I admit it; I subscribe to womens' fashion magazines. I read articles about cellulite cures, makeup techniques, and fashion trends. I recently received the April 2004 issue of Jane magazine in the mail, with Kate Winslet on the cover and such features as "Gwyneth's butt double" and "50 fashion classics under $100."
At A Glance Author saram Contact [email protected] IAM saram When N/A So imagine my surprise, as I'm flipping past fashion spreads of airbrushed supermodels and high-art couture ads, when I see a highly unflattering photograph of Todd Bertrang staring up at me from the magazine! In a regular feature entitled "Stranger Than Fiction," this month's focus is the popularity of so-called "female genital mutilation" (FGM) in Western culture.
FGM has been a topic du jour in American magazines for several years. I've seen articles in dozens of magazines, recounting the harrowing tales of African or Middle Eastern women who narrowly escaped (or didn't escape) barbaric, non-consensual procedures. This article in Jane takes a different approach - it largely features examples of consensual genital modification, on women who strongly desire the procedures. Properly treated, this approach could be informative, enlightening, and a positive complement to the enormous negative media attention to the subject.
Unfortunately, it's not. This article presents a mixture of valid information, speculation and conjecture, and personal moralizing from the author.
The table of contents introduces the article innocently enough: "Meet some U.S. women who are into genital modification." But author Karen Catchpole provides an introduction with a far different tone in the actual article: "Bored with your Brazilian? Hundreds of North American and European women are choosing female genital mutilation."
First things first -- there's an immediate switch from "modification" to "mutilation." These words have enormously different meanings and implications! "Modification" merely implies change, while "mutilation" suggests something dirty, disfiguring, and unwanted. This sets the tone for the entire article. It's also incredibly distasteful to suggest that genital modification bears any real similarity to a bikini wax.
Above this title is an eye-catching photograph of a pair of women's feet, posed on a blood-spotted white mat with a pair of pliers, a pair of hemostats, and a needle and thread. The caption for this picture is "tools of the trade." This is a staged photograph, undoubtedly taken in a studio, not a depiction of an actual modification procedure. Again, before the article is begun, the tone is already being set - the audience expects that the contents of the feature will be bloody, disgusting, and horrifying. Other photographs, on the facing page, include African children protesting FGM, a portrait of an attractive young woman with a black rectangle obscuring her face (what dark secret is she hiding?), and the aforementioned photograph of Todd Bertrang (which is reminiscent of a mugshot). All in all, not a very encouraging set of pictures to greet the reader.
The article begins by mentioning the "hundreds" of postings on "dozens of sites" about female genital modification. The author lists a few titles, like "Jodie's Desexing," and mentions the related photos, which are set in "someone's bedroom or bathroom floor, not an operating table." This is when Karen Catchpole grabs her audience with a shocking revelation: these women aren't the victims of forced FGM - they're young white girls who actually want to get this done!
I imagine that this information could be very surprising to the average reader. Most people are familiar with the typical FGM story, which highlights the agony, barbarism, and victimization of non-consensual FGM situations. Most people would have trouble understanding why a Western woman might desire and consent to any similar procedure.
The author interviews Jai Noire, the founder of an anti-FGM organization, who suggests that these women are seeking genital modifications because they seem "shocking" and "exotic." But Noire emphasizes that this "makes white women no more exotic than leaving The Complete Works of Shakespeare out on a coffee table would make an illiterate a genius." Neither Karen Catchpole nor Jai Noire follow this with any proof that women are undergoing genital modification procedures for shock value - instead, much of the article's "evidence" suggests the contrary. The interviews and stories featured in the text discuss the medical, psychological, and sexual reasons that various women have been interested in genital modification. None of the women discussed mention exoticism as a reason.
Catchpole introduces another unfounded (and insulting) "fact" about women with genital modifications: "Most started off with a tattoo or a nipple ring and graduated to extreme genital mutilation out of curiosity or boredom or sexual exploration." Again, her later interviews and stories don't support this idea! She persists in using the word "mutilation" to describe the modifications, and makes the decisions behind the procedures seem ill-planned, superficial, and irrational. I found this statement to be one of the most inflammatory of the entire article - as a woman with tattoos and piercings, I do not consider genital modification to be an obvious "graduation" from my current modifications. And all of my modifications are the result of careful thought and deliberation, not boredom or the desire for something shocking or extreme. Catchpole's assertion casts doubt on the reasoning behind all body modification, especially some of the most intimate and personally signific ant ones.
