It's Not As Black and White As It May Seem: Female Genital Mutilation

When I was fourteen years old I was just starting high school. I was enjoying my new expanded social life, and working hard in my 9th grade classes. I imagined that girls on the other side of the world were growing up similar to how I was, going through life’s natural stages. I had never heard of female genital mutilation. I had no idea that other girls my age in different parts of the world who I believed to be living similar lives to mine were getting ready to go have a part of their genitals removed. When I first started my research for this, I went in with the perspective that most white, Western women go into it with: the mindset the female genital mutilation is profoundly wrong and a violation of women’s rights. But I realized that my attitude is part of the problem. Suppose that I had been born in Indonesia, instead of in the United States of America. Suppose at the age of fourteen my mother had taken me to get part of my genitals removed, and I was praised for this and told it would contribute to me having a good life. I would feel completely different about the practice.

Female genital mutilation is not as black and white as saying one side is right and the other is wrong. As is pointed out in a 2015 study done on female genital mutilation, “Female Genital Mutilation Is a Violation of Reproductive Rights of Women: Implications for Health Workers” by Suresh Banayya Jungari, it is a way of preserving cultural roots. When a tradition has deep cultural roots the way that this one has, for me, or any other feminist from the Western world to tell women who practice female circumcision that their practice is barbaric will not benefit anyone. I believe that for Westerners to again go into another culture and try to change their practices to fit into our own will only lead to the resentment that has been bred in the past from these actions. Instead, I think it would be beneficial to all to focus efforts to end female genital mutilation on the education aspect of it, but keeping in mind that the way Westerners look at practices like female circumcision is from the perspective of the biomedical model.

What is referred to as “female circumcision” in the cultures that practice it is referred to “female genital mutilation” in the cultures that do not. A stark contrast can be seen between the two terminologies. Organizations such as “End FGM” exist with the mission of stopping what they believe is a violation of basic human rights. The “End FGM” website describes female genital mutilation as a

practice that “violates [the] right to physical and mental integrity, [the] right to be free from all forms of discrimination against women, and [the] right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” to name a few. These same sentiments are echoed by feminists, the majority of whom come from developed countries. While one side of the argument believes that cutting off girls’ genitalia is an important cultural practice, another views it as discriminatory and cruel.

In Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, female circumcision is a common practice that can range in the extent of the removal of genitalia. A 2015 study, “Sexual Health Care, Sexual Behaviors and Functioning, and Female Genital Cutting: Perspectives From Somali Women Living in the United States” by Jennifer Jo Connor et al., describes the different types of female circumcision. It is divided into four categories, the first being partial or complete removal of the clitoris, the second being partial or complete removal of the clitoris and labia minora and/or majora, the third being a narrowing of the vaginal opening, and the fourth being all other harmful procedures to the genitals for nonmedical reasons. In her 2008 article “A Cutting Tradition”, Sara Corbett explains that in Indonesia, this practice is sponsored by The Assalaam Foundation, an Islamic organization. It is a cultural tradition, with 96% of Indonesian families reporting that their daughters undergo female circumcision by the age of fourteen. The chairman of The Assalaam Foundation states that the benefits of female circumcision are the stabilization of

the girl’s libido, a balance in psychology, and desirability to her future husband. Many in Indonesia see it as a religious duty. In Somalia, a Muslim girl’s sexuality is something that brings honor and religious integrity to her family. Although people often think that the practice of female circumcision is linked to the Islamic religion, there is nowhere in the Quran that actually states that the practice should occur.

In some cultures female circumcision is seen as a right of passage into womanhood or as a preservation of virginity. The “FGM National Clinic Group” explains that in many African cultures, mothers believe that if their daughters are not circumcised then they will not be able to marry. The practice has deep cultural roots, embedded with tradition and values. While many people in the cultures that practice female circumcision feel that it is an important tradition, one that should be carried out from generation to generation, people outside of these areas tend to be extremely against female circumcision, and have a hard time recognizing that something considered so violent could be held so sacred.

The biomedical model becomes evident when one looks at what parts of female genital mutilation are seen as physically dangerous to girls. The study done by Jungari mentioned above points out that one consequence that is believed to be negative is that women who have had part of their genitals removed do not experience sexual pleasure the same way that those who have not had the procedure do. This is seen as problematic by those opposed to the practice, but these are the same people who have grown up with sex shoved in their faces every time they watch television or open a magazine or have conversations with their friends. The same article by Connor et al. finds that Somalia women generally are not comfortable having sex and conversations surrounding sex as something that happens in public. Sex, and the pleasure that it is supposed to bring, could be looked at as a cultural matter, not a physical one. Because a practice like female circumcision is seen as something that stabilizes a woman’s libido the countries that practice it, they could see the tradition as one that protects girls from the emotional turmoil that can sometimes come as a result of sexual intercourse, and/or the physical consequences of having sex, such as contracting HIV and other STI’s.

Another way that female genital mutilation is seen strictly through a biomedical lens is that those opposed to it make the argument that there are no health benefits to removing a piece of girl’s genitalia. In her article, Corbett points out that many Westerners circumcise baby boys when they are born, with the argument that when boys are circumcised, there is the benefit of protection against HIV and reducing the risk of other types of infection. These same benefits cannot be said to come as a result to girls who are circumcised. But if we look at the health benefits from the perspective of a woman in Indonesia, we would see many: a girl gets circumcised and this makes her more desirable to men, a man marries her and provides for her, she is given food and shelter and access to things that she would not have if she was unable to marry, and this all keeps her healthy and elongates her life. From that point of view, female circumcision has many health benefits.

