Sunday, February 24, 2013

FGM vs "Cosmetic Surgery", and the falseness of "choice"

I never thought that an episode of Insight would inspire another blogpost from me, but clearly hell has frozen over. I have watched the show again for the first time since I appeared on it, and here we are. In my defence though, this post has not happened in a bubble. Many things have culminated in it, and whilst this will inevitably be a post that barely scratches the surface of what is an incredibly complex issue, I'm going to give it a burl.

So to start at the Insight programme, the topic was female circumcision/genital mutilation. It featured three women who had gone through the procedure in different parts of Africa talking about their experiences; two of which had been through the procedure in childhood and one who had chosen to go through it in adulthood as part of reaffirming heritage via women's initiation ceremony. In addition to this, there was a Gynaecologist who has worked a lot with African communities, a GP who campaigns actively against FGM, a couple of women who felt the need to explain to the women who had been through FGM exactly how what they had been through was horrific and incomparable to things such as having your ears pierced, a Cosmetic Surgeon who specialises in genital surgery, and a Lawyer. I wasn't expecting much with regards to how this weighty topic would be handled on this programme, and I wasn't pleasantly surprised. What I was surprised though was what I ended up being most angered about.   

After watching the show, I tweeted the following comment: 

"ALL "culture" that propels women to feel that their genitals should be altered for social inclusion needs to be examined".

It was interesting to see how this comment was perceived by other people who viewed the show. Most got it, but I think some assumed that I was just referring to FGM (which I still see as FGM, by the way, despite hearing more about the contexts of this practice as discussed on the programme, as it is still the removing of parts of female anatomy) because they made the assumption that "culture" was something those other women had, and that western culture has little equivalence. I can't begin to express just how erroneous this assumption was. When I say "ALL culture", that's exactly what I mean. Western culture, and the Australian context, does not get a free pass here.

To argue that Labiaplasty, or any other genital surgery, in an Australian context is not "cultural" and is completely choice-based is wrong. This culture around women's genitalia has changed so much that in the space of 10 years there has been a minimum of a doubling in the rate of Labiaplasty surgeries performed in this country, and that's just the ones claimed on Medicare. One Doctor states that he experienced a 100% rise per year. What's more, most agree that the majority of these procedures are aesthetic and not for medical reasons. Both the interviews I've just linked state that the women seeking these surgeries wish to look "normal". This stuff doesn't happen in a bubble, folks. Something has changed dramatically in a short period of time to make a number of women assess themselves differently.

And now I wish to travel back in my time machine to the 90s, as I have so oft returned in these blogposts before, to reflect partially on this "culture" that has changed. I reflected on this in another forum, and have had a similar discussion with one of my sisters, but back in those long ago years there really didn't seem to be such a narrow concept of what constituted "normal". Sure, occasionally in those dreaded PE classes when we had to go swimming you might have caught a glance of difference in the change rooms, but this was unlikely and even then, a judgement probably wouldn't have been made by those present as to who was the most, and least, normal. I've mentioned previously that back then a bit of a tidy up of the edges and a trim of the hair itself was the most common pubic hair style, so really, we were mostly covered. This wonderful world of labial diversity all seemed to change rather quickly. 

I remember that the first time I heard that women's Labia could be judged as more or less desirable was (sadly) when I was watching the first season of Big Brother. Sara-Marie, who worked as a manager in a strip club, was educating the housemates on "innies" and "outies" and how innies were seen as more desirable for that line of work. Additionally, that edge-trim and lawn mow seemed to no longer cut it, and Brazilian waxing, or at the very least removing all the hair there, became a normalised practice thus the entire area became much more visible than it had been. People link the rise in porn viewing to a rise in hair removal and surgery and I admit to not having seen enough/read enough porn to have a view on how accurate that idea is. This article does talk about the airbrushing of external genitalia in order to be consistent with Australian Classification laws. Despite my naivety on the porn front though, I do know that the internet happened and that this provided a vehicle for women to be able to compare and contrast the female genital area in a way that unless they were a gynaecologist or involved in female-to-female sexual practice would not have been able to do before. Thus, it seems that the idea that having externally hanging Labia Minora became an undesirable state for many women. What's more, men have been exposed to the same things and also therefore have made judgements on what may, or may not, be normal. If all that combined (and this is bare bones here, there is a lot more too this) does not state "cultural", then I am curious what does. The way I read it says that a number of social pressures that did not really exist before have been placed on to women, and therefore women are now more likely to judge their own genitals as being abnormal, when in actual fact they are perfectly normal, and then seek solutions. As mentioned earlier: this does not happen in a bubble.

I do question "choice" made under those circumstances. Sure, a woman may make a choice to walk into a surgery and undertake a procedure, and she may receive both physical and emotion benefits from doing so. Where that choice though has been made in the context of a woman being continually bombarded with images and ideas of what constitutes "normal" and where she may also have been told by a partner who has been bombarded with those exact ideas and images that she is "different", I then argue that she has been denied the complete and unfettered ability to ever interpret her own body as being perfectly normal, and make a decision in a society that positively supports anatomical difference for women. What's more, going back to Insight for a second, it was interesting to hear a Cosmetic Surgeon and a Lawyer use the idea of "choice" to differentiate FGM from Labiaplasty and related practices in a Western context. Just a little food for thought: of course a Cosmetic Surgeon specialising in genital surgery in a western capitalist society is going to argue that a woman undertaking a procedure in this context is making a "choice". Their very livelihood is dependent on women questioning their appearances and therefore spending big biccies on "corrective procedures". Questioning the culture surrounding those choices ain't going to bring home the bacon!

