While I’m most well-known for my work on hook up culture, I’ve written extensively on a different topic altogether: how Americans talk about female genital cutting practices (FGCs), better known as female genital “mutilation.” While FGCs are passionately opposed by essentially all Americans who learn about them, our understanding of the practices is, in fact, skewed by misinformation, ethnocentrism, and a history of portraying Africa as naively “backwards” or cruelly “barbaric.”
The main source of distortion has been the mass media. Aiming to encourage journalists to think twice when covering the topic, the Hastings Center has released a report by the Public Policy Advisory Network on Female Genital Surgeries in Africa. In the rest of this post, I briefly discuss some of the things they want journalists — and the rest of us — to know and add a couple of my own:
Using the word “mutilation” is counterproductive.
People who support genital cutting typically believe that a cut body is a more aesthetically pleasing one. The term “mutilation” may appeal to certain Westerners, but people in communities where cutting occurs largely find the term confusing or offensive.
Media coverage usually focuses on one of the more rare types of genital cutting: infibulation.
Infibulation involves trimming and fusing the labia so as to close the vulva, leaving an opening in the back for intercourse, urination, and menses. In fact, 10% of the procedures involve infibulation. The remainder involve trimming, cutting, or scarification of the clitoris, clitoral hood (prepuce), or labia minora or majora. While none of these procedures likely sound appealing, some are more extensive than others.
Research has shown that women with cutting are sexually responsive.
Women who have undergone genital surgeries report “rich sexual lives, including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction…” This is true among women who have experienced clitoral reductions and undergone infibulation, as well as women who’ve undergone lesser forms of cutting.
Health complications of genital cutting “represent the exception rather than the rule.”
News reports often include long lists of acute and long-term negative medical consequences of FGCs, and these may feel intuitively true, but efforts to document their incidence suggest that health problems are, for the most part, no more common in cut than uncut women. The Report concludes: “…from a public health point of view, the vast majority of genital surgeries in Africa are safe, even with current procedures and under current conditions.”
Girls are not generally cut in response to the influence of cruel patriarchs.
Most societies that cut girls also cut boys; some groups that engage in cutting have relatively permissive sexual rules for women, some do not; and female genital cutting practices are typically controlled and organized by women (correspondingly, men control male genital surgeries).
FGCs are not an “African practice.”
The procedures we label “female genital mutilation” occur only in some parts of Africa and occur outside of the continent as well (source):
Moreover, cosmetic genital surgeries in the U.S. are among the fastest growing procedures. These include clitoral reduction, circumcision of the clitoral foreskin, labia trimming, and vaginal tightening, not to mention mons liposuction, collagen injected into the g-spot, color correction of the vulva, and anal bleaching. While it would be simplistic to say that these are the same as the procedures we typically call “mutilation,” they are not totally different either.
Western-led efforts to eliminate FGCs are largely ineffective and sometimes backfire.
It turns out that people don’t appreciate being told that they are barbaric, ignorant of their own bodies, or cruel to their children. Benevolent strangers who try to stop cutting in communities, as well as top-down laws instituted by politicians (often in response to Western pressure), are very rarely successful. The most impressive interventions have involved giving communities resources to achieve whatever goals they desire and getting out of the way.
In sum, it’s high time Americans adopt a more balanced view of female genital cutting practices. Reading The Hastings Center Report is a good start. You might also pick up Genital Cutting and Transnational Sisterhood by Stanlie James and Claire Robertson. Full text links to my papers on the topic, including a discourse analysis of 30 years of the academic conversation, can be found here.
Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. She frequently delivers public lectures about female genital cutting. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
sunildmonte — December 10, 2012
Hi - I'd like to make 2 points, both relating to this piece that appeared in Guardian just yesterday. I hope you read it:
"The day I saw 248 girls suffering genital mutilation"
My first point relates to ethics. What is your _ethical_ argument in favour of FGM? Consider this account from the article - how do you justify it? (Keep in mind that this is the "less harmful" kind of FGM):
'Hdjella led me to a four-year-old girl who was lying down. As the girl
squirmed, two midwives put their faces close to hers. They smiled at
her, making soft noises, but their hands took an arm and a leg each in a
claw-like grip. "Look, look," Hdjella commanded, as a third woman
leant in and steadily snipped off part of the girl's clitoris with what
looked like a pair of nail scissors. "It's nothing, you see? There is
not much blood. All done!" The girl's scream was a long guttural rattle,
which got louder as the midwife dabbed at her genitals with antiseptic.'
The 2nd point relates to patriarchy. You state that since it's women who control and organize the FGM, patriarchy is not to blame. Surely you can discern freely made choices from choices which only appear free, but are actually constrained by patriarchal norms and values, as is clearly the case here?
'Hdjella insisted that the form of FGM they practised is "helpful to
girls' health". She explained that they clean the genitals and then use
sterilised scissors to cut off part of the hood, or prepuce, and the tip
of the clitoris."How is this helpful to girls' health?" I asked.
"It balances their emotions so they don't get sexually
over-stimulated," she said, enunciating in schoolmistress fashion. "It
also helps them to urinate more easily and reduces the bad smell." Any
other benefits? "Oh yes," she said, with a tinkling laugh. "My
grandmother always said that circumcised women cook more delicious
'At the mass ceremony, I ask the foundation's social welfare secretary,
Lukman Hakim, why they do it. His answer not only predates the dawn of
religion, it predates human evolution: "It is necessary to control
women's sexual urges," says Hakim, a stern, bespectacled man in a fez.
"They must be chaste to preserve their beauty."'
'A week before I attended the Assalaam foundation's khitanan massal or mass circumcision ceremony, the chairman of the Majelis Ulama Indonesia,
the nation's most powerful council of Islamic leaders, issued this
statement: "Circumcision is a requirement for every Muslim woman," said
Amidhan, who like many Indonesians goes by a single name. "It not only
cleans the filth from her genitals, it also contributes to a girl's
JohnMWhite — December 10, 2012
Isn't a large part of the problem that this is done to children and youths who cannot reasonable consent and who are heavily pressured by their culture into having functioning parts of their body cut off? No amount of cultural relativism really makes up for taking away somebody's bodily integrity. Cutting parts of people off without their real consent is mutilation. I think there's a lot of parsing going on here to try to make it sound *not as bad*, yet I imagine this blog would erupt if somebody were to start parsing rape in terms of rape that is or is not quite so bad because of this and that misapprehension about the raw mechanics of every incident.
