Femonationalism and populist politics: The case of the Swiss ban on female genital mutilation

Bader, Dina; Mottier, Véronique

doi:10.1111/nana.12615

Cited by 18 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of course, non-criminal sanctions (for example, fines or, in the case of medical personnel, loss of licence) might still be applicable. 14 In this respect, we are both in agreement with a great many of our peers and colleagues (see, for example, Obiora, 1996;Gruenbaum, 2001;Shweder, 2002;Davis, 2003;Ehrenreich and Barr, 2005;Oba, 2008;Dustin, 2010;Askola, 2011;Abdulcadir et al, 2012;van den Brink and Tigchelaar, 2012;Latham, 2016;Ahmadu, 2017;Shahvisi, 2017;Coene, 2018;Johnsdotter, 2018;Bader, 2019;Abdulcadir et al, 2020;Bader and Mottier, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Against legalising female ‘circumcision’ of minors: a reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Earp

2022

Global Discourse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defenders of male circumcision increasingly argue that female ‘circumcision’ (cutting of the clitoral hood or labia) should be legally allowed in Western liberal democracies even when non-consensual. In his target article, Richard Shweder (2021) gives perhaps the most persuasive articulation of this argument to have so far appeared in the literature. In my own work, I argue that no person should be subjected to medically unnecessary genital cutting of any kind without their own informed consent, regardless of the sex characteristics with which they were born or the religious or cultural background of their parents. Professor Shweder and I agree that Western law and policy on child genital cutting is currently beset with cultural, religious and sex-based double standards. We disagree about what should be done about this. In this commentary, I argue that ‘legalising’ childhood FGC so as to bring it into line with current treatment of childhood MGC is not an acceptable solution to these problems. Instead, all medically unnecessary genital cutting of non-consenting persons should be opposed on moral and legal grounds and discouraged by all appropriate means. Key messages <ul><li>Under current legal norms, children with female-typical sex traits, male-typical sex traits, and intersex traits are treated fundamentally differently when it comes to protection from medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting</li> <li>Defenders of non-consensual male circumcision increasingly argue that non-consensual female ‘circumcision’ should be legalized in Western liberal democracies</li> <li>Advocates of children’s rights counter that all non-consenting persons, irrespective of their sex-characteristics, should be protected from medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting</li> <li>An emerging view is that non-consensual child genital cutting of any type is already contrary to criminal law, constituting physical assault and battery; parents cannot legally “consent” to the physical assault of their children</li> <li>Nevertheless, questions remain about the prudence of applying criminal sanctions (at least in the immediate future) to parents or providers who authorize or perform child genital cutting</li></ul>

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Against legalising female ‘circumcision’ of minors: a reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Earp

2022

Global Discourse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In conclusion, femonationalism is a key concept for understanding contemporary political discourses against FGM in the U.S. The commitment of Republican lawmakers to ending FGM by legislating on the basis of rescue narratives, with potential consequences for immigrant communities including loss child custody and deportation, echoes similar political dynamics observed in Switzerland (Bader, 2022;Bader & Mottier, 2020). However, the question of how social workers and healthcare professionals working with women and girls affected by FGM perceive the commitment of such powerful yet controversial political allies remains unexplored.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…As I have shown elsewhere (Bader, 2022), the 1996 federal law against FGM was passed as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, a Republican-authored law limiting access to asylum in the U.S. (including for women claiming asylum because of FGM). Likewise, the Swiss 2012 FGM Act, which was enthusiastically supported by the conservative Swiss People's Party, led in 2018 to the first ever conviction of a woman for carrying out FGM on her daughters prior to migration (Bader & Mottier, 2020). During the trial, evidence was submitted suggesting that the mother, who had been denounced by her ex-husband, was illiterate, a victim of domestic abuse, and had required FGM in a country (Somalia) where it is still a social norm, and is barely prosecuted (Bader & Mottier, 2020).…”

Section: The War On Terror and Femonationalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

From the War on Terror to the Moral Crusade Against Female Genital Mutilation: Anti-Muslim Racism and Femonationalism in the United States

Bader

2023

Violence Against Women

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the recent flurry of state-level legislation regarding female genital mutilation (FGM), which occurred in the aftermath of the first federal criminal court case of FGM in 2017. Drawing on publicly available material, it shows how this court case, which involved a group of Muslims of Indian heritage, elicited a moral crusade against FGM, largely led by Republican lawmakers, and spurred a resurgence of anti-Muslim discourses, which first came to the fore after 9/11 to legitimate the “war on terror.” Although FGM is not an Islamic practice and is also carried out by non-Muslim groups, the author concludes that femonationalism and anti-Muslim racism are important analytical lens for understanding the recent history of legislative efforts to combat FGM in the U.S.

show abstract

“…In addition, Jewish religious MGC has also been familiar to Western culture for many centuries. 15 By contrast, since the 1970s, FGC has been linked in Western discourse to "African" culture, which is widely portrayed as being "primitive" or "barbaric" (Bader, 2019;Abdulcadir et al, 2020;Bader and Mottier, 2020). A major aspect of this "othering" portrayal has been a disproportionate focus on the most drastic forms of FGC done in "traditional" settings, while ignoring both (1) the less drastic, medicalized forms of FGC that are common in many Global South countries, and (2) the comparatively dangerous, "traditional" forms of MGC that co-occur with their female counterparts.…”

Section: Justifying Inconsistenciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genital Cutting as Gender Oppression: Time to Revisit the WHO Paradigm

Earp

2022

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The World Health Organization (WHO) condemns all medically unnecessary female genital cutting (FGC) that is primarily associated with people of color and the Global South, claiming that such FGC violates the human right to bodily integrity regardless of harm-level, degree of medicalization, or consent. However, the WHO does not condemn medically unnecessary FGC that is primarily associated with Western culture, such as elective labiaplasty or genital piercing, even when performed by non-medical practitioners (e.g., body artists) or on adolescent girls. Nor does it campaign against any form of medically unnecessary intersex genital cutting (IGC) or male genital cutting (MGC), including forms that are non-consensual or comparably harmful to some types of FGC. These and other apparent inconsistencies risk undermining the perceived authority of the WHO to pronounce on human rights. This paper considers whether the WHO could justify its selective condemnation of non-Western-associated FGC by appealing to the distinctive role of such practices in upholding patriarchal gender systems and furthering sex-based discrimination against women and girls. The paper argues that such a justification would not succeed. To the contrary, dismantling patriarchal power structures and reducing sex-based discrimination in FGC-practicing societies requires principled opposition to medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting of all vulnerable persons, including insufficiently autonomous children, irrespective of their sex traits or socially assigned gender. This conclusion is based, in part, on an assessment of the overlapping and often mutually reinforcing roles of different types of child genital cutting—FGC, MGC, and IGC—in reproducing oppressive gender systems. These systems, in turn, tend to subordinate women and girls as well as non-dominant males and sexual and gender minorities. The selective efforts of the WHO to eliminate only non-Western-associated FGC exposes the organization to credible accusations of racism and cultural imperialism and paradoxically undermines its own stated goals: namely, securing the long-term interests and equal rights of women and girls in FGC-practicing societies.

show abstract

Femonationalism and populist politics: The case of the Swiss ban on female genital mutilation

Cited by 18 publications

References 26 publications

Against legalising female ‘circumcision’ of minors: a reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Against legalising female ‘circumcision’ of minors: a reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

From the War on Terror to the Moral Crusade Against Female Genital Mutilation: Anti-Muslim Racism and Femonationalism in the United States

Genital Cutting as Gender Oppression: Time to Revisit the WHO Paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About