices until they *have* choices.

It really bothers me how many comments here are using the term vagina to refer to their inner labia. Do we still have a problem using the term labia or do women still not know the names for the different parts of their genitals or do women still not know which part is which in their genitalia?

Besides, think of vaginal recostructive plastic surgery and its increasing normalcy? *barf* so really, who are we to talk?

Given that vaginal reconstructive plastic surgery is very, very rare, not a procedure that anyone "has" to undergo in order to be considered a woman or an adult, and that it isn't a rite of passage, I don't see why we shouldn't talk.

While we think of the practice of FGM as digusting and inhumane, women who do not undergo the procedure in these societies are social outcasts, are rejected by family and will not be wed.

Indeed. That's a major part of the problem. But how does that make FGM less horrible? It just means that it is in now way, culturally, a voluntary procedure.

More often than not, its women who have undergone FGM who impose the procedure on their young girls, and not men.

So what? We've all agreed time and time again on these boards that women can and do act as agents of misogyny and sexism. If an American mother tells her daughter that only whores want to have sex, does that make it less misogynist?

Its almost a procedure driven entirely by female agency.

No. If, as you state above, women's status, family acceptance, and marriage prospects are entirely dependant on whether or not she goes through this, I don't see much agency at all. We've discussed time and time again the ways in which we, as western women, bow to patriarchal pressures to wear high heels, change our names upon marriage, etc. How come when it comes to other women far away, the fact that they do something indicates that it's an expression of agency? Are they somehow magically immune to patriarchal pressure?

It is seen as a rite of passage, same as jews regard Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, its seen as a female bonding ritual usually accompanied after by traditionally rich festivities. It is also the only source of income for many women.

Again, that's pretty horrifying. But it doesn't make FGM not an outrage against women's bodies.

The western perspective on FGM fails to do these cultures justice because we'll always see the practice in an eurocentric perspective (guess what? the United States, Britan and France used to practice them too!).

I'm not sure what your point is here. The US, UK, and France, used to use clitoridectomies as a way to control "unruly" women--they were pretty up-front about exactly what it was for. And...so we'll see it from a eurocentric perspective. How does that make ripping the clitoris and labia off of a young adolescent OK?

It doesnt just take Amnesty International going into a country and abolishing the procedure, it will happen underground nevertheless because so much of a woman's identity in these countries is associated with the procedure!

Amnesty International is not a law-making body. It can't "go into a country and abolish the procedure." It's an international agency that works with groups and individuals from a wide variety of cultures and countries. Why do you assume that they're not working with activists from cultures that practice FGM?

But the traditions are married to the practice, its not possible to intervene from the outside.

Tell me, do you make this argument about the torture of prisoners as well? All cultures that I know of are traditionally misogynist. Many, if not most of them, have traditionally tortured prisoners, executed heretics, and committed assorted other atrocities. But plenty of people argue for bringing international pressure to bear on countries that continue those practices into the present day. Why not FGM?

Solutions would be promoting awareness in the communities and providing jobs to women whose lives rely on procedures and providing another sense of sisterhood that retains the festivities but abolishes the procedures.

And why do you think such tactics are incompatible with legislative activism? It's not an either/or situation.

we cant just stand here and intervene on their behalf, they are the ones to do it! If we intervene we are basically saying these women are in incapable of taking action. We are infantalizing them and we're exhibiting nothing short of imperialism,

There are plenty of activists from these cultures who appeal to the international community for support. Don't they deserve the support of feminists from outside their culture? Or are we supposed to abandon them to fight on their own? Was it culturally imperialistic of western feminists to support RAWA and try to get the international community to condemn the Taliban? After all, they claimed to be the bearers of traditional culture as well.

You're reifying the cultures that practice FGM, acting as though these cultures are simple, undifferentiated, as if there is no division of opinion within these communities. But if that were so, there would be no activists from them advocating against the procedure.

I have to defend nata_was. She is right that we cannot just go in and abolish FGM and call it a day. This HAS happened in the past where white priviledged feminists have succeeded in abolishing FGM, but did not do much to change the overall social and political system that oppresses these women. We have to find ways to change the system as a whole, so women can have opportunities and the freedom to pursue them. In the past when the FGM practices were abolished, women sought them out anyways because they had to to survive. They needed this symbol of beauty to be married and survive economically. FGM is horrible, but we need to stop making it the primary focus. When we do, we strand women from their means for social acceptance and survival.

Coming in late in the day but I just discovered this article in the New Yorker about the debate over FGM in Washington.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/a-new-debate-on-female-circumcision/

Sorry but I don't know how to do links in postings yet. What's interesting about this is there will be two female African scholars who have had the procedure done (as adults no less) and are defending the practice as matriarchal and empowering to the African tribes who practice it. They also are trying to dispel the "myths" about sexual dysfunction in women who have had the procedure. One even has a 32 page essay in favor of the matter, which you can go to here:

http://humdev.uchicago.edu/postDocsDirect.html

but where was anyone suggesting that we could do that with regard to FGM, marissa?