FGM, Culture and Controversy

Female Genital Mutilation or Female Circumcision is a topic that is really hard for me to talk about definitively. The problem is that there are a lot of facts that should be taken into account, but at the same time the practice is so polarizing because of the emotional factors involved that these facts are hard to take at face value. I don't really feel like I'm getting at what I'm trying to express, so I'm just going to get into some examples and at times point to how they relate to the texts.

A good place to start is the name of the practice, specifically the fact that it has two commonly used names. Both names are incredibly loaded, so much so that you can pretty much tell someones stance on the issue by how they refer to the practice. I mean FGM just sounds terrible, how could mutilation ever be a good thing? On the other hand Female Circumcision compares the practice to male circumcision, which is a practice of tradition or personal (read: parental) preference with no real implications for the male. I think that both names get at truths located within the issue, but neither really do the issue full justice. For example, if you look at both articles, they both are basically against FGM and both articles have the term mutilation appear first (and in larger text) than circumcision. In fact, the only reason I feel the Bergner article uses the term Female Circumcision at all is in attempt to show non-bias in reporting. The Maple family is always quoted as referring to the practice as FGM. I was kind of surprised when both of the readings were essentially against FGM, i expected one to be in support of it to illustrate both perspectives.

Another issue I have with the FGM/Female Circumcision debate is how the debate seems to be drawn down a line of different academic schools. As suggested in the Daily article, Anthropologists are the primary supporters of Female Circumcision using the argument of cultural relativism. Its a hard argument to make and I'm sure that I'm making some anthropologists fairly upset by generalizing them in with the rest of the anthropologists. But basically an anthropologist looks at Female Circumcision as a cultural tradition and exists within its own value system and to someone outside that value system the practice may seem unethical, however that is simply because those people are acting under a different set of values. And it would be unfair to judge Female Circumcision under a set of values under which it did not originate. On the other side, sociologists are often more critical of FGM due to the practice seeming to promote masculinity and act out a systematic violence towards females.

I take issue with both of these arguments. First of all, cultural relativism has never been an anything goes theory, it does have some conditions. One of those involves human rights, which could quite possibly be being violated here, that is definitely up to interpretation. However, to suggest that our own culture has no history or even current examples of similar practices being acted out towards women is just incorrect. These instances do exist in our past so we do have some sort of cultural comparison and are capable of making a judgement that is not completely bias in this case. Perhaps that has yet to be established, but it is a possibility. On the other side, the sociological arguments make sense, but you're also assuming that all women desire the same thing. There are many different flavors of feminism, and assuming that FGM is a bad thing based on your own brand of feminism does not necessarily mean that the women who have had this done to them feel the same way.

All of that being said, if I had to choose a side it would fall against the practice of FGM/Female Circumcision. However, I think that the best way to deal with the problem would be to improve medical care, education and other aspects that would improve the quality of life in the areas where it still exists.