Your Vulva Can Only Be Cut Off Once
By idyllicmollusk • May 1st, 2008 • Category: Politics
Recently, the US Board of Immigration Appeals denied asylum to three women who had been victims of FGM (female genital mutilation) in their home country of Guinea because they had no well-founded fear of further persecution, since your vulva can only be cut off once.
To be clear, in Guinea, 95% of women are subjected to FGM.
The women claim that the high prevalence of FGM in Guinea indicates a culture of serious oppression against women. They further claim that they have well-founded fears that their daughters would also have their vulvas cut off if they were to return.
“There’s no question female genital mutilation is a horrendous act,” said Department of Justice lawyer Michael Heyse.
But…
Jessica Sherman, a Justice Department lawyer, said there was no evidence in the cases of the three women that the same individuals who harmed them would do so again.
At the hearing, the judges seemed particularly upset at a conclusion by the government that it was fair to return the women to Guinea because they could not suffer further persecution since mutilation had already occurred.
…
“Supply me any case in which a well-founded fear of persecution was not sustained because the same leg couldn’t be amputated or the same organ removed,” demanded Judge Rosemary Pooler.
Pa-DOW government lawyers! “Justice Department” indeed. That’s a blow to their old “Vulvas Can Only Be Cut off Once, So Go Back to Your Totally Non-Persecuting Country Wench!” song-and-dance. And I say “old” because the government has always denied victims of FGM asylum, in the absence of any other additional fears of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. However, as these judges suspect, when it’s non-female-specific body parts that get cut off based on your membership in a particular social group, US Immigration seems to think fear of persecution is indeed well-founded and meets their criteria.
It looks like some awesome judges are about to do away with the “Vulva Exception”. Which, in the defense of the Board of Immigration Appeals, I’m sure was based on totally non-misogynist, completely and coolly rational US policy, and probably had to do with terrorists and national security, and was therefore well-justified. I’d like to see that memo: CIA Warns DHS of National Security Risk Posed by Vulva-less, Mutilated Asylum Seekers.
Stay classy, Board of Immigration Appeals.
© idyllicmollusk 5/1/08
Similar Posts:
idyllicmollusk is only came here because she wanted to see if the inside of this famous legal system was as loathsome as she guessed it was. And now she's too depressed to want to see anything more.
Email this author | All posts by idyllicmollusk
in related cases, i understand the justice department has also classified the g-spot, clitoris, and the female orgasm as “myths”, while at the same time arguing precedent in courts across the country that any woman wearing a skirt is officially “asking for it.”
Silly idyllicmollusk
Don’t you know the female body is only supposed to be used for male gratification?
Who cares whether we get off, right?
LadyMac
“Don’t you know the female body is only supposed to be used for male gratification?
Who cares whether we get off, right?”
You realize the exact opposite is true in this country, right? No one seems to care that the exact same thing is done to most males here. It doesn’t seem that you care that baby boys are mutilated by the millions, each year here. In America, the male body is not only disfigured for female gratification, but they are made into slaves as well. They are heavily taxed to feed a system which can draft them for 26 years. If you haven’t seen the current draft regulations, then you will be in for some surprises. In the US, women, since they are the majority, can vote for as many bloody wars as they feel like without ever having to bear any of the burden.
dasher said… “You realize the exact opposite is true in this country, right? No one seems to care that the exact same thing is done to most males here. It doesn’t seem that you care that baby boys are mutilated by the millions, each year here. In America, the male body is not only disfigured for female gratification…”
Let’s clarify. This is a post about female genital mutilation. Crying “what about the menz!” doesn’t make sense. That wasn’t the topic. Male circumcision is qualitatively different from female circumcision. It is not done for female gratification, as you claim. It is performed under safe and sanitary conditions, by a medical professional, when boys are so young they don’t even remember. It was originally started as method of hygiene, that benefitted men, unlike FGM, which is never done for the benefit of the girl.
Currently, hygiene is no longer as difficult and male circumcision seems to fill only a cultural tradition. Since this is the case, I am actually against male circumcision done before the male is an adult and able to fully consent. But thanks for jumping to conclusions!
“they are made into slaves as well. They are heavily taxed to feed a system which can draft them for 26 years. If you haven’t seen the current draft regulations, then you will be in for some surprises. In the US, women, since they are the majority, can vote for as many bloody wars as they feel like without ever having to bear any of the burden.”
Wow, you’ve been reading some MRA literature, haven’t you? Incredible stuff here. Men are not “made into slaves.” They are actually subject to the same Constitution and Bill of Rights as women! (I can’t believe I just had to state something that obvious.) Guess what, men and women are both governed by the same tax rates! A man and a woman making comparable salaries will experience comparable taxes! (Again, shouldn’t that be obvious?)
I agree that there is no reason for the draft to be gender-specific. But before you get to crying too much, how recently has the draft been invoked? Not even once in my lifetime. So it seems like a rather remote issue, and yet you are complaining about it as though it is currently affecting you directly. By the way, it was men who chose to make the draft gender-specific, not women.
Both women and men vote! (Obviously!) They both can vote for wars. (Duh.) They both serve voluntarily in war. They both pay taxes that support the war. They both have family and friends that go serve. Since the draft hasn’t been used in decades, what are you complaining about, exactly?