news

https://hexbear.net/post/150322?scrollToComments=false

Here's some discussion about it from two years ago.

The very short version is that NGO Imperialism uses the most horrific form of mutilation - infibulation practiced in some parts of Africa - as representative of all female genital cutting and modification. But when you dig in to it, a huge number of women subjected to "Female genital mutilation" are women in Indonesia where "Female Genital Mutilation" is usually either a ritual pin prick to draw a drop of blood, or purely symbolic with no actual damage to the body at all. In parts of the middle east where female genital cutting is practiced it's often the removal or modification of the clitoral hood, a process directly analogous to the removal of the foreskin from the penis. This is a place where the narrative breaks down - Many men in north America and a huge majority Muslim and Jewish men are circumcised in this fashion, with the foreskin of the penis removed at some point during infancy or childhood. This is rarely mentioned and almost always dismissed for several reasons - Drawing analogies between female genital cutting by "The Other" and the common practices of male genital cutting in America raises the question of why their "Savage, barbaric" practices differ from our practices. If Westerners began to view these practices as directly analogous it would defeat the purpose of "FGM" as a tool for depciting other cultures as primitive, savage, and in need of rescue from the West. The circumcision of Muslim boys is rarely if ever brought up because it again defeats the purpose. For the narrative to work women need to be the victim of the savage, brutal, misogynistic Muslim man. If Muslim boys are likewise portrayed as victims it might elicit sympathy and humanize Muslim men, which would make it harder to justify murdering them.

Another dimension is that in most places where some form of female genital cutting or manipulation is practiced it's almost entirely a closed women's practice. In most places it's performed by women on girls, in private, and men know few or no details about it. This doesn't justify any of these practices, but it is again something that is quietly not mentioned because the purpose of the FGM narrative is to justify foreign intervention using a narrative of rescuing women from their barbaric misogynistic societies. If people understood that this is often a closed women's practice that men are not involved in it would again raise too many questions and make the situation too complicated. If men aren't forcing women to do this, who are we rescuing women from? If it's not the brutal, savage, violent Muslim male doing this how do we justify murdering so many Muslims?

Honestly the whole thing is a great example of White Saviorism, NGO Imperialism. Take a real, horrific practice that is done in some societies. Convince everyone that this practice is normal across a huge swatch of the "Same map" enemy world. Distort the nature of the practice by saying it's imposed by men on helpless women. Use that to play up the stereotype of the Muslim men as violent and barbaric. Create the outrage you need to justify all kinds of interventions. If anyone questions it bludgeon them with the simplistic, distorted narrative "How can you condone this terrible practice!"