Fridays and Feminism

I love Friday. It signals the start of the weekend, when I have more time to, um...write papers. Such an exciting life.

It also gives me the opportunity to catch up on the news. Do indulge my occasional ranting; I've been reading Feministing lately, as well as discussing feminism amongst classmates, so I'm more willing to snarl than usual.

Some highlights:

- Michelle Bruce, a councilwoman in Georgia, is being sued because she "misled" voters by identifying herself as female in the latest election. Ms. Bruce is transgendered and was born biologically male. Georgia Fuller, who finished third in the council election, is claiming that the election wasn't fair because Riverdale, the city for which the election was held, tends to vote for women.

What a prickly situation! Ms. Bruce is transgendered! Okay, so what? She apparently hasn't made a secret of it and one can determine that after four years in office the voters have figured it out, unless they're all deaf, dumb, blind and keep their heads in the sand. How has she at all deceived the voting populace? Or are we assuming that voters should vote based on the sex and/or gender of the candidates, instead of their political stances and platforms? Now I might be from New York, which tends toward being liberal, but I would rather not base my voting strategy on someone's gender identity.

- Apparently there's a "new debate" about female circumcision (often referred to as FGM - Female Genital Mutilation). I must admit that I'm a little confused by this debate; one of the debaters is an anthropologist who has undergone one type of the procedure (her paper is 33 pages long and I'm still sorting through it) and claims that the sexual dysfunctions of circumcised women cannot be attributed to the circumcision.

Like I said, I'm confused. I realize that there are cultural differences; maybe I'm being "imperialistic". Maybe I'm being an ignorant Westerner. Something about the idea of female circumcision, no matter how it is performed (even if there is a doctor and a sterile environment involved!), sends absolute chills down my spine. This anthropologist calls it "empowering"; given every description of FC/FGM I've ever read, I cannot figure how. Keeping in mind that I don't really agree with male circumcision either*, I'm having trouble relating "empowering" to "removing a small bodypart with the potential to cause enormous pleasure in a woman's body during sexual intercourse." I'm having trouble also sorting through Dr. Fuambai Ahmadu's paper; a lot of it seems to be her desperately trying to cling to her ideas of culture and female sexuality (sans clitoris), while accusing anti-FGM/FC scholars/advocates/etc of clinging to their ideas about culture and female sexuality (vulva still intact).

The paper in question can be found at http://humdev.uchicago.edu/AhmaduAintIWomanToo.pdf

Opinions are welcome.

*I'm clarifying for the hell of it: I would never refuse to date or break up with a man who has been circumcised due to said circumcision; rather, my position is such that I will not, should I ever have a son, have him circumcised.