+

Dear What She Wants:

On December 10th, the CWRU Women's Center picketed the pornographic movie Tigresses...and· Other Maneaters, shown by the University Film Society. We began publicizing the picket a month before the scheduled showing: we called different organizations, mailed leaflets, advertised in WSW, and distributed 800 leaflets at the Boutique on December 4, the jazz concert sponsored by Oven, and the film series on December 5. WAVAW agreed to co-sponsor the picket and the Men's Center pledged their support as well. I found the response encouraging yet would not venture any guess on how many people would physically support the picket. After all, it's easy to sit over a cup of coffee, in a warm kitchen, and discuss our anger at men getting pleasure from watching women exploited and degraded on film and the correlation between violence against women in the media and the fact that we are prey to male violence in our very lives.

Thirty people met to protest the showing of the movie. Eight of the supporters were from the Men's Center while only two women from outside Case joined the picket. The men brought picket signs and leaflets stating why they opposed the film. They balanced our protest and, of course, it looked good in the media to have both women and men protesting a predominantly male institution.

Where was the support from the women's community in Cleveland? It wasn't as if we were asking for a big commitment of time or energy; the picket was organized and you had to contribute only your presence. Why is it that 250 women show up for a jazz concert one weekend and we can't even get 10 back to the same place one week later? Frankly, I am fed up with women who call themselves "political feminists"out of the fact that they listen to music by political female singers and read the monthly issues of OOB and WSW. "Political," to me, implies activity, or action.

There is nothing worse than complaining that something must change and then sitting back waiting for someone else to make it happen.

To WSW Readers:

--Julie Gress CWRU Women's Center

The WSW reply in the December issue indicates that all those who work on the newspaper stand by the article, "Turmoil at Rape Crisis Center.” In fact, this is not so. I did not and do not believe it is in the interest of the greatest good to publicize a personnel grievance and/or personal internal conflict at the Rape Crisis Center. I regret that the WSW collective chose this course of action.

Dear What She Wants:

-Gail Powers

I would like to add some comments as well as some supplementary material regarding the December, 1982 WSW article, "Female Circumcision on Trial." My material is all from Chapter V of Mary Daly's book, Gyn/Ecology.

The WSW article states: "Genital excision is a traditional African practice...." Daly's Chapter V, entitled "African Genital Mutilation: The Unspeakable Atrocities" also mentions that excision of small girls still takes place in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan and Syria, as well as in Africa. She further states that clitorectomies' and other mutilations have been inflicted by American gynecologists. In addition, slashing and mutilation of genitals are common features of contemporary gang. rape, which is "as American as apple pie.”: Other forms of genital mutilation include the time-honored Christian European tradition of infibulation (fastening together the labia by means of a ring, a buckle or

Vol. 10, no.71

a padlock), and the upper class use of the chastity belt.

The WSW article uses the terms "female genital excision," "genital mutilation" and "female circumcision." The first two terms are correct; the term "female circumcision" is very misleading. Mary Daly states that the circumcision of the male requires only the removal of the foreskin, which not only leaves his organ of sexual pleasure intact, but also makes him less susceptible to infection.

This is not the case in female genital mutilation, which can mean any one of the following practices: 1) Sunna Circumcision: removal of the prepuce and/or tip of the clitoris;

2) Excision or Clitoridectomy: excision of the entire clitoris with the labia minora and some or most of the external genitalia;

3) Excision and Infibulation: excision of the entire clitoris, labia minora and parts of the labia majora. The two sides of the vulva are then fastened together

letters

in some way, either by thorns or sewing with catgut. Alternatively the vulva are scraped raw and the child's limbs tied together for several weeks until the wound heals (or she dies). The purpose is to close the vaginal orifice. Only a small opening is left (usually by inserting a sliver of wood) so that the urine or later the menstrual blood can be passed.