You're brave for bringing this up, and it is important that we try to face things with real information, but I don't think a case can really be made that cutting children's genitals without a medical indication is ok, male or female. And yes, anal bleaching for an adult's cosmetic reasons is totally different from the cultural practice of cutting off parts of a young girl's genitals.
apolloforever — December 10, 2012
Not to mention the frequency with which baby boys are circumcised in the U.S. without their consent. Why aren't we addressing that?
Karen DeWitt — December 10, 2012
It is backwards and barbaric, but so is male genital mutilation or "cutting". This is not by any means an "African problem", it is a problem with the way society views children's bodies as the property of their parents to do whatever they please with.
Chris — December 10, 2012
They're totally different because they're elective, of course. We wouldn't call it mutilation if it were just an adult woman making an informed decision to have part of her clitoris removed.
It's surprising that you don't mention male circumcision, which is the far more reasonable analogy to draw here -- if we believe your argument that FGC usually doesn't have health or sexual enjoyment consequences, we're left believing that we call it mutilation when it's done to girls and circumcision when it's done to boys, with no good reason to differentiate the names in such a loaded way other than that circumcision is a tradition we (in the US) approve of and FGC isn't.
Urooj Zia — December 10, 2012
Hello from Pakistan. This article has offended me and made me furious enough to leave a rant in response. Here goes:
//but people in communities where cutting occurs largely find the term confusing or offensive//
What the WHAT?! So in one clean sweep, feminist voices from these communities get discounted, while barbarism gets amplified by a feminist? How does that make sense? And this 'them non-Western women don't deserve any better' is racist!
Moreover, how does women controlling these procedures not make them patriarchal and oppressive?! I don't even know how to respond to this hypocrisy!
//It turns out that people don’t appreciate being told that they are barbaric, ignorant of their own bodies, or cruel to their children//
No shit, Sherlock. Child abusers in 'western' societies don't like being told that either, nor do rapists. Does that stop feminists in those societies from denouncing this crap? I don't get it, why did you write this article? Why would anyone do this, why?! What makes you think that you sitting in your ivory tower deserve better than us? What are we, lesser beings? What makes you think we deserve to have our bodies mutilated? What is WRONG with you?! Feminists here have a hard enough time anyway; stop making our lives more difficult. If you can't support our voices, don't cut us down and don't you dare tell us that we don't deserve better. We bloody well do.
Junklands — December 10, 2012
It is barbaric when Western women 'choose' to get various genital surgeries in an effort to meet misogynist porn-influenced standards, too.
Sartora — December 10, 2012
Let's just casually ignore that the people being cut are children, unable to provide informed consent even to the same (sometimes questionable) degree as adults.
"Women who have undergone genital surgeries report..."
Because self-reports on sexual satisfaction are in no way influenced by cultural understandings of what kind of sexuality a woman should aspire to, of course (the same understandings that also motivate such practices).
"Most societies that cut girls also cut boys"
So equal maltreatment isn't maltreatment at all? Cool, next time I slut-shame a woman I"ll be sure to call the next guy I see a man-whore, that'll even things out.
Also, genuinely curious here, how many cutting operations on boys involve removing the glans?
"some groups that engage in cutting have relatively permissive sexual rules for women, some do not"
So patriarchy is about how sexually active women are allowed to be?
"and female genital cutting practices are typically controlled and organized by women"
Because women never ever do anything to promote the patriarchy, amiright?
"It turns out that people don’t appreciate being told that they are barbaric, ignorant of their own bodies, or cruel to their children."
And sexists don't like being called sexists, so let's all avoid hurting their feelings, please.
cn1981 — December 10, 2012
I have many problems with a lot of this, although I think your later points are very true. There's a lot of racism and Islamophobia that often surfaces in this dialogue, and references to barbarism certainly aren't helping anyone.
But I really have to comment on this: "Using the word “mutilation” is counterproductive. People who support genital cutting typically believe that a cut body
is a more aesthetically pleasing one. The term “mutilation” may appeal
to certain Westerners, but people in communities where cutting occurs
largely find the term confusing or offensive."
Oh, okay. They think women with cut genitals are prettier than those without. This is an argument against labelling it mutilation? So, what, if there was some society somewhere that frequently cut out people's tongues because they think the human mouth looks better without them, we couldn't call that mutilation?
I am all for a better understanding of the practice in order to approach this with cultural sensitivity and informed opinions, but come on - little girls are having their labia sliced off at puberty with little to no say in the matter. It is okay to not agree with that. It is really, really okay to not agree with that.
Mariah — December 10, 2012
I'm a healthcare worker from the US who lived and worked in Sierra Leone for some time. I've strived to maintain a balanced view of FGM, as it is a very highly anticipated rite of passage there, but I have to say the effects are quantifiably devastating on women's health, both immediately after the procedure and later during childbirth. (See: http://www.dovepress.com/health-complications-of-female-genital-mutilation-in-sierra-leone-peer-reviewed-article-IJWH) I spent part of my time there in a maternity ward and can confidently say that FGM is a contributor to Sierra Leone's abysmal maternal mortality rate.
There is a program through UNICEF that trains Bondo peers and traditional healers to disrupt this cycle from within, which I find to be wise and fair.
You are absolutely right about some racist, sexist rhetoric in the anti-FGM advocacy community, but please know that this isn't purely a matter of something Westerners find "icky": it has very real health consequences.
A BALANCED LOOK AT FEMALE GENITAL “MUTILATION” | Welcome to the Doctor's Office — December 10, 2012
[...] from SocImages [...]
Feminist Model — December 10, 2012
I'm so shocked and furious of this article that my breath just stopped! How can a blog as brilliant as Sociological Images can spread such misinformation?! Genital MUTILATION is not simply a fact of culture: it's a deep-rooted act of subjugation of women. It's a violence that shouldn't be reasonned and gently accepted because 'this culture is different'. Where is genital mutilation is extreme misosigny! Mutilation is not done for ''aesthetic reasons'' at all, like you say, but to "contain overexcessive sexual desire" from women. Again, we fall in the "black women as sexual beasts" scheme. That's awful. Please read the essay "Ainsi soit-elle" from Benoîte Groult, which has DEFINITELY a better historical research than this article!
Sam Kaso — December 10, 2012
Props to everyone bringing their concerns to this topic. I found the article interesting. Warnings of ethnocentrism are always needed, but I think this may be a case of too much cultural relativism.
Matthew Naylor — December 10, 2012
This was, to put it mildly, a frustrating article to read, in part because it was so internally inconsistent. It's stated that Western discourse typically focuses on one of the rarer types of genital mutilation - Infibulation. This is, of course, only true in a relative sense. In the map cited in the very same article, huge swaths of Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Nigeria, Mali, Eritrea and Ethiopia are all listed as "Areas where most women are infibulated".
