I suppose I risk offending a good many people with this entry, but I hope you all read it with an open mind. I read an article posted by a friend on Facebook earlier today, and I was appalled by the narrow-mindedness of the article. It was a feminist article, and let me be perfectly frank- I am not a feminist. I am a humanist. I believe in the pursuit of happiness in individuals without letting society’s expectations hinder our actions. I get frustrated with people with agendas. The article is from the website feministing.com, and their agenda seems to be to find anything that could be construed as negative towards women and rant about it. Why do we women continue to fight where no fighting is necessary?
My view on feminism? We traded one stereotype for another and called it progress. While we have our similarities, women will never be equal to men. We cannot be, because equality implies sameness. Men and women are different. Plain and simple. We are not better or worse: we are complements to the other. I can certainly appreciate how far we've come. I like that I can have a job, that I can choose who I marry, that I can vote, etc. I love that women have more options than men have. I can be soft and sexy while being strong and self-reliant. What I don’t like is how so many feminists push their viewpoints on other women rather than appreciate those women’s opinions.
Now to the heart of the blog- the article in question. You can read it here: http://www.feministing.com/archives/021581.html. A doctor performs surgeries to shorten baby girls’ abnormally large clitorises. Feminists denounce the doctor’s actions, claiming the whole affair to be “sexual assault” and a “human rights violation.” Keep in mind that this surgery is performed in a sterile lab, with a licensed physician, with parental consent. How could this be defined as a human rights violation? That's putting it in the same league as female circumcision in Ghana. The doctor in question goes to great lengths to ensure the nerves are spared. He advocates annual exams to ensure that all is well with his patients and make sure that they lead normal, healthy lives. Yes, this is certainly appalling. What we have here are women, who not knowing what it could possible feel like to be able to be described as physically abnormal, running their mouths about things that they do not understand.
They say the view of what is normal is "narrow-minded." Are they implying that the children should grow up as they are, and maybe they could make the decision themselves later on if they would like to go through the surgery? That's an interesting take, considering so many feminists advocate abortion. The baby had no say there, did he/she? The mother can kill her child, but she's a terrible person if she seeks to make her child's life a little more normal and a little less self-conscious. What about children born with cleft palates? Should we cease correcting that birth defect too? What about the millions of baby boys who are circumcised? How many men rant about that, calling it a human rights violation? These women hear about scalpels going where ideally none would go, and raise a fuss, claiming a crime is being committed. Let's be honest here, ladies, if your clitoris resembled male genitalia, wouldn't you want that altered?
I love being an independent woman. What I do not like is being force-fed the agenda of those whose original purpose was to empower women. I don’t need or want someone else to dictate my thoughts and actions. After all, wasn’t the women’s liberation movement about releasing women from conventional thinking? Feminism has become the new convention, and I for one am not its advocate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You ask “Why do we women continue to fight where no fighting is necessary?”. I don’t have the time or an exhaustive reference source to start on this one, but lets start with issues like female sex slave trafficking and rape as a weapon of war, then work our way down-- there are are a myriad of women-centered problems in this world that require *anybody* to stand up and fight. A lot of the time, or at least on Feministing.com, it’s women. These aren’t just “feminist” issues--these are *human* issues.
ReplyDeleteBut back to the article you mention. You say “Keep in mind that this surgery is performed in a sterile lab, with a licensed physician, with parental consent. How could this be defined as a human rights violation?”
If you had clicked through to any of the links, you would have read an analysis of the issue from a bioethics group whose main concern is not actually the legal surgery, but the *annual follow up*. From article: “And what about institutional ethics oversight in this case? Yang, Felsen, and Poppas report IRB approval for retrospective chart review, but apparently have no IRB approval for the post-op “sensory testing.” We asked for a read on this from Anne Tamar-Mattis, the attorney who runs Advocates for Informed Choice, who has joined with us in formally expressing concerns about another medical procedure aimed at preventing the prenatal formation of ambiguous genitalia (and maybe also preventing the development of tomboyism, aggressiveness, and lesbianism in girls). Tamar-Mattis replied:
“If Dr. Poppas is using medical vibratory devices on girls' genitals in order to gather data for his published studies (for example, to show others that his surgeries preserve function), rather than solely for the girls' treatment, then he is conducting research. Legal and ethical standards require oversight by an institutional review board (IRB) when doctors are conducting medical tests for research purposes, in order to protect the rights of human subjects. If an IRB approved the use of ‘vibratory devices’ on young girls, I would want to know how they justified exposing those girls to the risk of psychological harm. I would also want to know if the girls and their parents knew they could refuse to participate, and if the parents understood about the psychological risks involved in these tests.”
