Recently, the U.K.’s Daily Mail ran a story uncovering the fact that between 2005 and 2006, 24* hymen reconstructions have been performed on “immigrants and British women of ethnic origin” by the National Health Service (NHS), which is funded by taxpayer money. Hm. (Personal thoughts: Do you think that if these 24 women were white non-Muslim British women, there would be any article at all?)
There have been oodles of response articles and blog postings. But one in particular, written by the Daily Mail’s Saira Khan, got me a bit irritated.
She starts off on the right path by condemning hymen reconstruction. Good! It’s silly! The hymen is a membrane that has no medical purpose! And many women are born without one! So why measure a woman by whether she has one? Ridiculous and insulting, I think.
And, later in the article, she makes some good points about the sexual double standard between British Muslim boys and girls—i.e., boys can be slutty but girls can’t. This is a global standard, I believe, that overrides religion and ethnicity, but that’s another for another blog. Personally, I wonder if the problem lies with men’s lack of something similar to a hymen. Perhaps if men had hymens (there’s an odd visual), the concept of virginity* would be something completely different.
But after that, Khan misses the boat. She uses her ethnicity to give herself some authority: “Well, speaking as a British woman of ethnic origin, let me make it clear…”. But the subject she’s lending authority to bothers me: “…The British NHS should simply not be paying for a cosmetic procedure that is unnecessary, demeaning to women and totally at odds with modern British culture.”
British culture?! How about incompatible with Muslim culture? This article’s silence on the matter makes it seem like getting hymen reconstruction is a normal part of a Muslim woman’s life! Hey! Guess what? I’m a Muslim woman who was raised in a non-Muslim majority country, too. In fact, I might just be part of the demographic that you think is succumbing to fundamentalism! And I don’t think that hymen reconstruction is part of Islam, thank you very much!
She uses her authority to further alienate the recipients of this procedure from British culture rather than to affirm their Britishness. Something about the article just sort of smacks of internalized Islamophobia: “those of us who choose to live in Britain must follow and respect British values.” That sounds familiar…didn’t Jack Straw say something about that when he started attacked niqabis’ “Britishness”? And this quote sounds a bit right-wing in itself: “For what is the point in the Government spending millions on creating a “Fortress Britain” to protect ourselves against terrorism when it is allowing the roots of Islamic extremism to spread into our hospital wards?” Because, you know, whenever a doctor restores a woman’s hymen, s/he also implants an “Islamic fundamentalist” chip with an Al Qaeda instructional video on it!
(sigh) Once again, Muslim women’s bodies are being used for political ends. This article positions Muslim women who undergo this procedure (and by association, the rest of us Muslim women) against Britishness, instead of within it, making it seem like getting a silly procedure can belie all of your political ideologies and allegiances.
And she’s blaming the wrong people for this whole thing. The problem does not lie with NHS’ offer of hymen reconstruction; the problem lies with the demand for this procedure.
I agree that it’s alarming that women feel there is a need for hymen reconstruction. I can even see how it would be an indicator of a rise in conservatism. What I can’t understand is why we’re not looking within our own community and dealing with this issue.
Maybe if, instead of having hymen reconstruction, these women could refuse to get married (and some of their virginal friends could refuse with them, in solidarity)! And, with thousands of women not getting married (because we all know someone, come on now, there must be thousands at least), there will be a huge drought in the pool of available women, and men will finally realize that a woman’s worth does not lie in a piece of membrane. (sigh) I wish I lived in a fantasyland of sisterhood like that.
*24 surgeries within the span of two years? (rolling eyes) Big deal.
*The author believes that virginity IS a concept instead of an actual medical condition. For an interesting read about this, pick up Hanne Blank’s book Virgin: The Untouched History.
Editor’s Note: I didn’t want to include a picture here for obvious reasons. Do not attempt to Google “hymen reconstruction” unless you want to see some vaginas.
Salaam Alaikum,Urgh! This is typical Daily Mail fare, they might as well just type ‘Assimilate or leave’ repeatedly, because that’s the message.Also, why is it that the sort of Muslims who get to speak for us are generally of the non-practicing/nominal variety? If I wanted to choose a writer to discuss Christianity, for an informed view would I pick someone who is nominally Christian, would marry in a Church because it’s nice building and cannot remember the 10 commandments (let alone abide by them), or would I choose someone who is a committed church-going Christian who reads the Bible on a daily basis and sees it as a guide to their everyday life?For me, Islam is not a culture and being Muslim is your beliefs and actions.
This is completely bizarre, and until I read the article, I didn’t even think it was medically possible. Very odd indeed.On a lighter note, I’ve been trying to wrap my brain around what the hell a male hymen would look like. It really just killed my productivity for the day.
