Female Circumcision Case Study

Sofia Robinson
WGS 150
Irline Francois
February 26, 2014
Essay Question 1
When studying women cross culturally, it is a common mistake to unintentionally impose western traditions and progressive concepts upon other cultures. This ethnocentrism, from any cultural standpoint, is important to be aware of. The fine line between “international human rights” and cultural “norms” is tricky to distinguish (103). The boundary between human rights and cultural norms gets pushed back and forth because of the competing definitions of what women’s rights are. The focus of looking at women cross culturally should be on the “commonalities across cultures” (104). And from there, we can build a global base of what basic human rights women have.
As with any global civil rights issue, there are numerous cultural aspects that are blurred between being morally acceptable and culturally established. An example of one of these issues is the allowance of female circumcision. In many countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, female circumcision is
widely practiced on young pre-pubescent girls. But one of the basic human rights feminists around the world are fighting for is the right for women to have complete power over their bodies. Another cultural norm, right here in the United States, that goes against women’s basic human rights are the degrading labels society puts on women who are not modest or are sexually explorational. Again, feminists fight for the right to have power over their bodies. Therefore, the actions and decisions women make with their bodies should not be as harshly judged. Men do not get negatively judged for having multiple sex partners, because that is “just what men do.” But the traditional sexual relationship between two people, which a large portion of this nation is still fighting to limit people to, involves both a man and a woman. Yet, in the situation of someone having multiple sex partners, the attitude towards men is that “guys will be guys.” So why is the women in the same situation viewed as a slut? These judgements are mentally harmful to women just at female circumcision is physically harmful. Both serve the same purpose: to control women.
These two examples could be argued as strictly cultural and therefore invalid when it comes to women’s rights.
Society may argue that these practices and stigmas have been in effect over several generations and are unremovable from the culture. And going along with ethnocentrism in mind, how far can societies over-step their limits? Female circumcision could be argued as beneficial to women so they are more attractive to men while stigmas against women could be argued as protecting women from getting raped or assaulted. Yet it does not excuse the fact that women are still being damaged. When to allow ethnocentrism to affect activism is a difficult morality call to make. But I do believe there are cases, like female circumcision, when it is necessary to have a foreign intervention. Female circumcision is not a temporary and superficial problem in other countries, it is a permanent, painful and evasive non-medicinal
operation.
Sofia Robinson
WGS 150
Irline Francois
February 26, 2014
Essay Question II
International human rights principals are “biased against women” (106). This is because women are protected by the law in the “public sphere” but what happens behind closed doors is ignored. The first generation rights are “directed toward protection of men within public life” and completely disregard women (106). These rights are not beneficial to women because the majority of violence against women happens in the private sphere. The “explicitly and implicitly held view” that the government should not interfere with the private sphere allows for the deliberate neglect of violence against women (107). There are risks that women constantly encounter throughout their entire lives that governments have done little to prevent. “From conception to old age, womanhood is full of risks” such as abortion, infanticide, less access to health care, battery, and rape (107).
The second generation rights are supposed to be centered around “economic, social, and cultural rights” (108). But in actuality, there is not much to legally protect since the economic and social power resides with men. Cultural and religious rights are also counterproductive when promoting women’s rights because they create a “sphere protected from legal regulation” (108). Within that sphere are many cultural practices and attitudes that are debasing and harmful to women. And even though the fight for women’s rights is not a modern concept, the oppression and subordination in the private sphere continues to cultivate and get passed down from generation to generation.
Sofia Robinson
WGS 150
Irline Francois
February 26, 2014
Essay Question IV
Even though the government claims to work primarily in the public sphere, it still directly and indirectly interferes with marriage and family in the private sphere. Society and the government have worked hand-in-hand to create the image of what every family should be like: the nuclear family. The assumptions based off of this model promote American families to be patriarchal with every member having a role. Women are forever legally dependent on men from the time they are born. Babies take the last name and citizenship of the father, not the mother. During childhood, in many countries, there is some form of dowery that is saved for when the daughter is of marrying age. This could range from a monetary agreement to the tradition of the bride’s family paying for the wedding. Even when a girl becomes a woman and decides to get married, the couple has to get a marriage license and possibly a prenuptial agreement. During marriage, the woman traditionally takes the man’s name and instead of her father having jurisdiction, the husband does. To get divorced, a couple has to go through the state and wait until the government recognizes and allows the separation.
Family law is a big contradiction when it comes to the idea that family belongs in the private realm. I agree that there needs to be regulation and laws when it comes to protecting members of the family from abuse and other domestic crimes. But there are already laws for the protection of people’s personal safety. Domestic abuse should not be an exception to these laws or an excuse to ignore them. I find it so ironic that the people who do not want government involvement in the private sphere support the nuclear family and suppression that the government policies have created. Now that marriage equality has become legal in many states, hopefully other marriage laws that hold women back and control them can be eliminated.