Subject: Re: On interracial relationships, or anything
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 21:53:23 GMT
Angelfly72@aol.com wrote:
: S.F Thomas wrote:
: <>
: I've been following this discussion for a while, and I was stunned when I came
: to this part. Two years ago, I attended a Pan African conference where the
: subject of clitoridectomy (sp?) was openly and honestly discussed. All of the
: panel members were African women who had been through the process. The pain
: those women went through was unreal. They were told that the reason they had
: to have the procedure done was because they would become "better wives".
: Apparently a woman's erect clitoris is a danger to the family. I'm sorry, I'm
: being unneccessarily sarcastic, but I was appalled. These women suffered
: horrendous pain and medical problems. I understand that this is a side issue
: that has little to do with your discussion of cultural asili, but I just want
: some clarification. Do you think the practice (and yes, I do know that not
: every society in Africa performs this) of cutting a woman's clitoris a way
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: that African women have been oppressed? She can not experience anything but
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: pain during sex and childbirth, and her ability to experience the joys of
: having a female body has been literally cut off.
Good question, and a fair one. Speaking for myself, I see no
need of the practice, and I too am repelled by it. From the
way you phrase the question, I see that you allow for a
rounded look at it, rather than the one-dimensional view
that most Westerners would take, which would be to pronounce
it a horror, and to call for legislation banning the practice.
I would be more cautious in my condemnation. I remember
watching a special on tv not so long ago where they were
discussing Asian martial arts (aside: there was a brotha
on for a brief moment at the beginning who showed that
that too originated in Africa). At any rate, there is a
ceremony performed by the Shao Lin monks at the conclusion
of their training, which calls for them to demonstrate
their mastery while risking death in the process, and includes
a hot branding that successful graduates must endure. During
my recent trip to Ghana, I met a Chief, the Akwamuhene, and
he had a huge, what looked like an Adinkra symbol, branded
into his right arm. We also know that many African societies
require that its members be scarified, ie. undergo cuts of
the face or other part of the body intended to leave patterned
scars. In the West, tattooing and body piercing, including
of sensitive, private parts, including female, is undertaken
voluntarily, for reasons I haven't yet been able to fathom.
And of course circumcision is an almost automatic practice.
I remember when my son was born, at a Jewish hospital, Mt.
Sinai in Toronto as I recall, the attending physician asked if
we wanted the procedure performed. I readily agreed, although
I'm not Jewish, because in my family all the men are circumcised,
and evidently that is a tradition that goes back to Africa,
as we are neither Jewish nor Hebrew. Against
that backdrop, it is hard for me to condemn a societal
practice, based solely on my own repulsion. There could
be more going on there that I just don't understand.
That's one.
But two, you more specifically asked, "is it a way
to oppress women?" I admit the possibility, and I have no
grounds on which to deny it a priori. It is a matter of
intent. By itself it means nothing, otherwise scarification,
or circumcision, or branding all could be construed as being
a way to oppress the men who must undergo these practices, but
all kinds of other evidence suggests that that would be an
invalid inference. So, for me to judge whether women are
oppressed in a society, I would look at the totality of the
role and treatment of women, and clitoridectomy would not be
for me the clincher. Bearing that in mind, I see no reason to
change my earlier statement that women have *not* been oppressed
in traditional African society. Not only has property
inheritance passed along the female line, but also the king
has traditionally been selected by the women elders under
the leadership of the Queen Mother. There is therefore a
balancing of powers that we don't see in traditional European
or Arab society. It is well to point out also that the
(European) Christian concept of God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Ghost, which leaves woman out of the picture
altogether, derives from the African trinity of Ausar (Osiris),
Heru (Horus), and Auset (Isis), which specifically includes
the mother God Auset, along with the father God Ausar, and
the son God Heru. A similar recognition of the importance
and equality of the female principle may be found throughout
the traditional cultures of Africa. In African religion,
priestesses outnumber priests by a wide margin, in contrast,
for example, to (European) Christianity, or Islam, where
there is still today debate about whether women can be priests
and ministers. Therefore, looking at the totality of all
the evidence, I still believe I am correct in asserting, as
indeed do all the scholars I have read on the subject, that
traditional African culture and religions long ago recognized
that the relation between male and female has to be one of
complementarity... of difference yet equality... and that
they largely succeeded in finding a harmonious balance.
I don't know to what extent the introduction of Western
societal values is upsetting the balance. The Western
value systems that would eliminate the practice of
clitoridectomy comes as a package. And if that package
includes family breakdown and prostitution, for example,
Africa may be better off keeping and reclaiming the old.
Adopt ye not the ways of the oppressor.
: Angela D. Shortt
: "Winning and losing, both are confusing." Bret "The Hitman" Hart
"The beginning of Wisdom
Is Knowing who you are.
Draw near and listen."
--Swahili Proverb
Contents | Previous | Next