FGM is a topic with which I have gotten into arguments before with my girlfriend, because we differ in our approach to it.  I detest it and I'm too eager to do something about it.  However, she is more reflective and tries really hard to put herself in the shoes of the women, including the ones that are forced by society to inflict FGM on their daughters.

She has been right in many things she has told me before.  She has a masters in Women and Gender Studies and is pursuing her PhD right now, so she definitely has more back-story to fall back on.  Upon showing her this post, she helped me understand certain things.  This is what she said:

"This is certainly very powerful and moving.  There is resistance within the community by women, for their daughters in this case.  Indeed they must mobilize and resist, but there are far many more intersecting factors within this context that makes such mobilization difficult.  I am not sure whether this is the complete message of the film, more than likely not, but these intersecting realities that implicate men as well must also be taken into account through this discourse or portrayl of FGM.

Also, one major critique of these documents is: Who is filming these women and community in the first place?  In the sense of: how are they constructing the portrayal, and why?  To what end? 

It is critical for them (the women in the film) to show themselves in relation to whom they are working with.  It's not like a neutral eye in the sky is filming these women, but rather a subjective self with an agenda and purpose.  This question is crucial!  Otherwise we have a phenomena of "othering" the women.

I think the most powerful and interesting scene is with the group of women doing their hair and such.  A little more subjectivity on their part was shown through, and they weren't depicted as too defenseless in need of help by the first world.  They have the answers that women from the first world need to join their battle."

Personally, I think it's great that there are women who can bring this story to the US.  It will help us understand it better.  The following are now my opinions, not my girlfriend's.

It is my understanding that FGM is ritualistic, it's tradition, it's culture, and honestly I believe it won't change from one day to the other.  If I were to try to answer the question "why does FGM still exist?", there are so many answers I could come up with, but I would focus on a couple of issues. 

Firstly, this started because men, the dominant group, would place all of the value of women on their sexuality, or their genitals.  A woman is valuable if she only has sex with the husband.  A girl is valuable only if she is chaste, or pure.  These are not foreign ideas.  Even here in the US, a lot of girls go through many pains to retain an image of "purity", or fight an image of "slut".  Just read Jessica Valenti's book "The Purity Myth" to get a better idea of this.

Secondly, many women in different parts of the world are burdened with the job of keeping tradition.  Why would a mother want to do FGM on her daughter?  To ensure that she can get married.  To ensure that she can secure her place in society.  Otherwise, in their minds, the daughter would lose value.

So what can we do?  Going to Mali and telling them: "You're wrong, you're barbaric" can be a first urge, but I don't think it's a good idea.  Who are we to tell them how to live and feel and think?  Or at least, that's the way they will answer our shouts of protest.  Then they will tell us that the US has mutilation too (breast augmentation, "mommy"-plasty, vaginoplasty, etc.)

Working in Fair Trade has helped me understand the difference between imposing our values on marginalized women, versus empowering them.  Instead of preaching our values, pointing fingers and blaming others, we can go to Mali and educate and empower both men and women.  Socio-Economic empowerment of women through business, art, craft or other type of training will help them to secure a position in society where they can think independently, become a role model for future generations, and above all encourage them not to have to prove themselves because of their gender.

In other words, we can help them create their own value.  We can help them define themselves, as opposed to us defining them and deciding what's good for them.  If we were to go there, provide micro-lending, train the women in business skills, help them produce something, help them secure their own income, etc. then their position in society changes.  They will be independent, and eventually society will see more value in them.  The focus will hopefully shift from their genitals to their potential to help the community grow.  They will then have the choice NOT to go through FGM.

Easier said than done, huh?  But I've seen this work in tribal communities in India.

How can there be more than one legitimate perspective. FGM is the disenfranchisement of a women's sexuality. It is foisted upon women within patriarchichal societies which curtail and deride women and their right to self.

