Gender Justice: Female Genital Cutting

 

Female Genital Cutting (FGC) or Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) refers to a procedure where external female genitalia are removed partially or totally for non-medical reasons.

There are four major types of Female Genital Cutting: The total or partial removal of clitoris or prepuce (clitoridectomy), the removing of total or partial clitoris and labia minora, the excision can be included (excision), making vaginal orifice narrower by cutting positioning labia minora (infibulation) and personal modifications and Piercing/Incising.

Addressing to the First question of the essay I must conclude that what are the ethical issues affiliated with the Female Genital Cutting (FGC). FGC is a painful process and if not performed rightly it can cause serious infection and even loss of sexual feelings in females. This process is painful and is a humiliation for female to go through such a painful process without any proper sterilization (Amnesty International, 1997). This can lead to major infections and for this reason it is opposed by global organizations. This practice is a threat to women rights. The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) oppose the act of FGC. UNICEF and UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) also condemns this act of brutality. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and UN Human Rights Council (UNHR) also oppose FGC.

Some of the societies who believe that female genital cutting is a part of their culture and is a tradition of their elders defend the point in such a manner that it adds to the virginity of the female and can help reducing the sexual frustration by deadening the sexual appetite. Others defend it by saying that the clitoris that can pinch the male during sexual intercourse can be a cause of humiliation to the fragility of female and man can call them names such as “you with the clitoris”. These societies even remove the clitoris in order to make female pure and beautify her as per the needs of the society. The removing of the hard part from the female reproductive organ seems add beauty to a female in the eyes of her tribe. Although it is promoted on a small scale inside the tribes and some communities are also excising it but still it is a painful process and the female are tortured in such tribes to perform this ritual at any cost therefore this act of brutality should be banned by the Human Rights and the Women Rights in order to free the women from facing more torture in future.

Now coming to the second question of the essay that how would a utilitarian, a Kantian, a virtue ethicist and a rights theorist would evaluate the practice of Female Genital Cutting, and what factors would they consider when determining that FGC is an ethical practice or not. Starting with the views of utilitarian, a utilitarian is a person who thinks that life can be made good by increasing the good things in life and reducing the bad things. As far as FGC is concerned an unbiased utilitarian would vote for a no because this process is painful, and female must undergo torture with such an act which is not a good thing to witness or to practice. Therefore, a utilitarian would never prefer to cause such a harm or to promote doing harmful things to females. The utilitarian would advice another way to enhance female beauty but would not recommend tearing the skin of female or to spill blood from female organs.

Kantianism promotes the freedom of every human being and a Kantian is a follower of Kantianism. There is absolute freedom to every human being according to this concept. To promote goodness and freedom are the main building blocks of this concept. Therefore, after understanding the harm and pain done in the process of FGC, a Kantian would never recommend carrying on such brutal act. A Kantian would forbid doing the act of FGC because this act does not promote happiness or freedom, but this act of FGC looks like traditional slavery or ritual due to which liberty is sacrificed so a Kantian would never propose to adopt FGC.

Now coming to the thinking of a virtue ethicist, a virtue ethicist affiliates the social goods with any action. For example, if you scold your son you should tell him that it is only to reform him. A Virtue Ethicist would look in the goodness and the badness affiliated with the act of FGC. If there is a tribal norm to FGC females before marriage and not female would be allowed to marry if she had not gone through FGC then a virtue ethicist would recommend adopting FGC as to accept the virtue of marriage at last. The point is that a virtue ethicist would ponder upon the fruitfulness of a certain act. If the tribe demands that a girl should undergo FGC before marriage to enhance the sexual life pleasure after marriage and there is a significant increase in the man’s feeling in sexual intercourse then he would recommend to apply FGC in such conditions for the later consequences of the act. FGC would be favored in such condition if it is a mandatory ritual to perform marriage and to see the social goodness affiliated afterwards with such an act.  

A Rights Theorist would not recommend the painful process because he believe in the protection on human rights on all grounds and he will strictly abandon the act of FGC which is against the global Human Rights Forum. The Rights Theorist would not only condemn the act but would also oppose it and would give theories to eradicate FGC. According to his perspective it is against human rights to force someone in such a painful ritual therefore he would not propose to adopt FGC. The act of FGC is against the human rights and there should be proper laws as to punish those who indulge in doing such an act. It is a humiliation to the body created by God, and it is also against the personal liberty of a person so this act should be discouraged on global platform in order to refrain others from doing so.

Now coming to the last portion of the essay which demands the personal recommendation and opinion about FGC. FGC named as female genital cutting which is for non-medical reasons is a painful process and it often results in long term infections of female reproductive organ. Females must undergo painful process in order to continue with FGC. What compels them is the societal norms under which they are bound to perform such a painful process. Although some religions permit FGC, but this does not mean that it is mandatory to adopt it. Starting from the societies which see FGC as a religious obligation and part of the culture. The females are forced in such societies to undergo a painful process of FGC under non-sterile conditions. This can be the cause of a major infection of permanent sexual disability in a female which is against the Human Rights. My perspective is that it should not be allowed on the global platform and there should be adequate campaigns against FGC in order to prevent the female part of the World from suffering. If I would be allowed to choose any theory to support, my opinion I would prefer Human Rights Theorist Theory where each and every human being is allowed to enjoy complete liberty and the freedom to choose whatever he/she want to be. Personal liberty is not hurt according to the human rights and it is the fundamental right of every person of the society to have complete rights and the protection of his/her rights should be made mandatory by the Human Rights Commission. The Global Human Rights is the savior of fundamental rights and the cases in which personal liberty is sacrificed should be reported and addressed on a global platform to eradicate this evil deed of FGC. Female Genital Cutting should be discouraged on every ground across the world in order to make adequate constitutional changes and to come up with legal restrictions as to stop others who are accepting or doing it. There should be set of laws as to punish those who do it or indulge in such a heinous act and to stop it and promote social awareness to stop brutality. This act also shows gender inequality where female is tortured to go through painful process of FGC. Male part of the society should be counselled so that he can be a symbol of true love to his female partner and to stop giving pain in future to other females. Female Rights Protection Forum and Human Rights Protection Forum as well as Gender Inequality Platforms should hire proper staff and should make it sure that this painful absurdity does not continues and persons who are indulged in these acts should be punished.

Conclusion:

Female Genital Cutting is a painful process and it should be stopped from promulgating into society. There should be adequate laws present in order to stop FGC. Different Theories and their opinions about FGC are shared in the textual format of this report. The communities that practice FGC should be highlighted and should be addressed on global platform as to resolve this female torture. In the last portion of the essay opinion is given regarding FGC and future recommendations are also provided in order to eradicate this inhumane act of brutality. References are given at the end of the essay to prove the authenticity of the report.

 

References:

1)      Widdows, H. (2021). Case studies for global ethics.pg16-17 Retrieved 6 March 2021, from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/global-ethics/case-studies-for-global-ethics/FD87062A7AFB8A2EF96C0E9ED1A6120D

 

2)      Document. (2021). Retrieved 6 March 2021, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/0001/1997/en/

 

3)      Women's Human Rights and Gender Equality | Global Fund for Women. (2021). Retrieved 6 March 2021, from https://www.globalfundforwomen.org/womens-human-rights/