If the strategies that people have been using to discourage or halt genital mutilation (and I'm calling it that because that's what it is) haven't been working, the problem is in the strategies and not in the intent.
C. D. Leavitt — December 10, 2012
For far more accurate information regarding the impact of FGM, I'd suggest reading this article by a doctor in India: http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2012/12/06/fgm-islam/
This is a matter of bodily autonomy and health. Not cultural relativism. There is a lot of racism in Westerners fighting FGM, but that doesn't mean the answer is to shrug and say, eh, that's their culture, it does no harm.
The answer is to stand behind feminists like Urooj Zia and support them and let THEM lead the fight.
Elena — December 10, 2012
Infibulation involves trimming and fusing the labia so as to close the
vulva, leaving an opening in the back for intercourse, urination, and
menses. In fact, 10% of the procedures involve infibulation. The
remainder involve trimming, cutting, or scarification of the clitoris,
clitoral hood (prepuce), or labia minora or majora. While none of these
procedures likely sound appealing, some are more extensive than others.
So instead of focusing in cultures that demand one hand to be chopped off, we should focus instead and accept those traditions that demand one or two fingers chopped off (possibly only half the pinkie) and respect the ritual (partial or whole) chopping off of children's hands because hey, with half their fingers they still retain some gripping function after being mutilated.
Also, they're just the same as Western women getting manicures.
Color me unconvinced.
Sara — December 10, 2012
I'm very disappointed, Lisa.
Tusconian — December 10, 2012
These might be interesting facts to take into account if most recipients of FGM were adult women making the conscious choice to be cut. But when it's young girls, all of these things fly out the window. Something that always bothers me about these and many other discussions involving children is that people seem to have absolutely no conception of how a child's mind works (and that teenagers, while certainly not babies, are also absolutely not adult women either), and no conception of giving children certain rights at the same time. So it honestly turns into both "they want to" without taking into account that pre-teen girls are easily swayed by peer pressure and aren't necessarily capable of making decisions that consider the consequences, and also they should do it because the women in their culture said so, and it's the mothers and grandmothers who should have control because they are mothers and grandmothers. This isn't an attitude confined to the situation and the cultures that practice FGM at all, but this is one particularly disturbing example. Many older feminists do not seem to care at all about the younger women and girls in the society, only the rules and desires of women over a certain age, and in that desire to satiate mothers, grandmothers, professors, and politicians, remove appropriate agency from younger women and girls, and essentially throw them under the bus and/or dismiss them, when they're not trying so hard to avoid "slut-shaming" and "culture-shaming" by pretending that children have the same ability to make judgements that adults do.
Jeffrey Eldred — December 10, 2012
I also find this article offensive. While Wade stops short of recommending the procedure, the entirety of the data presented seems to be preparing to make a case that FGM is not "that bad" and we should should just except it because "there's nothing we can do about it anyway." There is no mention of the fact FGM is a heinous crime against women/children that should be mitigated in any way.
For example in commenting only "10% of the procedures involve infibulation", it leaves an unanswered the question - Just how many children are we prepared to sacrifice for the sake of ritualistic genital mutilation (and I do believe that is the correct word for it) referred to as infibulation?
Critical details of the Hasting study are also omitted without comment. For example only 90% of women with "Type |||" don't have less than normal sex lives, as well as 10% of the remaining types. Wade doesn't make any reference to the numbers and implies that they all have normal sex lives when really she means that not have less than normal sex lives
Andrea — December 10, 2012
I am so disappointed in this article. Time to accept female genital "cutting"? I think rather it's time we stop cutting our children's bodies (female AND male) to make them more "aesthetically pleasing" or to make them more like ours and instead allow them to make their own choices as adults as to what they do with the body they were given.
It is never a parents right to mutilate, cut or whatever pretty word you come up with, their children's bodies. There are some things that are beyond culture and are just plain wrong and cutting off healthy flesh on our children is one of them.
#NoFGM — December 10, 2012
I'm a (feminist) sociologist too, but... Why isn't there an acknowledgement here that FGM occurs also in pretty well all Western 'developed' countries?
We (UK) call this procedure 'mutilation' because that's what child abuse and horrendous cruelty should be called.
Plus, the evidence from France (where the law is much better upheld than currently in Britain) shows that prosecutions for FGM as child abuse really do reduce the incidence of this awful, sometimes lethal, torture of children.
What adults may choose consensually to have done to themselves is one matter. What is done so horribly to children, who can have no meaningful say in the matter, is totally another.
[There's more about FGM on my eponymous website: http://hilaryburrage.com/tag/fgm/ Please feel free to disagree / engage in the debate if you wish....]
Diane Moffatt — December 10, 2012
I find it interesting that all the books and articles I have read which are written by people who have either been actual witness to, or to have undergone this practice, come out strongly against it.
JESpirals — December 10, 2012
In my country it was customary for little boys to have their foreskins removed at birth. I refused to do this to my beautiful perfect babies. I consider it to be mutilation. My husband was mutilated at birth in this way and has a physical memory of the pain. I am not racist or imperialist if I propose that any juvenile should never be cut in a non-medically necessary way, against their will or before they are old enough be able to give reasoned consent. Girls or boys.
If the public discourse on 'female cutting' has been racist and imperialist, that lessens the value of the discourse, but does not change the values inherent in the subject itself.
Citsbdpr — December 10, 2012
Another interesting thing to look at is the way in which Western countries do the same thing in a different way. Rather than removing the clitoris, we pretend it doesn't exist and subjugate it to the vagina. I never know what to think about the whole FGC/FGM thing.
River — December 10, 2012
Female genital mutilation happens here too: episiotomy, vaginal tightening after childbirth, hysterectomy for non-cancerous reasons, accompanied by immediate but unnecessary oophorectomy, oophorectomy by surgical ham-handedness causing blood flow restrictions, breast enlargement, or sculpting (my nipples pointed out ewww: my nipples were too large ewww). Some of us also don't want to call it mutilation. It still is. Changing what you call something to make it seem more acceptable is a marketing stunt. Porn is Sex. Mutilation is 'cutting'. Prostitution is empowering choosy choice agency. Etc.
River — December 10, 2012
"Research has shown that women with cutting are sexually responsive.
Women who have undergone genital surgeries report “rich sexual lives,
including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction…” This is true
among women who have experienced clitoral reductions and undergone
infibulation, as well as women who’ve undergone lesser forms of cutting."
