Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Turn a blind eye?

I love reading. I love nothing more than to pick up a book in the morning, preferably staying in bed, and immerse myself in it until (at some ungodly hour later that day) I finish it. (Yes, I read pretty quickly.) I love Sci-Fi, fantasy, murder mysteries, and chick lit. I'll read a good biography or autobiography if it's been recommended to me. I will also read a good science related book - like 'Short History of Nearly Everything'. (WHAT a great book that is!!) I love reading Time mag, and local newspapers because I love knowing what is going on in my world - it's the infernal gossip in me.

I don't like horror or psychological thrillers much. I used to. I used to LOVE reading Dean Koontz. But there's only so much a girl can take after being unable to go to sleep at 3am after being scared witless by a book. My imagination is FAR too productive.

Since losing Zoe, there are other books I simply will not read: those that involve any story about children being harmed in any way - from the impact of divorce to child abuse. I find them just too painful to read. I can't understand how ANYONE would harm a child, especially since I would give my right arm to have my daughter back and these characters seem to treat their kids with such blatant disregard. I usually screen my books quite carefully now, to make sure there's nothing of that sort.

Last week, I was in a rush. I dashed into the library to grab some books before dashing home to feed Nathan. I didn't really look too closely. I picked up a Ruth Rendell - usually love her stories as there's enough predictability mixed with some really unexpected twists - called 'Not in the flesh'. On balance, it's a great story. However, there is a sub-plot that even now makes me shudder.

Female genital mutilation.

In Africa, especially northern Africa, the practice is quite widespread. Essentially, while a girl is still a small child she will be held down, with no anaesthetic, while some woman in the tribe uses either a knife or sharpened stone to cut off her labia and clitoris. She will then stitch the wound closed in such a way that the girl will never be able to urinate or have sex without extreme pain. She will then bind the girl's legs together for a period of time (usually a week or so), during which time, infection often sets in because the wound is not being properly cleaned.

In the story, Wexford (the main character, a police detective) is faced with a dilemma. He knows that a Somalian family are going to 'cut' their 5yr old daughter in the very near future. What should he do? The practice is illegal in the UK, where the story is set, but until the act is actually committed, there is no crime. He cannot arrest the parents. Child welfare can do nothing, because no crime has been committed. He warns the parents of the jail term they will face if they do, but there's not much else he can do.

Eventually, he & some other important characters manage to burst in as the mutilation is about to take place. The end result is that the 5yr old is removed into care, while her older brother and sister remain with the parents.

Reading the story has left me unsettled. What would I do? Is it worse for the child to be taken away from her parents forever, or to suffer mutilation? Is there no compromise? As with circumcision in SA, many young boys lose their lives because of infections from their time in the bush. A compromise is to allow a registered doctor to perform the circumcision, so that at least one knows the wound has less chance of becoming infected. While I COMPLETELY disagree with female mutilation, is there no way to reach a compromise? Is there no way to respect their culture while not harming their daughters?

Just the thought of what those girls go through is enough to make me mad and howl with the injustice of it all. On the one hand, I bet they simply don't know any better. On the other, how can a woman who has gone through that inflict it on her daughter? Surely there must be some inner plumb line that tells her it's just wrong? or is the imperative to uphold tradition stronger than that internal voice of conscience?

I know that there are different parenting strategies out there. I know that some people would be HORRIFIED to learn that I smack my child on her bum (once, open hand, only as a last resort) when she is being completely atrocious. I believe that I'm doing the right thing. But there is a world of difference, surely, between that and what these mothers and aunts and sisters are doing to these girls.

There's not much I can do sitting at the tip of Africa, as I don't have money or time to give to the cause, and I'm living in a part of the world where (I imagine) it doesn't happen very much. Besides, there are lots of other more urgent problems facing the people immediately around me - like substance abuse leading to fetal alcohol syndrome, or babies on crack, or (the latest trend) newborn babies being abandoned by the side of the road because of financial (and other) constraints.

Does that mean I can ignore it? I don't know. One only has so much energy and time to spread between the different problems facing one. Yet, I feel like I'd be letting these girls down if I did just shrug my shoulders and say 'There's nothing I can do about it'. It's kind of a rock and hard place scenario.

Damn! I should have checked the book more carefully before I took it out!

No comments: