Rational people often assume that some opinions and judgements are so obviously part of their worldview that they really don’t need to be said. Unfortunately, some maliciously disruptive people take delight in assuming that if something has not been clearly stated then they are safe in assuming the worst of others, even when such assumptions are logically perverse and deliberately inflammatory.
It seems a transparently clear expectation that if a person already knows that one supports issues A and C and opposes issues X and Z, then they ought to conclude that one is likely to also oppose issue Y and also support issue B. Indeed, it is a textbook example of logical inference.
However, some folks, for ideological reasons, are so invested in performing a gloating gotcha dance that they ignore all the precepts of logical inference and triumphantly announce that they have caught one out, oh yes indeed, in not jumping through the denunciation hoops with sufficient spangles and spotlights that they couldn’t possibly miss it. Silly feminists, we forgot to drumroll the denunciations.
So, just for the benefit of ideologues (and you know who you are) here is a non-exhaustive list of things that feminists denounce/decry/despise:
Oppressions, Cruelties, Exploitations and Harms:
- e.g.
- murder
- concentration camps
- torture
- kicking puppies
- liars
- theft
- kidnapping
- child sexual abuse
- genocide
- unjust wars
- coercion of any kind, but specifically
- forced marriages
- forced sexual intercourse
- forced childbirth
- forced surgery
- forced abortion
- forced female circumcision of any degree
- routine maternal episiotomies
- routine caesarean sections
- forced mental health “treatments” used as social control of non-violent people transgressing social norms [Reference (pdf)]
- ECT (electro-convulsive therapy)
- involuntary “commitment” to mental institutions
- compulsory drug regimes under threat of institutionalisation for non-compliance
- cosmetic Western vaginal labiaplasty
- female genital cutting more damaging than W.H.O. Type I)
- i.e. radical clitoridectomies
- i.e. clitoral excision
- i.e. infibulation
- non-evidence-based obstetric practises
- rapists
- paedophiles
- terrorists
- authoritarians
- executions for adultery
- prison rape
- restricting female autonomy
- threatening women’s safety
- despotic dictators
Irritations:
- e.g.
- anti-feminist trolls
Believing that the above practises, persons and systems are dangerous/harmful/wrong and need to be eliminated does not of course mean that feminists therefore favour a military solution as the only or best elimination method, mostly because of the huge unlikelihood that armed intervention could possibly be the least harmful course for women caught up in these oppressive and harmful situations. How is a woman in a forced marriage helped by a bomb dropped on her village that kills her?
This list above is not a comprehensive list, seeing as feminists generally denounce/decry/despise most oppressions, cruelties, exploitations and harms that a rational and compassionate person would denounce/decry/despise. Sometimes, some feminists deeply involved in partisan politics might denounce/decry/despise some practice/cause/person that other feminists support/admire. This happens because feminists are not the Borg Hivemind.
P.S. Feminists are generally in favour of rainbows, ponies and fluffy kittens.
P.P.S. In the specific case of FGM, feminist and broader Western denunciations have been shown as counterproductive compared to the proven gradual effectiveness of culturally sensitive education programmes. As most feminists would rather see communities and generations educated away from the tradition than seek personal plaudits for loud denunciations which impede proven programs, feminists instead donate money and volunteer time to the organisations which are performing educational outreach and support.
Filed under: FWW, Feminism Friday, clarifying-concepts, spot the strawfeminist | Tagged: clarifying-concepts, cruelty, denunciations, exploitation, Feminism Friday, FGM, FWW, harm, hivemind, misrepresentation, oppression, strawfeminist
Thank you, this is an angle I hadn’t really considered. With most of the more radical female genital cutting, the purpose is to show that the child conforms to her gender role. When this is not the case, and the harm is small (the rites of passage you mentioned), I can accept the practice. Hell, I’d say it makes a lot of sense even, as rituals go. I don’t think most people enjoy their rites of passage much anyway, but having an everlasting symbol of coming into sexual maturity, rather than some pictures of a party, might be a good thing.
As for infant male circumcision, the outcome (for the boy) is not really a statement about how he conforms to his gender role, at least in a secular family/community. That may be a source of all the outrage when FGM is compared to male circumcision, and rightly so. Men are not defined by their cut-status. (and of course there’s the horrific difference in pain and suffering)
But, as ballgame pointed out, IMC is painful to the child and damaging to the adult he will become. It is not cosmetic and harmless like I assume these rites of passage are. In the US at least, it is done at alarming rates, for stupid reasons (non-evidence-based health claims, boys can’t clean themselves, intact penises look gross), and is something that girls aren’t expected to go through.
A final note: IMC has plenty of vocal detractors, and it’s in decline largely because of them. Baby boys don’t really need feminists to protect them from this practice. My only wish was to recognize that we’re actually largely in agreement on the issue, since it seems to be the case, and I believe the recognition would reduce the incidence of FGM thread jacking.