I once had occasion to survey women in their 50s about their having been castrated (what we euphemistically call hysterectomy and oophorectomy) in their late 40s and early 50s. None had had cancer. The reasons were cramps, not having children anymore, husband wouldn't have vasectomy or use condoms and didn't want any near menopause pregnancies). Etc. The six women I interviewed told me there had been no change in their sex lives. It was great. Further probing revealed not one had every had an orgasm during intercourse. None would admit to "touching" themselves. Ergo. Nothing had changed. Hubby was happy what else mattered? I don't think it's changed much today. Lots of gymnastics, toys and Neopolitan flavoured sex. For him. Everything any "toy" store owner can imagine. For him.
Jale — December 10, 2012
Balanced my fat ass.
Heather McNamara — December 10, 2012
Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Infidel, pages 32-34
Yes, I'm sure people who believe that clipping a clitoris is the only remedy for it growing long and dangly and turning into a penis and degendering women prefer clipped genitals.
I mean I get the point of this thought experiment. Westerners who want to be Islamophobes absolutely love female genital "cutting." It's a broad target - an easily identifiable absolute evil that nobody can get behind. The logic goes: if female genital cutting, then Islam is evil. It's terrible logic and a commonly hoisted banner under which we can all justify hate for a culture we don't fully understand. I get it.
But from somebody who waxes philosophic about the evils of girl toys being overwhelmingly pink and passive in a culture where, after all, women participate in gendering their daughters, too, and women are totally allowed to have sex, I find these mental gymnastics a little more than disappointing. Surely cultural relativism only takes us so far.
Feminist Princess — December 10, 2012
I appreciated being able to hear some of this, as it's definitely better to be informed.
But then this: "cosmetic genital surgeries in the U.S. are among the fastest
growing procedures. These include clitoral reduction, circumcision of
the clitoral foreskin, labia trimming, and vaginal tightening, not to
mention mons liposuction, collagen injected into the g-spot, color
correction of the vulva, and anal bleaching. While it would be
simplistic to say that these are the same as the procedures we typically call “mutilation,” they are not totally different either."
Of course, the huge difference here (which the writer failed to acknowledge at all) is that women in the U.S. getting cosmetic procedures done have CHOSEN to do so. Big difference right? Pretty important to point out - don't you think? :S
AM — December 10, 2012
This is the most unbalanced, disappointing and depressing post I've seen on this site. Why not quit with the ridiculous levels of cultural relativism and euphemisms and think about the actual little girls who will have to suffer through it? As someone in the social sciences, you should know that survey results are going to be biased by culture. You should also know that someone who's been mutilated (yes, mutilated) since birth cannot compare their experience to what it would've been without that being done to them.
And how on earth can you argue, "Only 10% are the worst kind!" as if that means anything when the point opponents are making is that, "This is a bad thing to do and, look, sometimes it's done even more horrifically like in these 10% of cases." All you did was show that the worst cases are 1/10 of the time, which is a LOT.
And women in U.S. are women, not children, and they get to make informed consent without extreme cultural or religious consequences for not doing so.
Karie — December 10, 2012
In other words, Americans would much rather start viewing FGM as acceptable than look critically at their own traditional form of genital mutilation.
Karie — December 10, 2012
"Moreover, cosmetic genital surgeries in the U.S. are among the fastest
growing procedures. These include clitoral reduction, circumcision of
the clitoral foreskin, labia trimming, and vaginal tightening, not to
mention mons liposuction, collagen injected into the g-spot, color
correction of the vulva, and anal bleaching."
I would hope any feminist would be critical of this trend and the social pressure that drives it as well.
Lost_Left_Coaster — December 11, 2012
As a social scientist, brief blog posts like this make me cringe. This is such the stereotype that the public at large must have about our profession -- "see, they try to find the bright side of genital cutting; they must be full of it!" A full, factually informed discussion of genital mutilation is warranted, no doubt, and it is important to cut through the discourse that distorts the frequency of types of cutting and the average full impact of such a procedure. Nevertheless, it is NOT unreasonable to make a big deal about the outliers, precisely because the physical harm is so devastating, and as other commenters here have already pointed out, there are issues of consent that are pretty big. I can't believe that I even had to write that...
Janesblogemail — December 11, 2012
I believe the point of the post was not to defend the practice, but rather to point out that the discourse being used to address it is often counterproductive. Having been raised in an intense and insular religious community, I am familiar with how difficult it is to respect, understand, or communicate with a radically different worldview.
The people who participate in these practices are not monsters, and they aren't noticeably less rational than the rest of humanity. Like all humans, they live in cultures which make some things more visible and/or important to them and other things less visible/important to them. Coerced genital cutting is not an ethically acceptable practice. However, stopping it requires communication--mostly, communication with sane humans who currently think its a good idea. In order to accomplish this, and to send the message of how much damage is being done in a way that can be heard, treating the recipients of this message respectfully seems essential. I doubt that Ms. Wade has taken this position casually or lightly, having researched and published extensively on the topic, and I wish the commenting community here were responding more thoughtfully to her post.
Francois Tremblay — December 11, 2012
"In sum, it’s high time Americans adopt a more balanced view of female genital cutting practices."
What other appropriate response is there to such a demand except "fuck you." I am furious that you would write this post. Is this in line with this blog's value and objectives? I don't think so! Maybe next you could "report" that child rape is not that bad, because many children end up okay. The fact is true but so what? That doesn't mean we should re-examine our stance on child rape! You can keep on claiming that you're just stating the facts, but why were THESE facts selected, if not to offend?
Lisa Wade, SHAME ON YOU for this disgusting woman-hating piece! I love this blog, but now I don't know what to think any more. Are you going to apologize for this?
I thought this blog was about taking a critical sociological eye to what's going on in our societies, and expand people's horizons about the kind of discourse and practices that are possible. Am I wrong?
If so, then why are you encouraging child-hatred and woman-hatred, instead of taking a critical look at those practices and what they're based on? Why don't you take a critical look at all forms of abuse of children, and realize that in our societies, this form of abuse is normalized and we see children as less than human beings, which permits you to write an entry such as this with no shame, which seems to be based on the premise that children are just means to some end (even if that end has to do with their future) and that their well-being doesn't matter?
Francois Tremblay — December 11, 2012
I am furious that you would write this post. Is this in line
with this blog's value and objectives? I don't think so! Maybe next you
could "report" that child rape is not that bad, because many children
end up okay. The fact is true but so what? That doesn't mean we should
re-examine our stance on child rape! You can keep on claiming that
you're just stating the facts, but why were THESE facts selected, if not
Lisa Wade, SHAME ON YOU for this disgusting woman-hating piece! I
love this blog, but now I don't know what to think any more. Are you
going to apologize for this?
