Al-Ahram
weekly - 6-12
May
Planting
the seeds of
change
By
Mariz Tadros
Going
to see the
first showing
of a film on
female genital
mutilation
last Monday,
one did not
know what to
expect. Not
many clues
were given --
only that the
film was
directed by
Viola Shafik,
produced by
Media House
and funded by
the Ford
Foundation and
UNICEF. The
title, The
Planting of
Girls, gave
nothing away.
The last time
a film on
female genital
mutilation (FGM,
the removal of
the clitoris
and often part
or whole of
the labia
minora to
ensure a
woman's
premarital and
extra-marital
chastity) was
screened there
was a public
uproar. The
earlier film,
produced by
CNN in 1994,
was condemned
on all sides
for its lack
of cultural
sensitivity
and its
sensationalist
and
Orientalist
approach.
Lawsuits were
even filed
against the
news channel.
However,
one was
pleasantly
surprised to
see that The
Planting of
Girls was
quite the
opposite.
Although it
deals with FGM,
the 37-minute
film, unlike
that made by
CNN, does not
have a scene
with a
screaming
little girl
being pinned
down to the
ground before
being cut
open. This
film is not
about how evil
and ugly the
practice of
FGM is, and
there are no
villains in
the story.
Rather, the
film examines
why FGM is
practiced, the
reactions to
it, and its
significance
-- all from
women's
perspectives
and in women's
voices.
Men,
too, were
interviewed,
but as Viola
Shafik pointed
out, they were
less
forthcoming
than women.
From villages
in Minya to
the urban
working class
districts of
Shubra and
Bulaq Al-Dakrour
in Cairo, the
film takes its
viewers into
people's
living rooms
-- quite
literally. Its
subjects are
shown drawing
water at the
pump, or
standing in a
group in a
village
square.
The
film is
structured in
such a manner
that the
reasons given
by individual
women for
circumcising
their
daughters are
set against
those cited by
other women
from the same
community who
are not
circumcised
and who can
reply to their
arguments.
Several women
expressed the
belief that
circumcision
discourages
immoral
behaviour by
eliminating
arousal. As
one woman put
it, "a
husband can
travel or go
to work and
rest easy that
his wife is
behaving
properly while
he is
away".
A
young married
woman who was
not
circumcised
and a mother
who refused to
circumcise her
daughters
explained why
they do not
believe in
circumcision,
and asserted
that a girl's
chastity is
not in the
absence or
presence of
her clitoris
but in her
behaviour.
Shots of their
neighbours
affirming that
these women
are
respectable
and not
promiscuous
served to
present them
as community
role models.
The
film shattered
stereotypes
and debunked
myths in more
than one
respect. One
widespread
belief is that
the practice
is inherited
from the
Pharaohs. In
fact, Dr Seham
Abdel-Salam, a
doctor from
the FGM
Taskforce
interviewed in
the film,
pointed out
that FGM was
brought to
Egypt by the
Ethiopians in
the eighth
century BC.
The Ethiopians
threw the
parts that had
been excised
into the Nile,
which they
worshipped, in
the belief
that it would
reward women
by making them
fertile.
Today, the
film revealed,
the exact same
practice
prevails.
Nobody knows
why, since it
was never an
Egyptian
tradition
anyway. In
fact,
"the
further south
we move, the
greater the
part of the
woman's body
that is
removed,"
explained
Abdel-Salam.
In some of the
northern parts
of the
country, such
as Marsa
Matrouh, girls
are not
circumcised,
she revealed.
The
medical
perspective on
FGM is
presented
through
discussions of
women's
reproductive
organs
conducted by
Abdel-Salam
with a group
of village
women. The
medical
implications
of FGM on a
woman's
psychological
and physical
well-being are
explained
through the
words of a
local doctor
who "used
to cut
slightly"
before
realising how
much harm he
was causing.
The
last part of
the film
addressed the
impact of
female genital
mutilation on
married
women's sex
lives. The
1995
Demographic
Health Survey
estimates that
96 per cent of
women in Egypt
are
circumcised.
Half of these
do not reach
orgasm. The
impact of this
fact on
marital
relationships
was discussed
from both the
women's and
the men's
perspectives.
The discussion
also included
an
uncircumcised
woman who
described her
relationship
with her
husband,
explaining
that she
didn't feel
like an object
or a means of
satisfying
him. The
language, of
course, is
sexually
explicit.