These practices make the woman/child more susceptible to infection; in fact, infections are commonplace. No statistics are available as to deaths, but it is known, of course, that these women/children suffer complications which leave them debilitated for life.

As stated in the WSW article, the reason for genital mutilation of women is that it is believed that this makes them better wives. The reasons behind this belief are very basic and evident. Mary Daly states that the clitoris is 'impure" because it does not serve male purposes. It has no necessary function in reproduction. Hatred of the clitoris by men is almost universal, for this organ is strictly female, for women's pleasure. Thus it is by nature "impure" and the logical conclusion, acted out by the tribes that practice excision and infibulation, is purification of women by its removal. Furthermore, it is believed that excision encourages fidelity (a better wife), that is, moral "purity" because of the loss of sensitivity from the operation. These women have been desensitized, "purified" of the capacity for sexual pleasure. The removal of the purely female clitoris is seen as making a woman purely female. In fact, its purpose is to make her purely feminine, a purely abject object.

Infibulation goes even further, displaying yet other dimensions of the male obsession with purity. The "sewn women" are not only deprived of the organ of pleasure. Their masters have them genitally "sewn

up" in order to preserve and redesign them strictly for their own pleasure and reproductive purposes. These women are 100 percent pure because 100 percent enslaved.

Finally, something should be said about the use of women as token torturers, i.e., women perform the genital mutilation on other young women. Although this is indeed true, we should never forget the malecenteredness of the entire ritual. It is men who demand that female castration and possession in marriage is required in their society for survival. The apparently "active" role of the women, themselves mutilated, is in fact a passive, instrumental role. It hides the real castrators of women. Mentally castrated, these women participate in the destruction of their own kind-of womankind-and in the destruction of strength and bonding among women. (In its origin, the term "castrate" is akin to the Sanskrit "sasati," meaning "he cuts to pieces." This describes precisely what is done to women's bodies/minds/spirits under patriarchy: divided and fragmented into disconnected pieces.)

-Beverly Stamp

Dear What She Wants and Coventry Bookstore: It was very disappointing and embarrassing to attend the women's film festival program on December 5, 1982 at the Civic Theatre. I felt ripped off both personally and monetarily. The movies, aside from the Sarton film, were poor in content, theme and creativity. It leads me to wonder if the movies were previewed. It is insulting to sit down at a gathering and waste time and money on a production of such poor calibre.

The "Menses" movie was both a travesty and a disgusting, farcical representation of women. Showing blood gushing forth across a movie screen and a bunch of female consumers carrying tampons and sanitary napkins out of a store is neither very funny nor creative. "Double Strength" was a film about two females in a relationship. I got tired of watching the women's gymnastic bodies swing across on the trapeze. What's the point? No concept of love, warmth or joy came forth. The movie was drawn out and evolved to nowhere. The Rachel Carson flick may have been good, but was not aligned with the mood of the other movies. It just did not "fit in."

น

The mechanical delivery of the movies was done quite haphazardly. In all my excitement to hear and view the Kay Gardner movie, I was forced to hear and see it backwards (it was rewound improperly). The movie room was small and narrow. It was difficult to see over the head in front of me. It appeared as if little preparation was given to learning to use the projector properly.

Sadly enough, I invited a male friend to the movies with expectation of a glimmer of expanded awareness and sensitivity developing from watching the films. How wonderful that he was receptive to attending these movies. I was truly embarrassed to have invited my friend to such a disorganized evening of outrageously inappropriate women's movies.

May I conclude that I felt a tinge of ostracism by this women's gathering. It appeared that these movies may have addressed the needs of the gay community, disregarding the feelings and issues of the straight feminists. I am not gay, yet I feel a strong consciousness pervades my spirit. I hope future programs will lend significance to both gay and straight

women.

I hope future programs will exhibit more insightful preparation and consideration of the anticipated viewing audience. It will be with great hesitancy and scrutinization that I will consider attending another program by your two organizations.

-Lola Farron

January-February, 1983/What She Wants/Page 1