I thought this blog was about taking a critical sociological eye to
what's going on in our societies, and expand people's horizons about the
kind of discourse and practices that are possible. Am I wrong?
If so, then why are you encouraging child-hatred and woman-hatred,
instead of taking a critical look at those practices and what they're
based on? Why don't you take a critical look at all forms of abuse of
children, and realize that in our societies, this form of abuse is
normalized and we see children as less than human beings, which permits
you to write an entry such as this with no shame, which seems to be
based on the premise that children are just means to some end (even if
that end has to do with their future) and that their well-being doesn't
YourName — December 11, 2012
I like this site a lot. Sometimes I see articles I don't agree with, which, in my opinion, aren't objective, but this article is the worst I have ever read here.
Ryan22 — December 11, 2012
I'm pretty sure they just posted this to start a flame war. It's working.
anarres — December 11, 2012
I agree with other criticisms of this post. I'd like to share a short video that I think provides a partial antidote: a Black British activist talks about campaigning against FGM and specifically about what kind of images should be used to portray the topic in a sensitive and non-racist way.
quixote — December 11, 2012
I've found your posts interesting, insightful, and a welcome breath of fresh feminist air in a polluted environment. But after this, I'm taking this site off my bookmarks. Anyone who can be that confused about human rights isn't a useful source.
The right to control your own body is the absolute foundation of every other right there is. Without it, you're a slave.
The fact that women in the West can be so screwed by patriarchy that they participate in their own destruction doesn't change that. It just makes things worse.
Here's hoping you understand at some point how human rights apply to people. Even when the people are women.
A “balanced” look at Female Genital “””Mutilation””” » Butterflies and Wheels — December 11, 2012
[...] D’Monte alerted me to this blood-curdlingly horrible article on FGM by a sociologist, Lisa Wade, who wants more “balance” in the discussion of the grand [...]
Dreamer — December 11, 2012
Lisa, you probably know that what makes the difference between Female Genital Mutilation and the plastic procedures that you mention, such as circumcision of the clitoral hood, labiaplasty, etc., is that Female Genital Mutilation is performed on a non-consenting minor. In fact, doing any of those procedures on a female minor in the U.S. is a federal crime - but an adult woman can consent and pay big bucks to a surgeon to have them done on herself.
I also hope that you know that Female Genital Mutilation was practiced in the United States, somewhat commonly during the 50s, and clitoridectomies were even covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield until 1977.
In fact, all the arguments that you mention also apply to the American practice of male circumcision, which we also refer to as Male Genital Mutilation. Male Circumcision in the United States is done in absence of medical necessity on non-consenting minors.
Just make a mental exercise for one moment. If a surgeon removes ANY part of your body without your consent and without medical necessity, this constitutes mutilation. Doing this to a minor doesn't excuse the fact - it only makes it worse because it abuses the innocence of a child.
"People who support genital cutting typically believe that a cut body is a more aesthetically pleasing one" -- Well, if the decision is about aesthetics, it should be the person's decision, not a social decision. We have a large group of men in the United States that are unhappy about having being circumcised when they were babies. There are large groups of women in Africa and Asia unhappy about Female Genital Mutilation - and willing to run away from home if needed to prevent it from happening to them, even if that means losing contact with their families.
"[C]omplications of genital cutting “represent the exception rather than the rule"" -- this is true of both Male and Female Genital Mutilation, and yet in both cases the consequences of complications can be catastrophic - enough to destroy the life of the person.
"[I]t’s high time Americans adopt a more balanced view of female genital cutting practices" -- No, it's time to reject any form of Genital Mutilation of Minors - regardless of the gender.
It's a matter of respect for upcoming generations. It's a matter of respect of autonomy on health decisions and sexual decisions.
Sally Strange — December 11, 2012
Seriously, someone on Sociological Images is making the rookie mistake of thinking that because women do it, it can't be the patriarchy at work? Color me shocked.
feminist — December 11, 2012
Lisa, you should be ashamed of yourself. I am disgusted and appalled.
Discussing a Thorny Topic « Title Me Blog — December 11, 2012
[...] today with Anne, another one of the contributors to this blog. At one point we began to discuss a recent post on the blog Sociological Images about the practice that is variously known as female circumcision, female genital cutting, or female [...]
treacle — December 11, 2012
Yeah, a few friends from Africa report that women who undergo it still enjoy sex and have orgasms.
Still doesn't legitimize it for me. I don't measure the good of something by how little it impedes sexual activity. Humans should choose for themselves whether or not they want to do something that will affect them permanently. Everyone has the right to show up to the sexy party with all of their bits intact or not as they see fit.
Women who » Butterflies and Wheels — December 11, 2012
[...] Now that the first steam has dissipated a little, a closer look at one part of Lisa Wade’s “Balanced Look” at cutting off parts of the genitalia of very young gi... [...]
Francois Tremblay — December 11, 2012
Lisa Wade, we're still waiting for an apology. If your next entry is not an apology, then I will take that as a signal to publicly denounce you and this blog for supporting the normalization of female circumcision. I am pissed off and will not stand for this, and I think other people won't either.
Female genital mutilation: “Balance” at the expense of justice » Zinnia Jones — December 11, 2012
[...] By uncritically parroting the report’s findings, Wade repeats its central mistake. For the sake of “balance”, she and the report both leave a gaping chasm where you might expect to see the most pressing, urgent, relevant aspect of the entire issue: the outrage that children are made to undergo medically unnecessary, disfiguring and disabling surgery upon their healthy, normal genitals without their consent. [...]
Bagelsan — December 11, 2012
Should Westerners not be Islamophobic while addressing FGM? Of course! Just like we should not be racist or classist while addressing poverty, or sexist while addressing mental health problems, or ableist while discussing elder abuse.
It doesn't mean that we should stop addressing those things, it means we have to do it better. Unfortunately, this article reads a lot like apologism for a terrible practice, rather than tactics for how to end it in a more effective or compassionate fashion.
marcus816 — December 11, 2012
So you'll be getting the "surgery" soon then I imagine.This may be the stupidest thing I have ever read.
Leila Nea — December 11, 2012
This wins ALL THE AWARDS for SINGLE.WORST.POST on this website. Just mindblowingly offensive.
Leila Nea — December 11, 2012
I really feel too disgusted to respond to it all in more detail (there is too much shit to see the feces in this post), but just one thing: You know why women perform the FGM?! For marriage- so that their daughters will be married by a MAN, for vaginal tightness, since it is believed that the clitoris will turn into a penis otherwise and because women are believed to otherwise cheat on their husbands. In sum: Your theory and relativism are disgustingly misinformed.
You might also want to check out vaginal drying agents and why these are used, while your at it.