I am tired of this nonsense about it being part of a culture so we have to tread lightly or there are two sides to any issue. It only seems that there are two sides when it is the women who are being brutalized and denied theri civil right to self-determination.

The truth of the matter is, if the women of the societies stood up and said no then what would the men do? Instead the communities (women included) threaten expulsion or worse for non compliance.The problem however, is that instead of saying no, the practice of FGM is being brought to western nations and practiced underground. Many west European nations have actually had to outlaw the practice because of its prevalence within the immigrant community legal and non-legal.

There are always many perspectives to a problem.  I think that women who go through FGM have a different perspective from all of us.  That doesn't mean that it has to be an opposite perspective, just different.

We just need to be careful in the way we address it.  We can't barge into their communities and change things up so quickly.  These women would go from doing what their society imposes on them, to doing what we would impose on them, even if we think they are better off.

Through dialogue and empowerment, we can let them define themselves and work with us to do whatever we need to do.  Does that make sense?

The court should grant her asilum.  The danger and threat is real and the scars are evident in the mother's own fears.  It should not be a question and probably would not be if a country were hacking off men's business in like manner for the same reason.  To ensure purity is an outragious excuse for torture.  There is no humaine treatment for these young girls and here we call it child sexual abuse.  It is a practice that is so messed up in a wourd where wemen are still property not people.  There are still many cultures who debase women and we speak up for them.  This practice is primitive and their men deserve only blow up dolls for partners.  Loyality and chastidy should be a choice. 

I recently read the book "Infidel". It too raises the issue of FGM. There are so many ways to look at this issue and things to understand about it. First, is that some women in societies where it is not performed until later in life (teenage years) want this to happen to them. It is a sort of coming to age ritual and they feel it necessary in being a woman, however on the flip side of this argument is if this were not a cultural expectation and if these girls were educated about what FGM can be like or result in would they still make that choice. As with many global issues facing women education is key. Also equality is key. It is a woman's choice, no child can make an educated decision for themselves on this issue and so parents should be educated and should have the freedom to say "no, i do not want this done to my child." However I as an outsider to this culture cannot fully understand this issue and so am not able to make a decision one way or the other, however I can support the voices of women who are in this culture and are asking for choice. This is my role and all of our roles. To support the voices of the women within these societies and countries who are taking a stand and saying no. Also it is important to recognize that many women might still ask for this and i think another way to think about this is making it more healthy. If a woman still wants this because she feels it necessary then it should be provided in a sanitary space by a trained professional. Along with that I come back to my point of education being key. If both of these things are offered to women in these societies and their voices lifted up, I think we would see a lot less death, infection and disease as well as women beginning to claim their sexuality freely in the way they choose. 

Oh, and thank you for sharing information on this documentary it looks like it is an important one to see! I as a woman of coarse want FGM to be stomped out because it is hard to see it in any other way than oppressive towards women. However I do think the best thing we can do is mobilize women within these cultures and work towards the needs they voice. 

Oh, and thank you for sharing information on this documentary it looks like it is an important one to see! I as a woman of coarse want FGM to be stomped out because it is hard to see it in any other way than oppressive towards women. However I do think the best thing we can do is mobilize women within these cultures and work towards the needs they voice. 

I don't like the term "female CIRCUMCISION". I am against circumcision for males too, but in a female, circumcision would be the equivalent of cutting of the clitoris hood, which is NOT only what happens in FGM. In females, they cut off part or all of the ext of his penis off. Not the same thing as male circumcision. Circumcision is the wrong term, I think. It's misleading.

*In Female Genital Mutilation, they often cut out/off part or all of the external genitalia, which would be the equivalent of cutting a man's penis off. Not the same thing as mere foreskin removal.

Oh and by being against male circumcision, I meant routine infant circumcision. In Europe we do not do this. I think male circumcision should be left up to the choice of the individual; if later in life they want it, it's their choice (ouch though! :P). But I believe that mutilating a baby boy's genitals is NOT a good idea...some do come to wish it hadn't happened to them.