“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 which involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." FGM has the potential to cause serious health complications such as recurrent infections, bleeding, difficulty urinating and/or menstruating, and even death, especially when performed by inexperienced individuals in unsanitary conditions. FGM is practiced predominantly in Central African countries, as well as in the Middle East and some Asian countries. Estimates show that FGM has been performed on over 200 million girls and women worldwide, in over 30 countries. FGM represents a contemporary violation of human rights and must be addressed by the international community. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In this essay, I will call for reframing the Western discourse on FGM, ultimately to move away from a culturally imperialistic perspective towards an intersectional perspective. feminist perspective. An analysis of previous Western scholarly discourses will show how the various approaches and perspectives adopted to discern FGM may 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 reveal the ways in which Western discourse unintentionally applies a cultural imperialist framework, and how this creates an impasse in discussions with capacity for intervention and resolution. FGM, when performed on minors and without consent, constitutes a contemporary violation of human rights, as it is a harmful and irreversible procedure that could cause serious health problems. Human rights, in particular “freedom from torture” and “freedom to freedom”, 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 this is a human rights issue, there is a struggle between individual rights and national sovereignty in the right to practice FGM. The practice has gained attention in recent decades within the international community, so much so that February 6 has been designated as “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 and female genital mutilation, by 2030. Although they are a A strong advocate for girls' empowerment and human rights, I believe that, as a citizen of the Western world, it is important to be aware of the wording and articulation of the discourse on FGM. It is easy to consider only apparent etic perception while neglecting emic experiences and perspectives. In the past, many Western scholars have used harsh connotations when engaging in discourse, using words that suggested practicing countries were "barbaric," "savage," and "evil." This speech attracted the attention of the international public. This is a positive outcome as it creates dialogue and encourages social development, however, this discourse has perpetuated a point of view that suggests cultural inferiority.It is important to consider cultural differences when discussing practices conducted in other nations, as arguments based on ethnocentric values ​​can easily be repudiated and invalidated. First, we must begin by understanding the motivations behind and implications of using an extremist feminist perspective in the discussion against FGM. Since Fran Hosken coined the term “FGM” in the late 1970s, scholarly efforts Westerners has apparently ended up on the extreme opposition side of the argument. Hosken was inspired by the idea of ​​“global sisterhood,” an ideology “that emerged during a period in US 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 gender oppression and patriarchy in Africa. In the Hosken Report, the author claims that FGM is intended to “ensure the sexual inferiority of women and, therefore, their submission to males.” This leads to the dominant activist paradigm of “sexism as the root of all evil.” The stories revealed by extremist-feminist scholars tend to mischaracterize the practices: “the most extreme versions receive disproportionate attention and the negative health consequences and effects on sexuality are overstated or, at least, unproven” (Ahmadu, et al .). The arguments therefore tend towards hyperbole, which is difficult for the average Western audience member to discern and develop an individual opinion about. This ultimately results in misrepresented and uninformed arguments. Furthermore, attributing the persistence of FGM to patriarchy “greatly oversimplifies its social, cultural and economic functions,” which are obscured in rigid Western perspectives. Categorizing FGM as a tool of oppression used against women, which may be true in certain situations, reifies the idea that Western women see African women as “objects of intervention.” Extreme feminist perspectives reinforce transnational power imbalances as Western women feel an obligation to defend and support the rights of their non-Western counterparts. Often, this results in derogatory arguments presented with a lack of substantive, impartial knowledge or recognition of the opposing party, which complicates conversations with those who practice FGM. Olga Khazan, an anthropologist who has studied practicing communities in Kenya, says female genital mutilation (which she says is the more appropriate term) has many misconceptions in the Western world. This includes the misconception that the practice is forced 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 joyfully participate in the ritual.” The extremist feminist framework fails to recognize that the practice is preserved by women and homogenizes the perspectives of all women who undergo the practice as anti-FGM. Failure to recognize these perspectives, which are just as important as those of African women who do not support FGM, infantilizes non-Western women and limits their rights and freedoms despite Western women's efforts towards reifying their rights and freedoms . FGM is a violation of human rights and international laws (the key word is mutilation). Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1979, defines discrimination against women as: “anydistinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of compromising or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, regardless of their marital status, on a basis of equality between men and women, human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field". According to CEDAW, FGM is 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 and grassroots perspective reifies the global power imbalance in policy and law making and oversimplifies the issues at hand. Because FGM is a practice that involves many different communities, genders, policies, health considerations, and individuals' experiences, it is critical that scholars and international audiences utilize structural intersectional analysis. In the contemporary state, current policies suggest cultural absolutism and ignore cultural relativism, but scholars suggest that “a local feminist praxis is necessary, as well as understanding the local in relation to broader, transnational processes” (Collins, et al . al.307). Many argue that FGM should be called female genital cutting, as it emphasizes the same bodily changes that males undergo through circumcision of the foreskin. Furthermore, various scholars argue that the negative discourse on FGM is undue, as it is equally related to cultural essentialisms such as veiling, foot binding, arranged marriage and widow immolation, all of which are definitively accepted as cultural differences and not practices of cultural inferiority. . From a strictly legal point of view, Elizabeth Philipose, professor of Women's Studies at California State University, notes that: “In every way, international legal systems are imperial, racialized and supremacist. To fail to take on the task of decolonizing these systems that govern and regulate international behavior is to reproduce… violence… against those we aim to protect. It is not about working within the parameters of existing systems, but about revolutionizing those systems through our advocacy and activism and by 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 in the global human rights establishment. Philipose's statement effectively applies postcolonial theory to understand the implications of international law and identifies flaws in its applications within the colonized world. Due to the ethnocentric nature of the creation of international human rights bodies and laws, enforcement at the local level becomes almost impossible due to various structural inefficiencies that emerge at each level of enforcement (e.g. continental, national, regional, community). The issue lies in the neo-institutionalization of laws, which focuses on international creation and enforcement without taking into account cultural concerns at the national or local level. Western scholars must recognize these difficulties in their arguments. The lack of this recognition results in the vilification of countries and communities that practice FGM, identifying them as major anti-human rights activists who must be condemned. This understanding must also come from recognizing our tendency as a Western world to perpetuate the “rescue narrative.” This widespread narrative is prevalent in. 26-49.