Jeff Graw — December 11, 2012
Lisa, to be really objective about this, you should go to one of those countries and let someone do it to you. Then you can tell us about it. Of course, you are a consenting adult, and children have no say in what is done to them, but we would really be interested in your first-hand report of what it is like experiencing this cultural "cutting".
Joel Sassone — December 11, 2012
What a heinous, immoral article. You've attempted to rationalize a deeply evil practice. You've failed.
Origami_Isopod — December 11, 2012
A couple of good takedowns of this post:
Surgeries and modifications » Butterflies and Wheels — December 11, 2012
[...] the Hastings Center report itself, which was the source of Lisa Wade’s article. Zinnia Jones has a great, detailed post on it. I’ll just mention some things that jump out [...]
Julie Slapyawitmah Palm — December 11, 2012
NO. Cutting healthy, normal body parts off of children who can not give informed consent IS mutilation. Cutting the genitals is not different from cutting digits in this way. Mutilating children is mutilating children, no matter where the person pointing it out comes from.
Using culture as an excuse to ignore and trivialize the suffering of others is just being part of the problem. I am thoroughly disgusted by the child mutlation apologetics found here. I expected better.
Emma — December 12, 2012
I kind of get the motivation for this post - pointing out that Westerners often use a discourse that's counter-productive for understanding (and stopping, I hope?) FGM, since it's working on assumptions and language unfamiliar and contrary to the experiences of people who perform and/or undergo FGM. So far so good.
The problem I have is that you are not actually providing a 'balanced perspective' when you ignore very central issues such as consent, gender, family structures and cultural hierarchies. Even as an explanation your post just doesn't work. It's actually not telling us anything useful about why or how it happens - I suppose so many people have gotten angry about the pos, because it just reads as a list of excuses. If that wasn't your intent, I think you should own to the poor quality of the writing in this post.
For example, I just don't understand how you can actually make the claim that patriarchy and men are not important forces behind the practice, just because it is women who do the actual cutting. There is no society where all oppressive acts are exclusively performed by men. Would that mean patriarchy is a myth? Of course not. I mean, it's just such a glaringly erroneous claim that I'm really baffled why it's even posted. It's not the first time you more or less completely dismissed and ignored agency of non-white women, but seriously.
For anyone who read or experienced anything concerning the topic, FGM is very obviously connected to control of gender and sexuality - for example, it is very often justified through the belief that an uncut woman can't land a man, that not cutting her will mean that she will develop undesired male attributes, physically as well as socially.
This is not the first of your posts to be incredibly US-centric and probably not the last. One again, the actual issue at hand is second to the opportunity for lisa wide to make another bored critique of hypocritical Westerners. (how dare people criticize forcibly cutting of body parts of girls in seriously unsanitary circumstances, when there are Western women who pay to have their labias reduced?). It doesn't even make sense, for they very obvious reasons others have pointed out.
I find it really disturbing how often you are willing to pass over serious human right abuses and oppression, just to make a point about American discourse. I still haven't forgot your attempt at being 'balanced' about the Uzbek government unjustly imprisoning a photographer.
Fertran — December 12, 2012
Seriously? You think the gender of people holding down the victim indicates they aren't agents of patriarchy? Why? What's the evidence for that?
What a grossly racist attempt to deny a basic right of consent to those unlucky enough to be born under such practices.
ThePrussian — December 12, 2012
And here we once more see that "feminists" do not give a flying fuck about harm to women, as long as those women are poor and dark skinned and live somewhere else.
Look, I get it that you don't give a shit, and don't want to be bothered, and are just to busy to deal with problems that cut into your time at the hair salon and the beauty parlour, but do us a favour and keep your trap shut then. Get out of the way of those of us who do care about these issues.
ffstone — December 12, 2012
I suspect these topics function as a sort of honeypot. Don't be surprised to see your far more thoughtful and intelligent analyses published as Wade's own work. I'm sure she's already working on a loophole that will allow her to do this.
Lear_spec_silo — December 12, 2012
Amii Lockhart — December 12, 2012
Response to your points:
I’ll start calling it cutting when it’s restricted to adult women who desire the procedure.
All forms of mutilation upon un-consenting children are wrong.
Yeah, I’d like to see the control group on that study. Did women have sex lives with healthy genitalia, undergo the mutilation, er uh cutting, and then report on any differences?
So irrelevant I don’t have to take the time to see if that’s even true. Again, all forms of mutilation upon un-consenting children are wrong.
Your assertion that it’s not patriarchal because boys also face MGM doesn’t follow. You’d think you’d never seen a woman utter a sexist comment. Did my eyes deceive me that there was a Phd behind your name? What is it in, economics?
Who said we only want it stopped in Africa? Everywhere, all cultures that practice FGM need to be stopped. Adults mutilating their own bodies for patriarchy are bad enough, but they are adults. It’s irrelevant to the topic of forcing children to undergo FGM or MGM.
I agree with you that best interventions involve giving communities resources, and in this case, the resource should primarily be education. Where we wildly diverge in opinion is that the ultimate goal to me is to eliminate FGM and MGM, whereas for you it seems to be just to let the barbaric, ignorant practice continue.
Amii Lockhart — December 12, 2012
I don't know, a sampling of the "Likes" on Urooj Zia's comment tells me that you're full of crap (being a western feminist who is/has and will continue to help was also a clue).
ScurvyMorgan — December 12, 2012
Besides the obvious ethical problems here, I'd just like to point out that the article Lisa cites to support the claim "efforts to document their incidence suggest that health problems are, for the most part, no more common in cut than uncut women" DOES NOT SAY THAT.
It says that there has not been enough rigorously controlled testing to make a hard-number claim about the effect for every kind of negative effect.
"Some careful studies have shown higher risks for a few well-defined complications but no difference for most others, whereas less rigorous studies yield much wider ranges of estimates for a greater number of, often loosely defined, conditions. There is no doubt that better-designed studies can go a long way toward improving our estimates of the health risks of the operations, but the current state of the evidence does not allowhasty pronouncements about all the harmful effects attributed to circumcision."
Also, let's look at the evidence that IS presented. Of women who underwent FGM, during labor, 50% needed a C-section; 20% experienced excessive bleeding; 26% experienced lacerations or hemorrhage, 62% experienced perineal tears, and 40% had labor lasting over 24 hours. 81% of cut women experienced dysmenorrhea, 43% could not orgasm, and 42% experienced no sexual desire. THIS IS FROM THE STUDY LISA CITES. And all of these were noted to be STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANTLY more common in women with FGM.
