Female Genital Mutilation

Words by Chanel Trezise and Sienna Sulicich

Trigger Warning: Mentions of non-consensual surgery.

In 1992, Elle Dit featured an article by Elisa Reed titled ‘Female Circumcision.’ The foreign phrasing immediately drew our attention. The original article focuses on educating people about the human rights issues surrounding the practice of female circumcision. This practice is now described as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), and it is a cultural practice that is still prevalent throughout parts of Africa and the Middle East. It is slowly decreasing worldwide due to greater education and Western intervention, but not as quickly as activists had hoped (Pashaei et all, 2016, 2).

The discourse surrounding ‘female circumcision’ has shifted in the last thirty years and now has been brought into the light with demanded intervention. The evolving discourse of intervening with the cultural practice of removing women’s genitalia – either partially or fully — exhibits the growth of interest and politics surrounding this cultural practice. This is a narrative we are keen to deconstruct, because with it requires a necessity to negotiate the blurred lines between defending the human rights of women of color and their children, and the social and cultural repercussions of well-intentioned ‘white-saviour’/’missionaryactivist’ which can and will be felt in the everyday lives of these people.

The subject itself is complex and difficult to approach. Intervening in the cultural practices of other countries, particularly countries of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, has many implications relating to colonialism and the persistence of the self-constructed ‘white authority’. It raises many serious questions as well as hypocrisies of the ‘white’ intervener. Are we to repeat history if the white patriarchal former colonisers are allowed to police bodies of women of color and their children yet again? By way of intervening, are we to perpetuate the endemic and ongoing racist narratives thatconstruct the cultures of people of color as

primitive or barbaric?

There are also other serious ethical problems to interrogate. Shouldn’t these women have a right to their bodies and choose what to do with them regardless of what their culture dictates, and aren’t these women’s children generally too young to consent to have this procedure? How will these women and children live on with these permanent medical and psychological consequences?

The reality is that most acts of FGM are performed on children, and the rights and cultural practices that influence adults should not encroach on the rights of a child. How can we stand by not doing anything when children’s lives and livelihoods are at risk?

So when is it right to intervene? Is it ethical to intervene at all?

Female Genital Mutilation is often rationalised under the guise of various cultural, religious, hygienic, aesthetic, psychosexual and socioeconomic reasons - the reasons which encroach on human rights.

In 2016, a study conducted by Pashaei and colleagues in Iran found that mothers’ intentions and decisions to circumcise their daughters, as they usually hold this authority, are based on a combination of social norms, aesthetic preferences, repression of female sexuality, and religion. The article, although informative, fails to elaborate on the significance of the role of religion or cultural custom in enforcing FGM. Most of the reasoning claims to be about ‘social norms’ and expectations in the community and does not add or hint at the importance of the religious underpinning of this practice.

Axelsson and Strid challenged the position that FGM is a deeply rooted cultural and religious practice by asking the important question of why FGM has been abandoned by many countries with diverse cultural and religious traditions? (2020, 709).

Another study into the practice of FGM attitudes in Egypt by Van Vossem, Meekers & Gage found that 77.5% of participants, all women, agree that FGM should be continued. However, the researchers also argued that this claim was made due to these women having a lack of opportunities for quality education, which is a direct consequence of their lower socioeconomic backgrounds. What’s worse, whatever form of general education was given to these women had the effect to inform and reinforce their attitudes within their own cultural worlds (2015, 13).

However, the current discourse surrounding FGM is missing a critical lens that understands the common sexist tropes that mould traditional practices to be at the expense of women and girls. FGM demonstrates a different beauty standard than what is deemed beautiful or desirable in western countries, which explains how the communities which practise FGM see this as a viable aesthetic practice for women and children.

This ‘custom’ constructs and enforces an idea of beauty that

disregards any possible moral and ethical implications which inflict pain and psychological harm. Thus, despite any social or cultural imperatives FGM has, it is not a safe or moral practice.

In saying this, however, we reject the white savourism and imperialist thought which penetrates the spaces of discourse that condemn FGM. Condemning FGM does not simultaneously nor necessarily besmirch a particular culture or imply it is uncivilised. The communities and cultures which practise FGM do not need ‘saving’ by white savour-like Instagram posts, or any attempts of charity that look down on them. Further, in criticising morally grey traditions such as FGM, it is important to acknowledge the predominantly white, colonist lens and history which permeates critical thought, as well as the white privilege which commonly allows us to ignore issues of injustice. Instead, this criticaldiscussion should act as a guide and a lesson for us on how to dance on the intricate and perhaps precarious boundary between defending human rights while respecting cultural diversities. Ultimately, the mutual aid, education and awareness which attempt to stop FGM should not reinforce xenophobic, racist connotations and thoughts– instead, it should push for appropriate, productive, and respectful dialogue, communication, supplies and resources.

FGM is not morally just, but it does not devalue or invalidate the cultural values of communities that practise it. It is just that FGM and its sexist implications should not continue. A lot of the women who still support FGM and expect their daughters to undergo this practice, particularly those from rural and lower socioeconomic areas are slowly changing their attitudes towards FGM due to greater opportunities and education. Thus, there is no need for these cultural traditions to be forgotten or lost, nor condemned by ‘white-saviours’ or exoticised by the media. Providing mutual aid to these communities through access to education and critical discourse, not just relating to FGM, appears to be the most ethical route to supporting the welfare of these women and children without encroaching on their freedom and empowerment.

References:

Pashaei, T, Ponnet, K, Moeeni, M, Khazaee-pool, M & Majlessi, F 2016, ‘Daughters at Risk of Female Genital Mutilation: Examining the Determinants of Mothers’ Intentions to Allow Their Daughters to Undergo Female Genital Mutilation’, PloS One, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1-12

Axelsson, TK & Strid, S 2020, ‘Minority migrant men’s attitudes toward female genital mutilation: Developing strategies to engage men’, Health Care for Women International, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 709–726.

Van Rossem, R, Meekers, D & Gage, AJ 2015, ‘Women’s position and attitudes towards female genital mutilation in Egypt: A secondary analysis of the Egypt demographic and health surveys, 1995-2014’, BMC Public Health, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1-13.