Reactions
from the
viewers,
mostly gender-
and
development-related,
were mixed.
Some
criticised the
fact that the
film was
"too
natural"
-- the streets
were dirty,
the settings
rugged.
Besides, they
asked, should
we be airing
our dirty
laundry (or is
it
environment?)
in public?
Others pointed
to the fact
that one of
the girls in
the film
talked about
the grand
celebration
held on the
day she was
circumcised.
"Shouldn't
she have been
shown
crying?"
asked one of
the
spectators,
who suggested
that the film
should have
focused more
on the pain
and misery
experienced by
girls who have
been
circumcised.
"We
wanted to show
things exactly
as they are;
we did not
want to change
things to fit
our viewpoint.
Women were
shown in their
own settings,
doing their
everyday
activities,"
replied Shafik.
Abdel-Salam
added:
"Why do
we have to
turn it into a
melodrama? The
girl is
laughing
because there
is nothing she
can really do
about it. It
is done and
she cannot
undo it."
Some
complained
that sheikhs
and priests
should have
been
interviewed
too, though
others hailed
the fact that
the religious
perspective
was only
presented from
the women's
viewpoint.
"Sheikhs
and priests
have many
channels to
express their
opinions and
ideas, it is
important to
give women the
space to
speak,"
said one
viewer.
A
few viewers
wondered why
no
illustrations
were shown
during the
explanation of
how a woman's
reproductive
organs
function. A
poster was
initially
used,
explained
Shafik, but
was then
edited out
because of
fears that it
would be
refused by the
censor.
Some
felt the
film's
educational
message was
not strong
enough. But
that is the
very approach
that the
film-makers
deliberately
set out to
avoid: playing
the role of
educator to
the ignorant
masses,
asserted
Shafik.
According
to Abdel-Salam,
furthermore,
"grassroots
experience
shows that
didactic
tactics just
don't work.
There are two
approaches,"
she suggested:
"One is
that you speak
to the people
via the
experts on the
subject --
traditionally,
the doctor,
the priest and
the sheikh,
who condemn
the practice
and tell
people not to
do it. We have
tried that
approach since
the 1920s when
education
about FGM
first began
and, as 96 per
cent of women
in Egypt are
circumcised,
it is obvious
that it is not
working. In
fact, it only
perpetuates
the practice
further. The
other approach
is
interactive:
you get people
to start
thinking and
analysing why
they are doing
it and why is
it considered
important.
Rather than
talking about
women's sexual
organs, we
start by
talking about
the
mind."
Since
the last part
is sexually
explicit, will
the film be
appropriate
for
conservative
communities,
especially in
Upper Egypt?
"Sex is a
taboo, and we
must break the
silence around
it,"
asserted
Abdel-Salam.
Father
Mikhail Anis,
from St Mina's
Church in Port
Said, was one
of the
viewers. Would
he use the
film to raise
awareness
about female
circumcision
among his
parishioners?
"People
don't like to
talk about
these things
in church. I
once had a
parishioner
give a talk
about the
subject, but
many people
were
embarrassed
and just
left," he
said.
"Still,
it is possible
to show the
film, while
pausing every
now and then
to discuss
some of the
points made in
it."
While Father
Mikhail
praised the
film, he felt
there should
have been more
emotion in it,
that the
women's
sufferings and
the impact of
FGM on family
life should
have been more
dramatised.
Shafik,
however,
explained that
she tried to
avoid an
emotional
approach to
the issue,
anxious that
this could
create a
backlash.
"I didn't
want the
message to be:
look how
repulsive this
practice is. I
didn't want to
arouse
people's
emotions and
get them into
heated
debates."
Shafik said
she was also
aware of the
possibility
that some
might turn it
into an issue
of West vs
East,
preservation
of culture vs
change --
"which is
also why we
avoided
getting into
religion too
much".
The
Planting of
Girls is one
of those films
you must see
more than once
to grasp the
multiple
meanings,
symbols, and
messages it
contains.
Perhaps it was
a little
over-ambitious
in trying to
cover too many
issues at once
-- social,
religious,
psychological,
historical and
medical
dimensions --
within a short
period of
time. One
thing can be
said, however:
the film has
succeeded in
presenting a
highly
sensitive
issue in a
non-hysterical
and non-patronising
way --
possibly
because it
comes from
grassroots
peoples'
perspectives,
rather than
the conference
halls and
lectures of
high-brow
elites. |