Interesting to juxtapose this ‘trend’ with that in Australia (and other western countries) of the rise in labioplasty, the operation to trim ‘unsightly’ labia that may have been stretched during childbirth, or just because young, unmarried, childless women “are concerned that their partners in sex may in fact be put off by the appearance of their vulvas” (taken from http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=373217 )”US figures show operations increased by 30 per cent, to 1,000 a year, between 2005 and 2006, which many attributed to the growth in Brazilian waxing to remove all pubic hair.But Dr Moore said he believed it was more likely just a general reflection of the cultural and attitude changes in the last 20 years.”Where’s the equivalent outrage? Where’s the heated discussion on what this says about Western culture, which must be intrinsically sexist to require such practices, like there is around discussions of FGM and hymen reconstruction?Ahhh, double standards. We meet yet again.PS love the blog!wasalaamsusan
Waleykum salaam, Safiya. I agree with you: Islam is not a culture. However, it’s not for us to judge Ms. Khan’s faith. We don’t know if she is a non-practicising Muslim, and I don’t think it’s fair to bring that up. I agree that her using her faith as authenticity is problematic, but I believe it’s problematic because she’s batting for the wrong side of the debate.
The Daily Mail is on the far right end of the spectrum, they’re kind of obsessed with immigration. I mean yes, I definitely don’t think this procedure should be funded, but the hyperbole that 24 operations over 2 years is what’s keeping people from getting cancer treatment is a bit much. Interestingly enough, older women getting their vaginas sewn up to look like they did before they had kids is a big trend in plastic surgery these days.
It’s true, I don’t know if she is practicing or not, so it is wrong for me to label her as such, but why do these ‘Muslim spokespeople’ always seem so embarrassed about being Muslim? They never say “Yes I’m Muslim it’s the most important thing in my life”. Instead it’s like “I am Muslim, but I’m not like, fanatical or anything”.Why does she have to justify herself by saying she’s married to a white guy and celebrates Xmas? Would she be so much more threatening if she was married to a n Ahmad and didn’t really bother with Xmas?Not sure if I’m wording this well, but you get my point.In summation, I’m sick of reading Muslims ‘apologising’ for Islam. Muslims, like followers of all the major world relgions, have nothing to apologise for.P.S Susan – good point.
I don’t know much about Ms. Khan, though I do recognise the type of readers that the Daily Mail targets so from that it does give me an impression of the type of position she has on these matters. It might be harsh to call her an Uncle Tom, but it does seem to me to be that way. As you said Zaynab, the issue is not that the NHS is paying for these procedures, but why these women feel obliged to do so. That is a social and possibly cultural problem rather than religious but framing this silly artificial debate in religious terms is a cheap attempt to attract sensation to the paper.
While it’s important to address why these women are getting this operation done, I don’t think think that’s what the daily mail was getting at. The first article had a bunch of comments to the effect of “we’re paying for this while people have cancer etcetc” has a definite undertone of basically fitting into the belief that “these people” have more rights than we [white native Brits] do. …I don’t know, maybe I’m reading too much into it.
If only men did have hymens! Sigh. Imagine this scenario: Women don’t have hymens and men do. Crazy, intriguing idea. But alas. Instead, it’s a world where women’s “purity” is judged by a piece of skin. In the progressive world of 2007, there are people who do judge a woman by this piece of skin (and its lack thereof) to justify tormenting and even killing women. It’s so depressing.I’m going to look up that Hanne Blank book you mentioned.And since labiaplasty was mentioned: Why do women always have to fix their bodies? It’s depressing that there’s such an emphasis on the way a woman should look that some women would actually pay someone to cut their genitalia up, in an attempt to make it look the way it’s “supposed to.” I blame this on the constant sexualization of women by the media (which gives the idea that a woman’s worth is her sexual attractiveness) and the creation of unnatural ideals by the pornography industry (so that no woman can meet the standards of “sexual attractiveness” without physically altering her appearance (e.g. waxing, surgery, padded bras, etc.)).
Nadia, you’re right. The article wasn’t aiming at explaining why women do this. But that’s part of the problem: this article simply makes it seem like these women are not British–I really don’t think that this would be an issue at all if all the women receiving this surgery were non-Muslim white British women.
OK, Sister Saira Khan sabotaged a number of marriages arranged by her family and subsequently married a white and Christian man, so what?So am I, and I do practise and wear hijab as well.Her husband respects her faith and she is happy, so what?Please stop with this judgemental attitude towards sisters who choose to marry non-Muslims and just look at the objective value of what Sister Saira says.Her whole point is that Muslim extremists should be isolated and that cultural and religius ghettoes must be demolished.and of course whe is right that those who regard the West as a “kuffar hellhole” should go and live in Saudi Arabia.Sister Francesca
I googled internalized islamophobia and your blog came up. I have tried to research this topic and in the past there has been nothing. I am very interested in understanding more about how the oppression is internalized so I can be an ally to my freinds, colleagues and students. I would love to ehar from anyone who is willing to share their experiences of the oppression and how it has left you feeling about yourself and other muslims. alos, if you are aware of any resources on this topic.
Felice: welcome! You make a good point: there is very little done on internalized Islamophobia. Unfortunately, I can’t think of any other resources off the top of my mind, but perhaps you could take the principles of internalized oppression from gender and racial studies and apply them to Islamphobia?