Given this complex issue, it is no wonder that this practice is so hard to eradicate. That is not even considering the cultural relativity argument that is often used by the proponents of FGM . These people claim that those who are trying to abolish FGM are ethnocentric-cultural-imperialists. One paper compared Breast Implants to Female Genital Mutilation as an example of this debate. Here is a striking anecdote :
"A student related to me that she had a conversation with a Nigerian, male friend in which she told him that she was very excited that her professor was writing an article on female genital mutilation. She reported that the he became enraged and shouted, “How dare this American woman characterize a custom of my culture as mutilation, and further, what right did she have to stick her nose into something that had nothing to do with her or her country.”
I have to admit that as a young woman growing up in the US but of African descent, this debate was quite personal for me. Not only am I from a country where FGM is quite prevalent but my matrilineal tribes practice this custom. It was therefore quite a rude awakening for me to visit last summer- I found myself in the most heated arguments with women who had undergone the procedure and wanted to see it continue. They argued as stated above, that it is a very important component of their of rite of passage ceremonies and that if they did not circumcise their daughters, the daughters could not marry. How do we resolve this practical problem; in making FGM illegal, if it will still be in high demand?
Some women even opted for medicalized procedures so the health risks to the child could be minimized. Could it not be argued that this is a more healthy alternative? As an aspiring global health physician, would I deny a family's request for an FGM procedure especially when I know they may seek a less safe alernative elsewhere? I mean after all is this not another example of a harm reduction policy?
Eventually, I decided that this is a case where the human rights of the girl/woman must always come first. Girls have a human right to be protected from violence such as FGM (even if it is in the form of unncessary medical treatments). This is because regardless of what cultural reasons or medical precautions are taken, FGM is still a tremendously scarring experience, physically and emotionally. Furthermore, it is important that culturally sensitive paradigms exist to fight FGM because if the culture of demand and gender inequality is not addressed, how much progress can we really make against FGM?
TAKE ACTION:
1. Learn more international action against FGM
2. FGM contributes to obstetrical problems later in life, this contributes to Maternal Mortality, please support AMPLIFY's efforts against adolescent maternal mortality
3. Support the grassroots movement of EqualityNow against FGM, FGMFund
4.Learn about one woman's fight against FGM in Tanzania
5. Read more about the debate surronding FGM
6.Read CultureMed's (By SUNY) awesome resource on culture and FGM
7. Do traditions trump human rights especially in the case of FGM? Read more.
8. Read this review of what FGM eradication programs work and which ones do not by the World Health Organization
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: FGM: Human Rights vs Cultural Relativity .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13860
This is, of course, an interesting, thought-provoking, and ultimately very difficult issue. Human rights professors use it all the time as an illustration of the challenges in negotiating the gap between universal human rights and culturally relative (and relevant) practices. I don't come down either way on it, really, because the issue is so complex and I think that there are some cases where I come down very strongly one way or the other but mostly it's all in the middle. I do highly recommend, however, reading an essay on the topic in the Global Critical Race Feminism reader, edited by (in the interest of full disclosure, my former professor) Adrien Katherine Wing. The essay discusses, among other things, the differences among various types of female genital cutting - from a tiny, symbolic prick to a truly mutilating, painful, and dangerous experience. I think this highlights how the issue can be confused. Though in all cases there are cultural arguments and feminist arguments and human rights arguments (and often an argument can be made from one of these perspectives on both sides), I do think that there is a difference between a safe, minor, and symbolic procedure and something that results in risks of fistulas, incontinence and other severe issues.
I think for many societies, we ought not to be saying "all such surgeries are barbaric and awful" as many articles do, and instead focus on a) making sure that the only method legal to perform on minors is the nicking of the clitoral hood that is done symbolically to duplicate the blood sacrifice men provide through circumcision, and b) making sure when adult women want to have this procedure done, they can do so in a clean, sterile hospital facility in a manner designed to preserve as much function as possible.
Fighting to have it completely abolished might be a laudable long-term goal, but such an active stance so early in the fight only serves to drive it underground and make it less safe. As abhorrent as it is to us, we should focus first on delaying it until the woman is older, and then protecting them from infections and other side effects. In the meantime, if that can be accomplished, bringing jobs, education, and social services into these areas, thus improving quality of life, will help adult women feel less pressured into it (because marriage will not be their only route to security), and reduce it's popularity enough that a real, full-blown fight can commence.
I think that if you're willing to change the ancient ritual enough to make it "medicalized" for safety, you should be willing to just have the ancient ritual without the actual cutting off of things. Apparently some tribes are doing that-- having coming of age rituals without the circumcision part.
Is it odd that this bothers me and circumcision doesn't? I mean, this seems to have much worse effects than circumcision. Also, I'm Jewish, and...well, that's that.
No.
Female genital mutilation and circumcision are not comparable. A few people will try to exploit FGM to decry circumcision (or to trivialise FGM), but they should be mightily chastised fearsome fast.
Just checking.
No problem.
There've been a couple of threads derailed by those trying to equate the two, so people are likely to find it a touchy subject.
Yeah, that was the thing. I've seen those, and thought "These two things aren't at all comparable" and wanted to know if I was the only one.
Very interesting discussion! I can not say I have honestly know the answer but I have come across several very interesting perspectives so far. I am hoping that in the short term and the long term we can find solutions that protect young girls from experiences that can dramatically change their bodies and leave them at risk for obstetric and gynecological (not to mention psychological conditions).
I also think that perhaps it would be really helpful to think about this as context specific. Not every culture that practices FGM does it to the same extent for the procedure and has the same context attached to it. I feel as though some solutions would be better tailored to some contexts than the other and maybe having an overarching goal of banning it immediately in all contexts may be do more harm than good at first unless there was really a way to make sure that every girl in every family did not become cut.