Also, the fact that an uncut women experiences, say, dysmenorrhea (menstrual pain)-- bad cramping, maybe--does not mean it's the same as an infibulated women who experiences dysmenorrhea--who has a massive buildup of clotted blood and tissue in her vaginal passage because she has only a 2mm opening for her menstrual flow and urine to exit from. An uncut women who experiences "pain during intercourse"--maybe she is tight or dry and intercourse hurts--is not necessarily comparable to a woman who has been infibulated whose husband takes weeks of effort to force his way through that same scarified, 2mm opening. "Those men who do manage to penetrate their wives do so often, or perhaps always, with the help of the 'little knife.' This creates a tear which they gradually rip more and more until the opening is sufficient to admit the penis. In some women, the scar tissue is so hardened and overgrown with keloidal formations that it can only be cut with very strong surgical scissors, as is reported by doctors who relate cases where they broke scalpels in the attempt." (This from a paper cited by the Hastings report Lisa bases this post on).
hey there — December 12, 2012
love, pretty much everyone on this site.
Thomas M. Hasbrouck — December 12, 2012
So, is it normal for me to want to cut off women's genitals? I thought this article would help me, but after reading the comments, I'm more conflicted than ever.
Marie — December 13, 2012
This was added to my Facebook wall today by Sociological Images in regard to this post about FGM:
"Our post reviewing new, strongly counter-intuitive research on female genital "mutilation" has received a lot of criticism; Heina Dadabhoy at Skepchick helps put things in perspective..." This article was attached: http://skepchick.org/2012/12/razor-thin-line/
I was appalled by the original article, and wondered how SI would respond, but I am really angered that their only response is to post an article that in almost all ways agrees with Lisa Wade's original article, including backing the statistics she used which have angered so many people. I believe a far better "perspective" comes from the many comments on this page and others, especially the comments here by Urooj Zia. Although I do agree that there needs to be more discourse in finding ways to address the issue without alienating the very people you are trying to help, I believe Wade's article above is very poorly presented and the anger shown in response is justified.
To then address the concerns of those who have strongly disagreed with your position by posting another article that essentially parrots your own is an insult to your readers and does nothing to address the problems inherent in the points of view expressed in your original article.
I am now seriously disappointed in this blog and will probably no longer continue to read it or recommend it to others.
Dragonqn — December 13, 2012
I strongly suggest the author try this herself and report back.
Norman Lewis — December 13, 2012
Tbh, cultural relativism should be used to prevent obnoxious judgement of indigenous cultures by the civilised, not the criticism of other civilisations and their particular experiments in domination.
Lisa Wade says: let’s have a “balanced” discussion on child mutilation! « The Prime Directive — December 13, 2012
[...] Images, a blog I used to follow until now, recently published an article by Lisa Wade called ‘A Balanced Look at Female Fenital “Mutilation.”‘ (yes, with the scare quotes). Some other blogs have published criticism of this entry (see here and [...]
Some Chick — December 14, 2012
No, I think mutilation is a pretty good word for slicing up an underage person's genitalia for no reason.
Plan — December 14, 2012
Wow nice, we have multiple people threatening the author because they don't agree with her viewpoint. Keep up the good work.
Guest — December 14, 2012
Female genital mutilation originates with Satanism.
FYouMudFlaps — December 15, 2012
This blog has been a near daily read for me for over two years now, but I am strongly considering dropping it after this article. What the everloving fuck were you thinking?
Sam and Janet Evening — December 15, 2012
I see this as cultural relativism. I wonder if we will ever see an article like this defending, for example, teaching young kids to hate by using propaganda such as cartoons or the use of young children to carry signs of protest. That would probably be defended, because it is a part of Palestinian culture.... Unless I mention that they are members of Westboro Baptist Church.
Lori Revels — December 15, 2012
Lori Revels — December 15, 2012
Lee — December 16, 2012
Not all cultures value bodily autonomy as in the West. It seems to in fact be a function of individualism vs collectivism. By even concentrating on this, and acting as if it is absolute, you are positioning yourself and your society as some sort of universal moral authority.
doubtfully — December 18, 2012
This seems like one example of letting the choice of preferred "villains" dictate what is acceptable and what is not. But probably the whole thing is different if we're talking about selective abortion of females in places like India and China (then it would be ok to say that it's barbaric or whatever adjective one choses, ironicall at the same time one may be totally OK with "gender-even" abortion), or even just black parents tending to have more abortions, what I've seen labeled by some black pro lifers (who wouldn't miss the chance of posing as victims in multiple ways) as "black baby genocide". Perhaps that whole thing of chinese women with broken tiny feet was ok too, and it's just "imperialism" to find it shocking? Nah, I don't think so, they were pre-communist after all, so it's totally OK to label it as some evil patriarchal thing.
#NoFGM: A Listing For Action & References On Female Genital Mutilation « Hilary Burrage — January 2, 2013
[...] Images (Lisa Wade): A Balanced Look At Female Genital ‘Mutilation’ , 10 December 2012[NB very [...]
