“Female genital mutilation” (FGM), a term coined in 1976 by the American feminist and social activist Fran Hosken, is defined by the World Health Organization as “ all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the female external genitalia, or other injury to the female genitalia for non-medical reasons.” FGM can potentially lead to serious health complications such as recurrent infections, bleeding, difficulty urinating and/or menstruating, or even death, especially when performed by inexperienced people and in unsanitary conditions. . FGM is mainly practiced in Central African countries, as well as in the Middle East and some Asian countries. Estimates show that FGM has been practiced on more than 200 million girls and women worldwide, in more than 30 countries. FGM constitutes a contemporary violation of human rights and must be fought by the international community. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get the original essay In this essay, I will call for the reframing of Western discourse around FGM, ultimately moving away from a culturally imperialist towards an intersectional perspective. feminist point of view. An analysis of the discourses of previous Western scholars will show how the different approaches and perspectives taken to discern FGM might not be as well suited to a transnational feminist and human rights approach. The ideological frameworks I will examine include the extremist feminist perspective and a legal and cultural absolutism perspective. Using this analysis, I hope to uncover the ways in which Western discourse unintentionally applies an imperialist cultural framework, and how this creates an impasse in discussions with capacity for intervention and solution. FGM performed on minors and non-consenting people constitutes a contemporary violation of human rights, as it is a harmful and irreversible procedure that could lead to major health problems. Human rights, particularly the “right to torture” and “freedom to liberty”, are violated in the forced practice of FGM and must be defended especially in the case of oppressed and marginalized women in communities where human rights are not explicitly guaranteed or honored. As a human rights issue, there is a conflict between individual rights and national sovereignty regarding the right to practice FGM. The practice has gained attention in recent decades within the international community, with February 6 designated as the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. International bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly have made great strides to create a Sustainable Development Goal (Goal 5) to eliminate all harmful practices, including FGM/female genital cutting, by 2030. Although I am a strong advocate for girls' empowerment and for human rights, I believe that as a citizen of the Western world it is important to be aware of the phrasing and articulation of the discourse surrounding FGM. It is easy to consider only apparent etic perception while neglecting emic experiences and perspectives. In the past, many Western academics have used harsh connotations when engaging in discourse, using words that suggest practicing countries are "barbaric”, “savage” and “malicious”. Such a speech attracted the attention of international audiences. This is a positive outcome because it creates dialogue and encourages social development. However, this discourse perpetuated a view suggesting cultural inferiority. It is important to take cultural differences into account when discussing practices in other countries, as value-based ethnocentric arguments can be easily repudiated and invalidated. First, we must begin by understanding the motivations and implications of using an extremist feminist perspective in arguing against FGM. Since Fran Hosken coined the term "FGM" in the late 1970s, the commitment of Western researchers seems to have found itself on the side of the extreme opposition. Hosken drew inspiration from the idea of ​​"world sisterhood," whose ideology "emerged during a period in American feminist history characterized by a commitment to the idea that women around the world are united by patriarchy. Hosken's work and the mobilization of Western feminists suggest that FGM is a symbol of the extreme nature of sexist oppression and patriarchy in Africa. In the Hosken report, the author states that FGM aims to “ensure the sexual inferiority of women and therefore their submission to men”. This tends towards the dominant activist paradigm of “sexism as the root of all evil”. The stories revealed by extremist-feminist researchers tend to distort these practices: “the most extreme versions receive disproportionate attention and the negative health consequences and effects on sexuality are overestimated or, at least, unproven” ( Ahmadu, et al.). The arguments then tend towards hyperbole, which is difficult for the average Western audience to discern and develop an individual opinion. This ultimately results in distorted and ill-informed arguments. Furthermore, attributing the persistence of FGM to patriarchy “oversimplifies its social, cultural and economic functions,” which become obscured in rigid Western perspectives. Classifying FGM as a tool of oppression used against women, which may be true in some situations, reifies the idea that Western women view African women as “objects of intervention.” Extreme feminist perspectives reinforce transnational power imbalances as Western women feel obligated to defend and reinforce the rights of their non-Western counterparts. Often this results in derogatory arguments presented without any substantial impartial knowledge or acknowledgment of the opposing party, complicating conversations with those who practice FGM. Olga Khazan, an anthropologist who has studied practicing communities in Kenya, says that female genital cutting (which she says is the more appropriate term) gives rise to many misconceptions in the Western world. This includes the misconception that this practice is imposed on women by men, when in reality it is perpetuated primarily by older women. Khazan reveals that despite the commonly told story of "African girls [being] held and slaughtered against their will, some of them willingly and happily participate in the ritual." The extremist feminist framework fails to recognize that this practice is preserved by women and homogenizes the perspectives of all women who experience this practice as anti-FGM. The failure to recognize these perspectives, which are just as important as those of African women who do not support FGM, infantilizes non-Western women andlimits their rights and freedoms despite the efforts of Western women to reify their rights and freedoms. FGM is a violation of human rights and international laws (mutilation being the key word). Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 1979, defines discrimination against women as: “any distinction, exclusion or restriction based on sex which has the effect or aim of undermining or annulling the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, whatever their marital status, on the basis of equality between men and women, of the rights of man and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or in any other field. According to CEDAW, FGM constitutes an act of discrimination against women. However, the document fails to recognize the intersectionality between historical context, law and culture. The failure to contextualize and understand FGM from a local, grassroots perspective reifies the global imbalance of power in policy and law making and oversimplifies the issues at hand. Since FGM is a A practice that involves many different communities, genders, politics, health considerations, and individual experiences, it is crucial that researchers and international audiences use structural intersectional analysis. As they stand, current policies suggest cultural absolutism and ignore cultural relativism, but scholars suggest that "a local feminist praxis is needed, in addition to understanding the local in relation to larger transnational processes" (Collins , et al.307). Many argue that FGM should be called female genital cutting because it emphasizes the same bodily changes that men undergo during circumcision of the foreskin. Furthermore, various scholars argue that the negative discourse around FGM is unwarranted, as it is just as relatable to cultural essentialism as veiling, foot binding, arranged marriage, and widow immolation, all of which are definitively accepted as cultural differences and not as practices of cultural inferiority. . From a strictly legal perspective, Elizabeth Philipose, professor of women's studies at California State University, asserts that: “Throughout, international legal systems are imperial, racialized, and supremacist. To fail to undertake the task of decolonizing these systems that govern and regulate international behavior is to reproduce... violence... against those we wish to protect. It is not about working within the parameters of existing systems, but about revolutionizing those systems through our advocacy and activism, and creating analyzes that refuse to be complicit in the recolonization of the world” (Collins, et al. 308). As members of the “colonizing” world, it is imperative to recognize the dynamics of global power imbalances within the global human rights establishment. Philipose's statement effectively applies postcolonial theory to understand the implications of international law and identifies the flaws in its applications within the colonized world. Due to the ethnocentric nature of the creation of international human rights bodies and laws, their enforcement at the local level becomes almost impossible due to the various structural inefficiencies that arise at each level of enforcement (e.g. at continental, national, regional, community level). The problem lies in the neo-institutionalization of laws, which focuses on the creation and. 26-49.