Violence against women has no political, social or cultural barriers, and whether it takes form of rape, domestic violence, or sexual violence, it drains women's energies and undermines all women's efforts to further their own and their communities' development. Many of the issues mentioned above are forms of violence perpetuated by men on women. Female genital mutilation or FGM, may, at least in some cases be a bit different as it is regarded as a practice carried through and even initiated by some women on other women: Woman on woman oppression. Therefore by its very nature, FGM is controversial.
Those like me who oppose Female Genital Mutilation/Female Circumcision believe that it is another form of torture meted out to women that is used for the benefit of patriarchal systems that are just plain wrong, inhuman and violent. What basically also emerges here is a deep-rooted system of male domination. The man aids and abets FGM by the values he was brought up with and some of the power to do this comes from men's greater access to resources and structures of authority both outside and inside the home. "Father" did not interfere, claiming that it was a woman's affair, yet it was done wholly to benefit the men.
Usually the pressure to abolish FGM comes mainly from outside the culture that is practicing FGM, or is perceived to derive its inspiration from some source that is foreign or even hostile to that culture. No amount of outside pressuring or lobbying of a government is going to succeed or convince people to change forms of behavior, which some of these members of a culture see as perfectly acceptable and even desirable.
Proponents and some of those who practice FGM make a claim that it is their right to culture, and a cultural right to self-determination. Their argument is that they are not trying to impose the practice on other people cultures, so they are not interfering with anyone else. There is a bit of truth in this view and Western feminist opponents can easily be accused of cultural domination and imperialism. Cultural self-determination is a deeper right in their view, than the Western feminist conceptions of rights, which remains for most Arabs and Africans at grassroots levels. For things to change, the people who have to be convinced that FGM should no longer be practiced are not primarily governments and legislature, but rather women themselves, at village and township levels.
A few years back, when I was in undergrad at Georgia State University, I read an article written by Oyeronke Oyewumi, that challenged the writings and the activism done by writer Alice Walker. Her challenges are based on his opinion that Western feminists have no type of understanding to which they will be able to liberate African and Arab women from FGM. She claims that Alice Walker's approach to FGM is "an assault in the guise of an evangelizing mission to eradicate female circumcision in Africa." He also goes on to say that Alice Walker's writing is best read within the context of Western imperialism in relation to Africa. Oyewumi is not alone in her analysis of Western activism towards FGM. Many African and Arabic feminist have these views as well. They also hold the belief that while they have a certain type of knowledge and understanding of the culture they have more of a right to stop the act of FGM.
True, in order for FGM to be effectively abolished in these societies, it will be necessary for actual members of these societies to reject it, and to do so with conviction, as with any societal "issue". Eradication will only actually happen when they themselves condemn or reject FGM as a harmful practice. This means a further or new development taking place in the perception of people's rights, responsibilities and the obligations in these same African and Arab societies. The further or new development does not have to be based on a mere imitation of contemporary Western secular or feminist ideologies. It will not be the result of African or Arab societies capitulating to the domination of values or ideas arising in the course of Western history and culture. It may have its own bases developed from human nature or society that are found in these Arab and African cultures.
So what do you think? Do you think that when it comes to us taking a stand in humanitarian issues do we just leave certain issues up to the people themselves can define then as a problem or as something harmful and wrong, and only they can change it not governments, or international NGOs or laws or Westerners? I think not. Because of my belief in the true meaning of universal rights and the rights of all women, I would dare not to ignore these types of issues and think, "Oh, they will take care of it". Because sometimes they don't.
Follow Bessie A. Winn-Afeku on Twitter: www.twitter.com/fabdogooder
Evelyn Leopold: Female Circumcision -- 90 Percent of Childbearing Women in Egypt?
WHO | Female genital mutilation
Female Genital Mutilation | FGM
Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting - UNICEF - UNICEF Home
Senegal, Mali villages to ban female circumcision
Circumcision: Beneficial or genital mutilation?
Female circumcision prevention post abolished by government
If possession over ones own body is a freedom it must include sexual components. Thus the components should be intact when they become an adult, otherwise they have been denied a freedom exactly as if they had been denied a thumb or an eye.
Ideas once believed about women’s limitations were shattered by facts that couldn’t be observed until women had some freedom. Yes, women can be just as absurd as men too, but that’s no argument against freedom. Don't overlook (nor overstate) that countries that have the best standard of living usually have the most freedom for women. We have twice the creativity.
Most if not all advances in women’s freedom is fought against fallacies. Yes, women participate in outrages too. It hasn’t been different in the west though some issues were. Both sexes argued it was women’s duty to obey their husband, even if the husband was vicious or had syphilis. It was a sin to disobey. It was dangerous for women to give birth and many died. Having no choice = a woman’s life not being her own. It’s a real reason for a woman being able to control her body. Regardless of her choices the alternative is a kind of slavery.
** note, I am being hypothetical here and do not support genital cutting of children or babies of either gender. I am just offering another line of thought to consider, and curious to hear what others think could be ways to move a society away from FGM.
Let's hope this ban is extended globally to Muslim and African countries which still practice this abhorrent religious and cultural custom.
Tasaru Ntomonok Girls Rescue Centre in Narok, Kenya.
The Tasaru Ntomonok initiative is an alternative rite of passage to womanhood – without the cut. It is an example of a culturally sensitive approach – one that respects the value of the tradition, but rejects the violence associated with it.
“The law makes female genital mutilation and cutting illegal. But it will take a long time for it to be effective. In the meantime, we need to be educating and sensitizing our communities about the negative effects of the practice. We also need to offer them alternative rites of passage,” says Ms. Pareyio.
----
I think the idea of an alternative rite of passage is key here, and in the fight against FGM. Supporting initiatives like this and creating more like it.
Here is where you can go to sponsor a girl and protect her from FGM and child marriage:
http://marywalkerkenya.blogspot.com/2009/09/tasaru-girls-rescue-centre-in-marie.html
INFIBULATE NOW!
It's time to admit it. Sometimes western, secular thought really is better than the alternative.
How about you get over your white colonialist attitude of we-know-best-for-the-kaffirs and let THEM decide.
It is none of our business.
This multicultural nonsense has to end.
FGM practice is despicable. It is condemned by most women- and children- rights organizations, and even many Islamic scholars.
It must be made illegal. It IS illegal in many countries.
And it should be made illegal in ALL countries.
Further, we not only condone, but also fund with tax dollars the genital mutilation of infant boys in the USA - so we don't really have any moral or legal legs to stand on.
2. Men still can have and enjoy sexual relations if they are circumcised.
3. Many men that have been circumcised are glad that are. Me included.
Your argument about genital mutilation needs work.
By saying that the entire culture is barbaric, you are screaming ethnocentrism.
Both procedures are justified by IGNORANCE..
Ed Baker 2 hours ago (1:46 PM).
Both procedures, MGM and FGM are justified by the same IGNORANCE, and parental desire to do well for children. Both procedures involve the mutilation of healthy tissues - in the case of MGM - muscle and skin are amputated.
Ed Baker 4 hours ago (12:14 PM)
If one listens to the advocates of both procedures, they both use the same PATHETIC justifications - only the advocates and even some of the DETRACTORS of MGM say "it's not that bad." When our society not only condones the mutilation of baby boys, but funds it with tax dollars, what moral or legal justification do we have to lobby world bodies like the UN on this subject?
Like I said, you call anyone who advocates male circumcisions ignorant. So my day is done and you can put a sock in it.
Kwabena Asante