Read more: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4730&blogid=140#ixzz0rMWBAL1u”
Both the bioethics article and the commentary on Feministing were not necessarily advocating for a stop to the surgery, but educating the populace about the history of this type of surgery on intersexed people and whether or not the parents okaying this procedure were truly informed of the possible psycho-sexual side-effects on their children. Informed consent, especially about what appears to be highly contested post-operative methodology, is a legal right. The parents choosing this surgery are having to weigh the possibility of surgical side-effects, post-operative psychological and sexual issues surrounding the annual follow up, and weigh the possibility that whatever nerve sensation is left in the surgically altered girls may not be enough (or the right kind) to have a fulfilling sex life as an adult. Feministing.com and other concerned parties would like to make sure that people concern themselves with all the facts and angles of a procedure rather than relying on a fear of their child not being culturally and physically feminine enough.
You condemn the Feministing commentary writing “What we have here are women, who not knowing what it could possible feel like to be able to be described as physically abnormal, running their mouths about things that they do not understand.” Putting aside the issue of you presuming to know the physical state of the author, I do not believe that the blog authors are issuing ultimatums about this surgery in order to inflict years of teasing upon children for any potential physical abnormalities. While Feministing may not have a sterling track record when it comes to ableism, the concern here is whether these surgeries are
ReplyDeletebeing done for the right reasons
B) the annual post-operative assessments are being conducted legally and with concern for patients’ psychological health.
Make a child's life a little more normal and a little less self-conscious is admirable, but not at the expense of physical, sexual, or psychological health. You mention male circumcision as a similar issue and asked “What about the millions of baby boys who are circumcised? How many men rant about that, calling it a human rights violation?”. I don’t know for sure about men, but I can tell you right now that there are several groups out there protesting this--including Mothers Against Circumcision and Intact America, a children’s rights group. PEOPLE, not just women, are concerned about the welfare of children in general. This isn’t a “war of the sexes” issue.
I confess to be a little confused about this sentence :“What I do not like is being force-fed the agenda of those whose original purpose was to empower women.” As far as I, and every other feminist is probably concerned, feminism is STILL empowering women. I’m not sure why you think the movement has stopped doing this. People sometimes are under the impression that since women hold jobs, vote, and have achieved a measure of equality that we “won” or should be content with those successes. This is far from the case.
Sites like Feministing exist to continue educating young women, all women, about issues affecting women every day. While they may have an “agenda” to educate, inform, and encourage young women to advocate for themselves and others, they aren’t there to “dictate” your thoughts and actions. In fact, Feministing doesn’t even speak for feminism as a whole. There are differently-abled feminists who have issues with Feministing, there are people of color who take issue with feminism in general and pursue activism under “womanism”. There is no monolithic feminism that is out to turn you into some sort of crazy stereotype involving men’s fashion and ball-busting anger. It’s like any other ideology--like Christians, there is no “one flavor/one denomination” among feminists.
The women’s liberation movement IS about releasing women from conventional thinking, whether it’s about blindly trusting physicians about health care or aiming to be the next Martha Stewart. The reaction of “I don’t need or want someone else to dictate my thoughts and actions” rather surprised me though; I’m not sure why you felt that one article, or one blog, was trying to turn you into a mindless robot. It’s a bunch of women expressing an opinion. Just like The Washington Post expresses it’s opinions, or The Onion, or The New York Times. If the article had been someone passionately advocating for, say, a new political point or the slow food movement, would you have felt the same way?
Feminism is FAR from “the new convention” --in fact, that’s the problem. It isn’t. I’m not sure why you are so angry about the idea of feminism, but I’d like to be able to change your mind.