There is one thing that most Americans know about female genital mutilation… that it is very, very bad. In this talk I take apart the logic by which we demonize female genital mutilation. I do so not to question whether we should oppose all or some of these practices, but in order to explore how we decide what bodily alterations count as good, bad, or neutral. I ask two questions: (1) How do Americans articulate their opposition to the practice? And (2) What are the consequences of opposing it on those bases and not others? I show that the dominant framing of "female genital mutilation" in the U.S. aims our condemnation very carefully at the practices of others, ensuring that American genital cutting practices stay out of range of our outrage. I conclude by asking us to use our feelings about "mutilation" to think again about male circumcision, surgery on children with ambiguous genitalia, sex reassignment surgery, and cosmetic surgery. More at www.lisa-wade.com

1. Female Genital “Mutilation”
in the American Imagination
Lisa Wade, PhD • Sociology • Occidental College

2. Questions
How do Americans articulate their
opposition to “female genital mutilation”?
What are the consequences of opposing it
on those bases and not others?

4. Types of Female Genital Cutting
• Circumcision proper
• Pricking or cutting
• Trimming
• Shallow or deep clitoridectomy
• Infibulation

6. Reasons for Genital Cutting
• Aesthetics
• Health/Fertility
• Religion
• Gender Differentiation
• Reduction of Sexual Desire or Ability

7. Questions
How do Americans articulate their
opposition to “female genital mutilation”?

8. Women’s Oppression
[The] chief purpose [of FGM] was to
kill a young girl's self-will so she could
be remolded into a self-sacrificing and
obedient woman… the perfect
complement to [men’s] desires, wishes
and whims.
– New York Times (Sept. 4th, 1994)

9. Sexual Repression
…health officials say female
circumcision is variously an attempt to
suppress sexual appetite, to ensure
monogamous behavior or to prevent
rape.
– Houston Chronicle (May 13th, 1993)

10. Child Abuse
Female circumcision has no reason to
persist… because of the torture through
which children, innocent children, have
to go through.
– Washington Post (Nov. 22nd, 1992)

11. A Violation of Human Rights
In some places in Africa, genital
mutilation of young girls is the cultural
norm… It's an issue of human rights and
constitutional rights.
– Los Angeles Times (Dec. 22nd, 1996)

12. Bodily Integrity
[FGM] is the violation of the physical
integrity of a woman’s body…
– Washington Post (Sept. 6th, 1995)

13. Harmful to Health
[Female genital mutilation] permanently
scars women, at best, and can lead to
hemorrhaging, difficult childbirths, and,
in rare instances, death.
– Boston Globe (Dec. 28th, 2001)

14. This court attempts to respect traditional
cultures… but this is cruel and serves no
known medical purpose. It's obviously a
deeply ingrained cultural tradition going
back 1,000 years at least.
– Los Angeles Times (Mar. 27th, 1994)

15. Female genital mutilation - a label as
grisly as it is accurate - happens only in
places where ancient ritual still
overwhelms reason.
– Boston Globe (Oct. 19th, 1995)

16. Us Them
Modern Primitive
Rational Irrational
Free Culture-Bound
Women’s Equality Inequality
Sexually Liberated Repressed
Good Bad

18. Questions
How do Americans articulate their
opposition to “female genital mutilation”?
What are the consequences of opposing it
on those bases and not others?

19. U.S. Genital Cutting
• Male Circumcision

21. U.S. Genital Cutting
• Male Circumcision
• Intersex Surgery

23. U.S. Genital Cutting
• Male Circumcision
• Intersex Surgery
• Sex Reassignment

25. U.S. Genital Cutting
• Male Circumcision
• Intersex Surgery
• Sex Reassignment
• Cosmetic Surgery “Down There”

27. BUT!
Doesn’t it makes a difference that U.S.
procedures occur in hospitals?

34. AND!
Doesn’t it matter, too, that it’s an adult who
chooses to have the procedures?

38. In Sum
• U.S. talk about FGCs draws on a
modern/primitive binary.

39. In Sum
• U.S. talk about FGCs draws on a
modern/primitive binary.
• This allows us to feel outrage about
“them”… while leaving “our” practices
unquestioned.

40. In Sum
• U.S. talk about FGCs draws on a
modern/primitive binary.
• This allows us to feel outrage about
“them”… while leaving “our” practices
unquestioned.
• This is not to draw conclusions about any
given procedure.

41. In Sum
• U.S. talk about FGCs draws on a
modern/primitive binary.
• This allows us to feel outrage about
“them”… while leaving “our” practices
unquestioned.
• This is not to draw conclusions about any
given procedure.
• But maybe we’d like to spread some outrage
around.

42. Questions? Lisa Wade, PhD
www.lisa-wade.com
twitter: @lisadwade
facebook: /lisawadephd
Image credits:
• www.srsmontreal.com www.genitalautonomy.eu
• www.me.com www.bayareaintactivists.org
• www.who.int www.emedicinehealth.com
• www.worldpulse.com