The Agent of Death
Bells said:
But where does this come from?
One of the reasons I used to hem and haw on FGM was that my first experience with the concept was, in fact, at university, and Jomo Kenyatta's
Facing Mount Kenya does, in fact, include a defense of the practice as something white, Euro-Christian heritage should not judge. It is, actually, a fairly deft defense, but, also daft; sometimes it just takes a while to figure out that latter. It just didn't come up in my society much until it started to. Watching the discourse in motion, with my side―the one I had fallen into according to my introduction to the subject―having exactly
nothing in defense of this cultural tradition except the assertion that it is cultural tradition, pretty much made the point. Still, it took longer than it should have.
I mention this unpleasant aspect of my own history because Kenyatta also recalls the myth behind underlying the tradition for one Kenyan tribe. The general sketch is that when the gods created the world they entrusted it to women's guidance, but the women became decadent and irresponsible, so the gods transferred that authority to men, who are more responsible, and remain in charge.
Yes, really.
† † †
And now, a mansplanation aside. I know if we search the archives here, we can find parts of my own transition on the subject; I know at some point I offered Kenyatta in defense of FGM in a discussion. If I don't search for it right now, quite frankly it's because I really don't like seeing those old reminders of stupid things I've said. But they do exist.
The question certainly exists whether I would have undertaken such a perspective had the issue been introduced to my awareness in some other context. To the other, that point only matters, to me at least, in the context of why I believed, accepted, or advocated the point. More generally, it is also an important milestone in my own learning; I am, after all, politically liberal within my society, and liberalism within supremacist presuppositions is not immune to supremacism, such as the American question thirty years ago regarding "women's lib" in the context of marriage.
And, you know, maybe that part
was progressive within our society at the time, but it was also pretty rancid; that is to say, look at how progressive and evolved we men are for finally granting that a wife can have a job, and then that a wife had the right to say no to her husband's sexual advances. See, she's liberated!
True, this was important, but the functional problem was the constraint defining women as the wives of husbands. Over thirty years later we still find sufficient numbers clinging to such standards that the question of whether or not a woman is married to a man still bears significant influence over our societal regard for the human rights of woman.
It is strange to consider so severe an act as genital mutilation symptomatic, but that perspective also tells us something. In our American society, for instance, we might not rape our late brother's wife according to Old Testament tradition, but it seems her identity and rights can still be bound up in the question of marrying a man.
I think people can generally perceive injustice; the question of how to define and describe the workings of any given injustice is important. One not only must learn critical thinking in general, but also how to apply those processes to sublimated cultural bias that is often very difficult to perceive, even more so if those same processes of perception and criticism are overly invested in self. To wit, it's embarrassing to recall the transformation of my outlook regarding FGM because, well, yeah, I did at one point in my life posit a defense of the practice. To the other, it's also important for any number of reasons; there is the obvious testimonial to cultural influences, but it is also, for me, a powerful symbol of critical bias. I had to learn how to think around critical biases. And here's the thing: This bit about "women's lib" in the context of marriage? I mean, it's been what, a month or two since I started dropping that line in on a fairly regular basis? It's actually part of the same process taking place in my life and experience. I couldn't tell you
when I "figured it out"; there was no moment of clarity, as such. Or, rather, if I dig back to the first of my recent uses of the line, it isn't that it just happened, but that at some point in these various discussions something occurred to me, sounded pretty much just about right, and then I noticed that it was also
new in some way. It was an analogy, and it was as if I was accounting for the specific expression of something I knew for the first time. But in that
a-ha! moment, it also occurred to me that
this was something new, except it wasn't, and all I can tell you is that at some point in the last thirty years I figured
something out, didn't notice, and now I can't tell you how I got from A to B because the line emerges from a later familiarity, not any clarifying moment of transition.
Unfortunately, I can't give anyone else a pathway through; I haven't figured that part out, yet.
I choose mansplanation because while people can generally perceive injustice, the challenges of describing its workings creates what we might consider an unknown potential. It's true we Americans, in our society steeped in Judeo-Christian principle, aren't raping our brothers' wives or poisoning our own because we suspect infidelity. But the
unknown aspect of that unknown potential one perceives perhaps instinctively also creates
fear.
And this fear is what drives so much of the strangeness we see in discussions such as this thread. It is why some are willing to rail against the mere idea of misogyny, or proposition of rape culture.
The rhetorical question in re FGM: But where this comes from? I can provide one specific answer to throw in for consideration, but this is also an occasion I can describe what it looks like inside the question. FGM might seem considerably more severe than telling a random woman she's prettier when she's smiiling, but if we dig deep enough, they are both derived from vaguely similar but diverse iterations of a common underlying principle, the appropriate superiority of the masculine over the feminine.
If the anthropological and historical roots of such principles seem so obscure as to be occulted, what is actually concealing them? It is not as if this heritage has broken and been reborn anew; this is continuous, and runs deep. That unknown potential and seemingly requisite instinctive unease can be sufficient. Some would redefine terms such as to constrict and exclude. This part is easy enough to identify, but much harder to solve, and no, it is not a surprising answer.
One knows misogyny is wrong. One wishes to present against wrongness. There is an unknown potential at play, though, and that creates fear; the redefinitions to constrict and exclude answer that fear. The point is to shield oneself from even self-indictment.
This is basic ego defense.
The determination we see in these discussions is something of a distillation. It is a clumsy demonstration exacerbated by blindness unto itself. A weathered bit here, a tattered scrape there; one becomes a singular conduit for diverse expressions, an exaggerated effect that only compounds that perception of moral indictment.
The thing is that there is only so much repair we can accomplish for ourselves; we cannot change history, and there are only so many particular apologies to go around.
The important thing is what comes next.
Let's go with a straightforward violence metaphor: It is one thing to have beaten someone. You have your reasons, and under certain circumstances they might be legitimate. You can tell us what you want about why it happened. But don't tell us it didn't happen. And here's the part that shouldn't be so tricky:
Don't tell us you never did it while you're still doing it.
And that part, really, I don't see why it's so difficult, except for vested interest.
But when the proposition comes down to the potential of one's hurt feelings versus the sum of ongoing human damage and its future potential, the answer cannot by any definition be said uncertain.
The fact of civilized society is an evolutionary outcome. By it our living genetic lineage at least has the possibility of lasting as long as the Universe itself; without it, we will die with the planet if not before. Again, the measure is not uncertain.
Misogyny is not merely emblematic; it must necessarily end.
Or, to adapt a phrase:
We gotta get out of this place, because it's the last thing we will fail to do.
And, quite frankly, superstitious fear of moral indictment, while perfectly human, is no good reason for anything.
And, yes, when we stop and think of the damage we've done, it hurts. My own self-indictment runs far deeper than the embarrassment of having previously advocated on behalf of FGM.
The first thing is to stop creating damage. The hard part there is that absolute cessation is impossible. But that's the thing; we all do our part. We all carry our stone. And when I drop this or that stone I know that someday I'll find another in my pocket. It will be enough to drop that one, too. The point is to set aside the stones.
And someday the proposition of civilized society will more or less fulfill itself, or it won't, and to that end, it will still, eventually, cease to matter.
And for the most part, yes, this is on us, gentlemen. Say whatever you want about the women who take part―pretty much exactly all of them―but remember it is nothing more than we have demanded of them.