Picture yourself as a girl or young woman, tied up to stop you from resisting, as respected adults wound your body with a sharp instrument. This is an act of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). The removal of a female’s potential for promiscuity is one given reason for this act, but children and young adults upon whom this violent act is perpetrated lose much more. Their right to a fulfilling sexual life is removed as their basic rights are lacerated. FGM, also known as Female Genital Cutting (FGC), humiliates and damages young women and their capacity to give birth. Other stated motivations for such acts are a rite of female passage, to stop adultery or a grounding for the agony of giving birth.
In recent decades, there has been greater awareness of female genital mutilation internationally. Alien to the traditions of the Western world, it has been almost universally condemned, especially by Western feminist critiques, which brought it to international attention in the 1970s. Prior to this it was mostly hidden from public debate or, when it was discussed, viewed as a women’s health issue. More recently, it has been conceptualised as a human rights violation under the auspices of international law. The role of the law in tackling this social ritual is now both firmly established and hotly contested. International law is rooted in the Western tradition, whereas FGM, whilst widespread, originates from certain other areas of the world. Whilst the law is only one method of fostering social change and restraining social and cultural behaviours, it is now being used to a significant degree in attempts to curb FGM. Many Western and African countries have now enacted criminal laws specifically aimed at female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation has clear implications beyond being a criminal act of physical assault or an inappropriate medical intervention. The practice is a violation of the fundamental rights of the individual, the rights of the child, based upon discrimination against women and girls.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The view of FGM as a human rights violation of women and girls may now be hegemonic. The right of girls and women to be free from FGM now has the backing of numerous international and regional human rights instruments; the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Within the structures of international law there are regional treaties as well as international including; the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Banjul Charter) (1981) and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1953). The United Nation, after a slow start, is now active in campaigning to end female genital mutilation. There are now many examples of country specific legislation that regulate or ban acts of FGM, although the related health problems, survivor issues, training, and awareness raising for health professionals are still overlooked. The World Health Organization (WHO) has now introduced guidelines for health care provides dealing with all aspects of women at risk of and those already affected by female genital mutilation.
Is female genital mutilation a violent act of cutting and mutilation, or a moral and good practice of circumcision? While defined as mutilation by the international community and many feminists, and denigrated as a misogynistic system of practices, a circumcision, as it is defined by its defenders and practitioners, is a virtuous act. Two fundamentally opposed characterisations, the first, demanding adherence to universal human rights standards is criticised for the cultural imposition of its ‘universal’ values. The second, necessitating cultural accommodation has been pilloried for masquerading violence as culture. It is important to step back from the intense debate and consider the basic facts and the systems underpinning them.
In fact, most women do not see female genital mutilation as a violent act, or an abuse of their rights, if they are born into a community where it is practiced and advocated. Women are most frequently the practitioners and feel they are fulfilling a social duty and enabling the girl or woman they are cutting to properly take her place as a woman in their society. The rules of the society are defined by an entrenched patriarchy and both men and women are conditioned to conform and approve of violence and oppression of women. The practice of cutting in their society is not supported by other arguments, such as healthcare or science or international politics.
It is closely linked to lack of formal education, poverty and the subordinated role of women, as stated by the World Health Organisation. Women who avoid mutilation are pilloried and considered unsuitable for marriage. This extreme social punishment is a strong explanation for women supporting female genital mutilation in their society. Outside the communities where it is practiced, and by all international norms and standards, it is seen as having no cultural value and is negatively named as a violent act, mutilation. However, this very harsh and unaccommodating stance is in danger of imposing foreign cultural values on
Stuck on your essay?