One of the main arguments opposing female genital mutilation is that when it is performed on young girls, the girls lack the right to consent to the procedure. The article by Jungari discusses international meetings where governments come together to discuss ways to end the practice of female genital mutilation. In an effort to end female genital mutilation in Indonesia, the Ministry of Health issued a decree stating that medical personnel were forbidden to practice female circumcision. While the intentions of this decree were meant to put a stop to female genital mutilation, it was not particularly effective because the majority of people performing female circumcisions are the “traditional circumcisers” and birth attendants. In this case, simply making laws surrounding the practice are not enough. Human rights workers have found that more effective means come from work within the communities. Jungari writes, “Great efforts have been made to counteract FGM, through research,

work within communities, and changes in public policy believed to encourage progress at both international and local levels, where ingrained cultural beliefs need to be combatted.” With a practice like female genital mutilation, simply making new laws is not going to stop it from occurring, especially when many feel so strongly about it. Did people stop drinking when the United States outlawed alcohol? No, they just did it in secret. Because of the strong cultural traditions that surrounded people getting together to drink alcohol, people moved their activities into the background. It was still happening, but it was brushed under the rug. The same thing would happen if the government outlawed female genital mutilation; it would still occur, but in secret, which could produce even more dangers to the girls undergoing the procedures, the girls who are unable to consent to it and put their trust in their parents and other elders.

That being said, it would be far more valuable to educate women on the risks of female genital mutilation, and then let them make their own decisions. In the interviews done by Connor et al. of Somalia women now living in the United States, 85% said that they would not want the procedure to happen to their daughters, and of the two mothers whose daughters had already undergone the procedure, regret was felt by both of them for allowing it to take place. This may be the biggest testimony to how education fuels change. From this it can be seen that as mothers became exposed to alternatives to female genital mutilation, and saw that perhaps it was not the best thing for their daughters, they began to feel differently towards the practice. This did not happen by someone coming and telling them that it was wrong; it happened through education and experiences that allowed the women to see alternatives.

It is feminists who lead the fight against female genital mutilation. Feminists strive for equality between men and women, and for the rights of the oppressed. In the eyes of feminists, female genital mutilation is seen as yet another way that women conform to satisfy the needs of men. But I would argue that telling another culture that their practices are wrong is the opposite of what feminist theory stands for. To flat out say to another country, “This is how we do things, and this is how you should to things, too” is a form of neocolonialism and cultural imperialism. It takes our practices and automatically assumes that they are the right practices. And it does not account for the culture and tradition that is in the practice of female genital mutilation. That in itself is a form of oppression. In order to get these cultures that practice genital cutting to change their ways, we need to educate, not mandate.

From everything that I have said it probably sounds like I am not opposed to allowing certain cultures to practice female genital mutilation. The opposite is true. I am extremely against female genital mutilation, which is why I so strongly feel that the approach to ending the practice needs to change. If someone came into my country guns blazing and told me that my traditions were wrong, I would immediately go on the defense, and potentially not be open to listening to other ideas. That is not what I want to see happen with female genital mutilation. In order to end female genital mutilation, we need to look at it like a virus; to combat it, it has to first be understood. We cannot go randomly injecting anecdotes in the hope that it will be a match. The cultural roots to female genital mutilation need to be acknowledged and respected. An open exchange of ideas needs to happen for a change to take place. This will not come about by passing laws or making new rules; when something has this much history, people will still find a way to practice it, regardless of what the government tells them to do. Instead, it needs to be a grassroots effort, with the women and men who send their daughters to get pieces of their genitals removed, who do this because they believe it is the only way their daughter will be desirable to a husband, leading the charge to end the practice. Ideas of what makes a girl suitable for marriage will need to change. In order to put a stop to the practice, there must be a change in mindset, and this will only come about through open dialogue and mutual understanding.

Works Cited:

Connor, Jennifer Jo et al. 2015. “Sexual Health Care, Sexual Behaviors And Functioning, and Female Genital Cutting: Perspectives From Somali Women Living in the United States.” The Journal of Sex Research 53(3):346–59.

Corbett, Sara. 2008. “A Cutting Tradition.” The New York Times. Retrieved May 8, 2016 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision- t.html).

Anon. 2015. “End Female Genital Mutilation.” End FGM. Retrieved May 8, 2016 (http://www.endfgm.eu/).

Anon. 2015. “FGM National Clinical Group - Risks &Amp; Complications.” FGM National Clinical Group - Risks & Complications. Retrieved May 8, 2016 (http://www.fgmnationalgroup.org/risks_and_complications.htm).

Jungari, Suresh Banayya. 2015. “Female Genital Mutilation Is a Violation Of Reproductive Rights of Women: Implications for Health Workers.” Health Social Work Health & Social Work 41(1):25–31.

Images (in order of appearance)

https://avaazdo.s3.amazonaws.com/4408734226b602b56a24d842e9b0f040.jpg

http://www.unitewomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/female-genital-mutilation.jpg

http://www.ntu.ac.uk/news_events/news/releases/2015/177050.jpg