Female Genital Mutilation
Female Genital Mutilation: A Case of Cultural Relativism (Or Not?)
Abstract
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a cultural practice that involves the cutting of external female genitalia. Issues that need to be considered regarding FGM are its health consequences, the fact that it violates basic human rights and democratic principles (of paternalism), and that the reasons why it is performed are completely unjustified. Supporters of the practice argue how it is a cultural right, and hence universal laws do not apply to it. This essay focuses on arguing against this viewpoint.
Background
In the morning of the fixed day, the grandmother takes the granddaughter to the chosen place. A hole has been dug in the earth. The girl lays herself down, with her thighs over the hole, to collect the flesh and skin cut away . . . . Then, [a] woman . . . . takes a little knife (fonou) that has been put in a basin of black powder and cuts the [girl’s] clitoris. (Sala & Manara, 2001, p. 248)
Occurrence
The act described above, albeit horrifying, is not an uncommon ritual; the cutting of female genitals, known as female circumcision or as it is referred to by abolitionists, female genital mutilation (FGM) is commonly practiced in African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries such as Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and India (Babatunde, 1998, p.3; Little, 2003, p. 30). The World Health Organization defines female circumcision as comprising “all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs” (as cited in Little, 2003, p. 30), and estimates that 130 million females have undergone some form of circumcision and another 2 million are in peril of facing the same although the actual figures might well be greater due to the silence that shrouds the practice (Kisaakye, 2002; Sala & Manara, 2001).
Procedure
Female
Abstract
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a cultural practice that involves the cutting of external female genitalia. Issues that need to be considered regarding FGM are its health consequences, the fact that it violates basic human rights and democratic principles (of paternalism), and that the reasons why it is performed are completely unjustified. Supporters of the practice argue how it is a cultural right, and hence universal laws do not apply to it. This essay focuses on arguing against this viewpoint.
Background
In the morning of the fixed day, the grandmother takes the granddaughter to the chosen place. A hole has been dug in the earth. The girl lays herself down, with her thighs over the hole, to collect the flesh and skin cut away . . . . Then, [a] woman . . . . takes a little knife (fonou) that has been put in a basin of black powder and cuts the [girl’s] clitoris. (Sala & Manara, 2001, p. 248)
Occurrence
The act described above, albeit horrifying, is not an uncommon ritual; the cutting of female genitals, known as female circumcision or as it is referred to by abolitionists, female genital mutilation (FGM) is commonly practiced in African, Middle Eastern and Asian countries such as Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and India (Babatunde, 1998, p.3; Little, 2003, p. 30). The World Health Organization defines female circumcision as comprising “all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs” (as cited in Little, 2003, p. 30), and estimates that 130 million females have undergone some form of circumcision and another 2 million are in peril of facing the same although the actual figures might well be greater due to the silence that shrouds the practice (Kisaakye, 2002; Sala & Manara, 2001).
Procedure
Female
References: Babatunde, E.D. (1998). Women’s rites versus women’s rights: A study of circumcision among the Ketu Yoruba of South Western Nigeria. Asmara, Eritrea: Africa World Press. Feminist Majority Foundation. (2008). Female genital mutilation is a serious problem. In K. Burns (Ed.), Violence against women (pp. 188-191). Detroit: Thomson Gale. Fox, M., & Thomson, M. (2009). Reconsidering 'best interests ': Male circumcision and the rights of the child. In G. C. Denniston, F. M. Hodges & M. F. Milos (Eds.), Circumcision and human rights (pp. 15-32). USA: Springer. Kalev, H. D. (2004). Cultural rights or human rights: The case of female genital mutilation. Sex Roles 51(5/6), 339-348. Retrieved November 13, 2010, from Academic Research Library database. Little, C. M. (2003). Female genital circumcision: Medical and cultural considerations. Journal of Cultural Diversity 10(1), 30-34. Retrieved November 24, 2010, from EBSCOhost database. Money, J., & Davison, J. (1983). Adult penile circumcision: Erotosexual and cosmetic sequelae. The Journal of Sex Research 19(3), 289-292. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from JSTOR database. Obermeyer, C. M. (2005). The consequences of female circumcision for health and sexuality: An update on the evidence. Culture, Health & Sexuality 7(5), 443-461. Retrieved December 14, 2010, from JSTOR database. Paternalism. (2010). In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/ Sala, R., & Manara, D United Nations. (2010). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved December 22, 2010, from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a1 Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia Winterbottom, A., Koomen, J., & Burford, G. (2009). Female genital cutting: Cultural rights and rites of defiance in Northern Tanzania. African Studies Review 52(1), 47-71. Retrieved December 12, 2010, from Academic Research Library database.