Opinion piece on recent media coverage of Iraqi Kurdistan

Thursday 24 October 2013

The short film released by the Guardian today shows the impact that film can have on perceptions of FGC. The film provides a useful tool to contribute to the debate on FGC, namely how media can be used to promote abandonment. The title of the Guardian article, however, does not open doors to discussion on FGC but rather immediately places a judgement on the many women who have undergone this practice by using a quote comparing them with household pets.

The film, ‘FGM: the film that changed the law in Kurdistan’, notes that FGC is a taboo issue, not a religious obligation or linked to Islam, is surrounded by myths surrounding sexuality and results in many psychological and physical impacts.

The documentary that the short film is based on, A Handful of Ash, is used by grassroots campaigners to stimulate discussion on FGC, showing a doctor, mullah and other respected persons speaking out against the practice and de-linking FGC from religion.

The film shares the stories of girls and women who have undergone FGC.

‘There was a woman cutting all the girls. She had ash and a blade.’

‘I have no desire for a man’. 

‘Her aunts are not happy. They say she must have khatana. She will not be pure if she doesn’t.’

Remarkably, thanks to local campaigns and the documentary provoking discussions within parliament and the media, a bill outlawing FGC was passed. Activists raising awareness about the law amongst the public and within the media began to have a real impact on public opinion. A recent press release from WADI, an NGO working in the area who use this film alongside community workshops, states that there has been a significant decrease in FGC in the last few years.

One man says that his daughters will not be cut as he has seen the negative impacts it has upon women. One midwife who had previously practiced cutting said:

‘It harms us more than it benefits us… I have a TV and listen to religious programmes, it is clear that it has no benefits. I promised to stop and will never do it.’

Laws prohibiting FGC are important in conveying the message that FGC is not supported by governments. However, as noted in the recent UNICEF report, laws should be one of a set of interventions by governments to support a social movement towards abandonment of FGC since legislation alone fails to address the practice within its broader social context.

Female genital cutting (FGC) is a social norm held in place by the entire community; a mother will have her child cut because she believes it is the right thing to do, and that the community believes it is the right thing to do. If someone questions this behaviour they are likely to be punished through social sanctions such as refusal of marriage or social rejection, for example – as mentioned in the Guardian article – the food served by uncut women being seen as impure. If one person wants to leave their daughter uncut, it will be hard for them to act alone due to imposed social sanctions. Laws may not be strong enough to combat this since the fear of social exclusion for not conforming to the norm may be stronger than the fear of fines and imprisonment.

This is clear in the film, which culminates in individuals and some groups saying that they have stopped the practice, and regret having it done to their children. However, whilst some individuals are rejecting the practice, the expectation that girls will be cut remains: one woman remarks that despite the fact she will not get her daughter cut, she will tell people who ask that her daughter has been cut. If the whole community still expects that girls will be cut, the social norm has not shifted.

The fact that FGC is a social norm therefore needs to be taken into account in order to make progress in the abandonment of the practice; the entire community must be engaged in the decision to collectively abandon FGC.