Michelle Nc — January 13, 2013
Fortunately, the UN and other agencies while working on this are not afraid to call it as it is - a human rights violation: "Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
welcomed today the passing of an “historic” United Nations resolution
calling on countries to eliminate female genital mutilation, adding that
the move was an important step towards a world free from violence
against women." http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43839&Cr=female+genital+mutilation&Cr1=#.UPLI-fIstEO
"Communities that practise female genital mutilation report a variety of social and religious reasons for continuing with it. Seen from a human rights perspective, the practice reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. Female genital mutilation is nearly always carried out on minors and is therefore a violation of the rights of the child. The practice also violates the rights to health, security and physical integrity of the person, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death." http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/csw52/statements_missions/Interagency_Statement_on_Eliminating_FGM.pdf
Russell Traughber — July 9, 2013
I am an anti-FGM advocate. Please see my blog and website: http://shadwellpublishing.com/blog/category/fmg
Alan — December 11, 2013
Please dear reader of this comment, allow me to be brutally honest. I am a very fair person. In fact I like to analyze everything that I encounter and try to weigh it in a balanced manner. Let me begin by saying that I am male, and that I respect women. I live and breathe debate, and I usually will jump into the most random of topics to debate one on(its a rush for me, personally). But there is one place where I draw the line:feminism. I avoid the term like the plague because most people are not logical, and if I ever speak on it, I am in the vicinity of men, or when I feel personally disrespected like right now. I understand that women feel the need to demand their rights and be equal and I totally support this. After all, if you don't support women's rights, we might as well go back to the times of slavery...But when I read a comment that claims that FGM perpetuates a patriarchal society, even though evidence clearly points to surgeries being performed by women and supported by women, I get mad. And believe me, I rarely get mad in debates. Lets be frank. Women make up 50% of every population on this planet. Make sure you comprehend exactly what that means. That is 1 in 2. Women are no fools, and to me,some(not all) feminists are frankly hypocrites because they belittle the pride and honor of their own gender. How can someone say with a straight face that women in these MUSLIM countries are oppressed 100% of the time. I understand that many live in vile conditions but by saying that 100% are oppressed, a feminist automatically puts the female gender in a weak light. Think about it. Really think about it. I will admit that I dislike Islam. And I think that that is where feminists should point their focus. But alas, they are too cowardly to take on a whole religion. Instead they blame MEN, that's right, me a proud, young American, as a whole. Because by going after a religion or group of people, feminists "cross the line" so to speak.I think that FGM is still occurring because the WOMEN who are brought up in these barbaric societies are no different from their male counterparts:barbarians. Blacks have proudly fought for their rights in the United States. Who, I ask you, died and fought for that freedom? Black men. Why? I think the answer is actually quite simple, but I understand that it may anger many. I think the reason comes down to Biology. Oh no, he said the B-word! Yes, numerous studies have shown that testosterone leads to risk-taking and competitiveness and is partly the reason to blame for almost all wars in human history. Yeah men DEFINITELY have their faults, but we have some strengths as well. We will push to get something done whereas some women will not. Then again, there are those like my mother, a proud independent woman who outwits and outdoes most men I know. But she still lacks some of that aggression that males have. If you're a guy reading this you know what I'm talking about. Its this built in drive that we have, because mother nature doesn't really care about us. We, as men, are just there to protect,procreate, then die, and whats wrong with that? Of course we have many strong willed women(the people in the comments for example), but I swear to you that if tested, these women would have higher on average testosterone. You can look in on this if you'd like. To finish, I want to commend what feminists are doing today, but I should hope that women take into account factors other then gender when reasoning on a topic as culturally sensitive as FGM. By the way, hate all you want, but there is one thing that no one can argue with and that is biology.
“Rethinking a Zero-Tolerance Approach to Female Genital Mutilation” (Pacific Standard) | The Alternate — February 26, 2014
[…] genital mutilation,’ it is very clear that the negative opinions of most Westerners are heavily based on misinformation and have been strongly shaped by racism, ethnocentrism, and a disgust or pity for an imagined […]
OGalaxy — February 7, 2015
I am so sick and tired of western liberals and feminists making excuses for the abuse and oppression of girls and women in other parts of the world. As a lifelong feminist and liberal, I find the apologetic nature of this article, which downplays female genital mutilation, offensive. People should be outraged, not trying to explain this barbarism. Lisa Wade, you are a traitor to women and girls all around the world and you should be ashamed of yourself!
yael58 — March 28, 2016
How could you even defend this crap? You are NO feminist. You wouldn't even be writing this article if men were having their penises cut off.
Shame and double shame on you. No wonder feminism is rapidly losing credibility.
The Social Construction of Female Circumcision: Gender, Equality, and Culture – Female Circumcision — February 8, 2018
[…] Available at: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/12/10/a-balanced-look-at-fgm/ […]
Saira Jabbar — October 21, 2018
Lisa are you really an educated woman who wrote this garbage? I am a muslim woman and you know when you say research says women enjoy sex more where is your research?Being in the medical field I can tell you that it traumatizes women and most women HATE sex when they have this done. They do type 3 fgm to please men so they can remain virgins well they hate the sex. Please do not post garbage just because you personally believe in it. Why dont you get it done yourself?
game — March 25, 2019
Daidi — January 20, 2020
Wow. I'm from East Africa (Ethiopia) and have relatives who have received all types of FGC procedures (predominantly type 1 and 2). But it is sad that the Public Advisory Network and you have taken what seems to be an ultra liberal view of the practise, and for what? To appease the practitioners, political correctness, to keep from offending them?. False equivalences galore, emitting from your piece like a stench from a dead body.
I thought the cultural relativism arguments that defended FGC were ridiculous, but clearly that has been toppled. Well done prof on this accomplishment. Meanwhile, I hope "Western" advocacy efforts to quell FGC/FGM continue. There have been many successful interventions, but of course you left that out as it doesn't fit your warped ultra-leftist narrative of "let everyone do whatever they want, the biggest crime is offending their feelings."
Dianne — March 13, 2021
These people are nothing but a bunch of animals. Wild animals in the middle of the desert who are starving to death don’t even do shit like this to their babies. That entire part of the world is nothing but an unflushed toilet. Always has been always will be. Filthy dirty they stink they do not bathe they crap in the streets they do not use toilet paper they use their own hands to clean it up their kids are monsters climbing around like a bunch of damm monkeys and American women are just supposed to accept this, say it’s fine to cover everything up except the whites of their eyes and it’s okay to be beaten by your husband for disobeying him and selling off your 12 year old little girl to go be a SEX slave wife to some trashy filthy dirty ass old 70 year old man? Oh no, you try that crap over here with an American woman we will kill you right where you stand we will never wear a burka we will never walk behind your dumb asses and we sure in the hell will not be slicing off parts of our little girls genitalia while everyone standing around gets their rocks off. Dont expect America to welcome your asses with open arms. If you sense racism and hate toward you by the American citizens it’s because we despise you and you revolt us, you stink your filthy and you come over here because you say it’s bad over there then you try to shove Islam down our throats and when we say F off you stare at us, you stare if we are in shorts in a bikini a strapless anything, you stare at us if we are blonde with blue eyes you stare if we wear perfume you stare if we have our hair highlighted or if we have our nails done or wear bling or jeans or low cut cropped off shirts body piercings or tattoos, any woman under 70 years old in America shaves everything head to toe while you women smell like rotten fish but you try to shove your filthy society down our throats then get butt hurt because we dont give a shit we will have a man thrown into jail for so much as slapping one of us and God help the man who goes after one of our babies he may as well kiss his ass goodbye. Keep your asses, your burkas, your stinky children , your filthy dirty rags you use while you’re on your periods and your mentally ill husbands on that side of the ocean. For your man he’s safer over there. If there is one thing a true patriot American woman will never do, it’s even entertain the idea of talking to an eastern Indian man. American women who marry an eastern Indian are the dredges of our society. We are revolted by them and you women? You people are a disgrace to the female gender. My husband ever hits me I’ll beat the shit out of him, he ever tried to beat my baby I’ll kill him where he stands and if he EVER tried telling me what I can and cannot do or what I can and cannot wear? That’s the day he’d have his shit put into a trash bag and be out on the street without a dime to his name. Geezus you people over there what the hell is wrong with you?