The practice of female circumcision, also known as female genital mutilation, or FGM, is a practice performed predominately in sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab States, but can also be found practiced in Asia, Latin America, and even Eastern Europe. Female Genital Mutilation has become the preferred name of reference in political settings because, according to the United Nations Population Fund, “It establishes a clear distinction from male circumcision. Use of the word ‘mutilation’ also emphasizes the gravity of the act and reinforces that the practice is a violation of women's and girls’ basic human rights.” Regardless of the name, FGM is a procedure that varies across the world. Noted by the World Health Organization, there are four major types:
Type I, also called clitoridectomy: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce.
Type II, also called excision: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora. The amount of tissue that is removed varies widely from community to community.
Type III, also called infibulation: Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and re-positioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora. This can take place with or without removal of the clitoris.
Type IV: All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping or cauterization.
This practice, while seemingly horrible to many in the western world, is a part of the culture in the areas affected by its tidal wave of popularity amongst young girls. The countries in which FGM is most often found are also those where deep routed sexism is present. Gender inequality causes major push backs in regards to the understanding that this could be an unnecessary and dangerous procedure. All that said, I believe there is not strong enough reason to ban the practice worldwide. In this paper, I will argue why no one country has a right to ban this practice regardless of the circumstances it entails.
As a fair warning to any reader, I do believe that female genital mutilation is immoral. I am also able to recognize that the reason I believe it is wrong is entirely a product of my society and the way I was raised. I believe the practices are horrendous and terrifying, but, as a relativist, I recognize that I cannot deem this practice morally wrong in all cultural situations. Each person is entitled to their own opinion, culture, and practices, which makes me unable to find a ban on this practice appropriate or fair. As perfectly stated by Ruth Benedict, “Most individuals are plastic to the molding force of the society into which they are born,” meaning that no one moral principle is correct and that we are all simply an indoctrinated mold of our society. This is even better explained when she says,
We do not any longer make the mistake of deriving the morality of our locality and decade directly from the inevitable constitution of human nature. We do not elevate it to the dignity of a first principle. We recognize that morality differs in every society, and is a convenient term for socially approved habits. Mankind has always preferred to say, "It is morally good," rather than "It is habitual," and the fact of this preference is matter enough for a critical science of ethics. But historically the two phrases are synonymous.
Here, Benedict elegantly states the basics of human nature in how habitual actions becomes norms and norms become accepted in society both culturally and therefore morally. In these nations where FGM is practiced, the procedure is a cultural norm; respected, practiced, and supported by men and women. It is stated that “it is often practiced even when it is known to inflict harm upon girls because the perceived social benefits of the practice are deemed higher than its disadvantages.” These benefits involve inclusion in society, being more aesthetically pleasing, and being a more suitable life partner. When FGM is not performed, that girl can be forced to face extreme disapproval from unkind and unwelcoming community members.
The primary argument to ban this practice is to protect children from harm. The typical age of the girl who has this procedure done is between zero and fifteen. This practice is known to be highly unnecessary and sometimes detrimental to a child’s health. The United Nations Population Fund states that
“Immediate complications include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage, tetanus or infection, urine retention, ulceration of the genital region and injury to adjacent tissue, wound infection, urinary infection, fever, and septicemia. Haemorrhage and infection can be severe enough to cause death.”
While there are people in the culture fighting back, the main push is coming from worldwide organizations looking to put their hand into the ideals of these cultures and change them.
As a female living in America, I cannot help but object to the desire to prohibit this practice. If we set the precedent that we can control what parents do to their children in this culture, we are setting the precedent that there is an all mighty, higher, and better moral code that needs to be enforced worldwide. A comparison to the practice of FGM in relation to the practice of abortion in the U.S. could be acknowledged and argued from a stance that would go to show we have no right over the morality of others. The argument would go as follows; some critics from other countries, and even within my own country, state that abortion is entirely immoral. These critics state that abortion harms a child and eliminates its potential. That said, I am openly and proudly prochoice; that is what my culture has indoctrinated me to believe is a fine and acceptable moral standard. Therefore, if I stated in the beginning of this paper that we SHOULD have a worldwide ban, I would be a hypocrite. Cultural practices should be left to individual countries rather than worldwide laws because we cannot discern between the morality of open cultural practice over another.
As stated by the United Nations Population Fund, the reasoning for performing FGM have been generally split into five categories;
Psychosexual reasons: FGM is carried out as a way to control women’s sexuality, which is sometimes said to be insatiable if parts of the genitalia, especially the clitoris, are not removed. It is thought to ensure virginity before marriage and fidelity afterward, and to increase male sexual pleasure.
Sociological and cultural reasons: FGM is seen as part of a girl’s initiation into womanhood and as an intrinsic part of a community’s cultural heritage. Sometimes myths about female genitalia (e.g., that an uncut clitoris will grow to the size of a penis, or that FGM will enhance fertility or promote child survival) perpetuate the practice.
Hygiene and aesthetic reasons: In some communities, the external female genitalia are considered dirty and ugly and are removed, ostensibly to promote hygiene and aesthetic appeal.
Religious reasons: Although FGM is not endorsed by either Islam or by Christianity, supposed religious doctrine is often used to justify the practice.
Socio-economic factors: In many communities, FGM is a prerequisite for marriage. Where women are largely dependent on men, economic necessity can be a major driver of the procedure. FGM sometimes is a prerequisite for the right to inherit. It may also be a major income source for practitioners.
All the reasons above hold ground in the cultures from which they are derived. From my perspective, I think a huge reason that there shouldn’t be a ban is because the girls would want to fulfill this reasons regardless of the steps to get there. Psychosexual, sociological, religious, and socio-economic reasons are the main driving points of decisions in all cultures. If these reasons lead them to believe the FGM is a vital and worthwhile piece of their culture and life, we cannot deny these girls of the liberty they deserve. This is their life; FGM for many is what they have been indoctrinated to believe is just another step or process of life. For some FGM is considered a rite of passage into being a woman. As a country built upon the ideals of liberty and freedom, how could we justify taking away individual liberties from another culture that we cannot necessarily relate to? Across America, men and women alike are performing acts due to psychosexual, sociological, cultural, religious, and socio-economic reasons. Just because we have been indoctrinated to believe that our reasons are acceptable and hold moral ground does not mean we can deem the same about the principles of others. No one person has superior ideas of what is right and what is wrong.
Overall, while to me and many of the people around me the practice of female genital mutilation seems morally inexcusable, we do not have the same mind set or morals of those in other countries or cultures. Every person is a mold of their environment and we as people must respect, though not necessarily agree with, the differences in understanding of morality. Driving factors of our society give us our beliefs and we must recognize the same about other cultures. Though sometimes we may not like it and can only see our views to be the correct ones, we have no moral ground to condemn the culturally influenced actions of others when they do not affect us directly.
Works Cited
Benedict, Ruth. "A Defense of Moral Relativism." Anthropology and the Abnormal, Journal of General Psychology (1934): n. pag. California Lutheran University. California Lutheran University. Web. 4 Jan. 2017.
Female Genital Mutilation: A Joint WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA Statement. WHO, 1997. -
UNFPA. "Female genital mutilation (FGM) frequently asked questions - ." January 27, 2017. Accessed February 19, 2017. http://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions.
