|
mothra
|
The impact of immigration on recipients of female genital cutting has been immense. The current law against female genital cutting in the United States, 18 USC § 116, reads:
Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title of imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
The only exception, as outlined in subsection (b), would be that the procedure is either necessary to the health of the person it is performed on, or that it is performed on a person in labor or has just given birth. In both instances, a medical practitioner, or midwife in the case of the second accepted instance, may perform it. This criminalization puts both non-resident parents and circumcisers at odds with U.S. immigration policies, and immigrant parents with citizen children run the risk of being questioned about their motives for taking or sending their child out of the country, regardless of their actual motives.
Overall, the issue with criminalizing female genital cutting and making criminals out of those that perform it or parents who condone it is not a matter of whether or not it should be criminalized, but who it is that is making the decision to criminalize it. Soon after federal bills were passed and a law was formed in California against female genital cutting, Isabelle R. Gunning discussed how a she and a Los Angeles group held meetings that included local African people and African women activists. More meetings were held with local refugee and immigrant African communities in Los Angeles and San Diego. Gunning also describes how, though some members of the group supported FGC and others did not, by the end the general consensus was to support the law, though not the language within it (Gunning 2002: 118). She states that: "Some felt that FGM was the correct characterization of the procedures and the proper political symbol. Others felt that the term mutilation would offend many in the immigrant and refugee African communities and repel them from seeking education and health information. Ultimately, the group agreed. The term female circumcision would be more appropriate."
And so, one of the major issues regarding the female genital cutting debate in the Western world is not so much whether or not the procedure should be performed, Gunning states that the consensus in her group was support for the law. The issue was with where the law was coming from, whether or not those that had proposed them and eventually passed these laws had done so out of a true concern for women, or simply to perpetuate stereotypes of African women, and whether what would come out of these laws was helpful or would only end up further alienating African immigrants and refugees. After all, how many African women had been consulted about the national or California laws? Did Congress pass them because of what African women actually wanted, or what they were perceived to want, to go back to the notion that African women only have the procedure done under the pressure of men. Or, worse, were African women considered too biased to know what was “right” for them, and so Congress went ahead and did as they thought was best?
Holism is one of the tenets of anthropology, the belief that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When applied to the criminalization of African women and of female genital cutting in Western countries, it is that we must, and cannot, address female genital cutting simply by passing sweeping laws banning the practice. The laws serve not only to isolate African women who have undergone the practice, but also plays a part in the continuing marginalization of African immigrants and refugees in the Western world, this idea that they are practitioners and proprietors of “barbaric” practices, that they “mutilate” their children and must be punished for doing so. Female genital cutting in the world needs to be addressed through education, not incarceration. Many African women are interested in advocating against female genital cutting in their communities, but often find themselves silenced in favor of the opinions of white, Western women and politicians. The second issue in this matter is that, when criminalization of female genital cutting is the only option, many African women feel as though they are being reduced to only their genitals, that their value is only in whether or not they have had the procedure, or want it done for their daughters or female relatives. By bringing holism into the female genital cutting debate, we are addressing the multifaceted aspects of female genital cutting: the different cultures that practice it, rather than lumping all African communities into one indistinguishable lump, the tradition surrounding it, developed over thousands of years, and most importantly, the personal reasons as to why women either have the procedure performed on their daughters or why they aren’t afraid to speak out about their own experiences. The culture in the Western world that needs to arise from these kinds of conversations will help to cease the othering of African women, removing the stigma that they are either heartless matriarchs more interested in upholding an outdated practice, or as voiceless victims who are too simple to understand that what they are doing is “wrong.”
|
Forum
Pages: 