At this point, Karen Catchpole introduces some of her cast of characters: Suzie Butler, an English receptionist who hopes to be circumcised one day; Isa, circumcised by her boyfriend, a nurse; and "J," whose dentist husband removed her labia and clitoris. The quotes chosen from each of these women about their reasons reveal that their decisions were deeply personal and deliberate, not shallow and thoughtless as Catchpole has suggested. Suzie and Isa both seek genital modifications to enhance their sexuality, and J removed her labia for aesthetic reasons. This does not sound like idle curiosity or thrill-seeking behavior! These reasons are profound and legitimate. But Catchpole attempts to undermine this credibility with her own moralizing and commentary, saying that Suzie discusses modification "like she's talking about why she wants to dye her hair."
After casting doubt on the strength of the reasons behind consensual female genital modifications, Karen Catchpole moves on to the legal ramifications of the modification procedures. The information in this section of the article is presented in a surprisingly straightforward manner and appears to be valid. This provides a clear transition to the tale of Todd Bertrang and Robyn Faulkinbury, who represent "the first arrests on suspicion of violating the law" prohibiting FGM on minors (or by unlicensed practitioners in non-clinical settings). The version of the story about the FBI operation that preceeded the arrests is nearly identical to the one found in every major news release I've seen.
The inclusion of the Todd Bertrang case in this article thoroughly confuses me. The topic of the article is adult women who are seeking consensual genital modification procedures. The case against Todd is based around his alleged agreement to perform procedures on minors, which would be non-consensual. These two scenarios have almost nothing in common - the reasons and the legal implications alone are extremely different. The only connection is through Mr. Todd's work on adult clients, which is only mentioned and not a focus of the article. This section appears to be included to attach a "face" (quite literally, with the photo of Todd next to several paragraphs about his supposed crimes) to the practitioners of consensual female genital modifications. This is an obvious scare tactic.
The article concludes with a return to the women mentioned in the beginning of the feature. Following the discussion of procedures performed on minors, a quote from Suzie emphasizes the differences between consensual procedures on adults and non-consensual procedures on children. This point surprised me, because it seems to undermine some of the doubt that Karen Catchpole had sought to cast on the ethics and reasons surrounding consensual modification procedures.
The final paragraph is about Isa, who underwent "four intensely painful sessions" for her modifications. The article ends with a direct quote from Isa, who says, "I am very happy with the results." At first, this sounds like an oddly supportive conclusion from an author who has been persistently critical of female genital modifications. Alas, it is too good to be true - Catchpole draws attention to the fact that Isa has sought her modifications specifically to subdue her physical responses to sex. In a magazine that targets a sex-obsessed audience (and is supposedly more feminist and edgy than other women's magazines), the idea of decreasing stimulation and preventing orgasm is abhorrent. This conclusion suggests that perhaps Isa is happy with her "mutilation" - but she's obviously an abomination.
With a different spin, much of the content of this article could have provided a well-rounded, perhaps even positive look at female genital modification. But the article is set up from the beginning to criticize (and even demonize) the procedures and the people who are involved in them. The women featured in the article are happy with their decisions and have made powerful choices about their bodies and their lives. This particular edition of Jane also includes a feature about body issues, and several small articles about beauty treatments, some invasive. Why is consensual female genital modification so terrible, but Botox and breast implants are not? As adults, we all have the right to make such decisions about our bodies. Karen Catchpole may not understand or agree, but it is inappropriate to insinuate her moral objections as she has in an article that is presented as "fact" instead of "editorial."
As an interesting follow-up, I decided to investigate some of Karen Catchpole's "sources." I knew that I recognized some of the texts she mentioned, like "Jodie's Desexing," from BME/Extreme. I did a few searches... and discovered that all of the stories Catchpole references, except for her direct interview with Suzie Butler, are quoted directly from BME experiences! It's not really investigative journalism - she obviously bought a membership and did a little browsing to find her "subjects."
By the nature of these experiences, the information they contain is largely unverifiable and a shoddy journalistic resource. All of the experiences she quotes are at least four years old, and one is seven years old - certainly not representative of trends and procedures today. Only one of the experiences contains any means of contacting the author. Catchpole does mention that these are online posts and not interviews, but the way she includes them in her article suggests that they are truthful accounts of procedures - when any of them could be fabricated or embellished.
I am ashamed to have paid for a subscription to a magazine that would print such a slanted, ill-informed article. Jane magazine is doing a disservice to women everywhere, misinforming them on a topic pertinent to women's health, sexual issues, and the legal rights regarding the choices women can make about their bodies. I hope to someday see a popular magazine publish an article on consensual female genital modification that is well-rounded, factual, and lacking the speculation and commentary of the author.
Shame on you, Jane magazine and Karen Catchpole.