I think additionally there is enough of a cultural imperative here for a counter-movement to spring up. At this very point in time there seem to be a number of art installations, books and websites geared toward changing these ideas of what constitutes "normal" and celebrating diversity. Warning: none of the upcoming links are safe for work! The Great Wall of Vagina has involved artist Jamie McCartney taking casts of the external genital area of a number of women* volunteers then displaying these casts as a series of panels. The 101 Vagina Project (this is still looking for a few more volunteers so click the link if you're interested) is reproducing photos of the external area, as well as stories written by the anonymous participants related to that area, in an artistic coffee table book format. The Large Labia Project is a similar idea except that women submit their own pictures and stories that then get shared on the site. Oh, and one glance at the site tells you that what women think is "large" is perfectly normal. Finally, there was this UK documentary called The Perfect Vagina (note, there is a big pause in this doco after the first segment finishes but it does come back) which looks at the surgery women are undertaking and investigates some of the diversity-affirming activities women are getting involved in to counter these ideas of "normal". This documentary also asks a couple of Cosmetic Surgeons why they do what they do, and the answers are rather interesting... Can I just say though that whilst I think all these positive, affirming projects existing is amazing and they need to be encouraged and viewed by many more women and girls (and the blokes too), I really REALLY think it sucks that they have to exist, particularly when it wasn't that long ago that they would have been almost an unnecessary exercise.

To return to the Insight episode, I think this was why, by the end of it, I sensed the frustration that the women who had undergone FGM were feeling, particularly when some in the audience were so easily dismissing Labiaplasty in the West whilst demonising FGM and the women who practice it, in other cultures. There was at times a complete cultural arrogance on display, and an almost stubborn refusal to look at practices that exist here with the same amount of scrutiny. That's wrong and it should not have been the case in this show. As I wrote earlier: ALL "culture" that propels women to feel that their genitals should be altered for social inclusion needs to be examined. Considering all I have written above, if people still think that this means cosmetic surgery in an Australian context gets a free pass on the basis of "choice" then they are sorely mistaken. All women, worldwide, need to know that they are born perfect and that they do not have to endure any sort of genital mutilation to be socially acceptable. No matter what the cultural circumstance. 

* Sorry, but I just am still not good with this entire area being referred to colloquially as the "Vagina" as it erases all the other brilliant bits!  


Sunday, February 17, 2013

"Reef N' Beef", and one hell of a disgusting sign

So I'm using this platform again for a rant that is not of the feminist variety. I promise, at this point in time I have nine half-written women-focussed pieces, and I will finish and post one of them soon. In the meantime though, I'd like to draw the attention of those wonderful people who do read my blog to this brilliant piece of signage out of Denmark.

This was snapped by one of my Uni friends when he was recently in Copenhagen Airport. He posted it on Facebook for opinion on what he thought was the use of rather racist imagery and immediately I asked if I could pinch it. Naturally, the majority of people who commented on my Facebook post found it similarly racist and offensive. Indeed, some of us actually took the time to write the business an email informing them of such. I am yet to get a response to my email, but one of my good friends did and whilst an amiable response, it did seem to insinuate that she had misinterpreted the idea behind the campaign as it was merely a marrying of the "traditional" with the "contemporary", and was not meant to be anything other than that. The email also showed no indication that they were going to take action on the points she had raised.

My own email was open in tone and educating in its pitch. I took the stance that perhaps Reef N' Beef were naive of just how loaded this image could be. I mentioned Gillard's "rivers of grog" and stereotypes of drunkenness. I highlighted notions of "authenticity" and stereotyping when it comes to Aboriginal appearance. I mentioned the use of images of someone who has passed away and what that can mean from a religious point of view. And thusfar: nada, zip, zero. So I was initially prepared to wait patiently until they found it in their hearts to respond to me when the plot thickened...

You see, this is not the first time Reef N' Beef have been informed by mob that this image is offensive. Indeed, it was brought to their attention a couple of years ago by some strong and intelligent people from the community and I cannot imagine that those people would have minced words, nor would they have been remotely unclear in expressing the issues of this image. Not only that, but this solo sign which my attention was drawn to is actually not solo at all. According to other reports from mobs, this image is all over the buses of Copenhagen and at other public sites. I repeat: this image is everywhere despite the fact that Reef N' Beef have been told it is offensive over the past two or so years by the very people that it is supposed to represent. Consider me utterly disgusted.

So stuff waiting around for my polite email response! In light of the fact that Reef N' Beef are either extraordinarily slow learners or they simply do not give a shit that their advertising is offensive no matter how many times they are told, I am posting it up here on my own platform. It is bad enough that Aboriginal people have to deal with knuckle-dragger racism in our own country but to see it overseas is just something else, PARTICULARLY when the business in question has been educated on the issues. Please feel free to send Reef N' Beef an email, give them a call, or share this around so that others are aware. The contact details will be below.

Reef N' Beef Website - Link
Reef N' Beef Facebook - Link 
Reef N' Beef Twitter - @ReefBeefDK
Phone: 33 33 00 30
Fax: 33 33 08 38

Oh, and let me know if you get a response! Bonus points to those who post them in the comments section ;)

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Radio National Interview

I was interviewed on Radio National ABC following my recent article on spray tanning and skin colour as a "fashion". Should you wish to listen, I come on approximately 45mins in.

Radio National Interview