Female Genital Cutting: Revered Tradition or Human Rights Travesty?
by Vivekananda Nemana
Although it's customary in several countries for male newborns to be circumcised, there are also millions of young girls getting circumcised each year, mostly in Africa. Female genital cutting (FGC) involves the removal of part or all of a woman's external genitalia. Human rights groups and anthropologists alike agree that this process often causes these women to suffer and reflects misogyny in the communities where it is practiced. But because this practice is so deeply instilled in regional tradition, the best way to protect these women is to educate communities and work with them to ensure FGC is being done as safely as possible.
The most severe form of FGC, and the one creates the most trouble, is known as infibulation. The girl's external genitalia is nearly entirely cut away, and then sown together to create smooth scar tissue that leaves only a tiny opening for urine and menstruation. Besides the unsafe procedure itself, infibulation leads to infections, the buildup of fetid blood, painful intercourse and major problems during childbirth.
Sadly, there are millions of women around the world who suffer from the consequences of FGC. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 100 to 140 million women have undergone female genital mutilation, and that 3 million girls are estimated to be at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation every year. Studies show that the infant mortality rate during childbirth is 55 percent higher for infibulated mothers, and that an estimated 10 to 20 thousand African newborns die each year as a consequence of FGC. What's more, the WHO reports that FGC "constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women," because of the degrading nature of the process. In many communities, infibulation is a way of ensuring that women remain virgins until marriage and give additional sexual pleasure to their husbands, despite the pain these women must endure.
But the WHO, as stated in a 2008 report, wants to eliminate FGC entirely. Obviously, there are serious risks associated with female circumcision, especially when infibulation is done in unsafe conditions. But to attempt to fully eliminate an age-old custom in so many countries isn't only impractical...it's downright insensitive. When looking through the rose-colored lens of the West, where circumcision is also commonly practiced, it's easy to think everything about the practice is wrong. We can't just march into these communities and tell them what to do with their own customs, but that doesn't mean we can't try to encourage changes that make those customs safer.
Most of the problems associated with FGC-physical trauma, problems during childbirth, potential sexual side effects, and overall humiliation don't arise from the circumcision itself, but rather from the methodology employed to carry it out. Anthropological evidence has repeatedly pointed at the use of non-sterile instruments for causing deadly infections. And though all forms of FGC have been known to cause problems, the most severe consequences-obstruction of urine and menstrual flow, hemorrhages, problems during childbirth, etc.-are typically caused by infibulation and can be avoided with "lesser”" forms of FGC. If male circumcision involved not only removing the foreskin but also the entire skin on the penis, circumcised men would have just as many problems.
Basically, cultural insensitivity is not the solution in protecting human rights, since a person has just as much right to cultural practices as she does to life and liberty. Research from the WHO suggests that, because it is such an ancient cultural convention, men and women alike support FGC in the communities where it is practiced. That makes it tricky for foreign human rights organizations to end the practice, even though many women actually do suffer from it. We need to work with the communities until they can acknowledge that there are safer, less severe forms of FGC that can be practiced instead. We need to give them the resources necessary to treat their women with care and respect.
The good news is that there are already several culturally sensitive movements out there to mitigate the harmful effects of circumcision. The Inter African Committee Against Harmful Traditional Practices, a coalition of African women's groups, is working with governments to educate communities on the harmful effects of FGC, and to suggest alternatives. And with the TOSTAN Project in Senegal, 12% of the practitioners themselves have voluntarily given up infibulation, and are working with other communities to encourage them to do the same. These are smart movements that protect human rights without incurring a backlash from the communities.
