thought of blogging this out cos there was a heated debate on this during our sociology tutorial:
Female Genital Mutilation: Cultural Relativism or Ethnocentrism??

Ethnocentrism is the tendency to judge other cultures exclusively by the standards of one's own.
Cultural Relativism is the belief that all cultures have equal value.

FGM, although frequently associated with Islam, it is rare in many predominantly Muslim countries. It is a social custom, not a religious practice. Unfortunately, over 132 million women and girls worldwide have undergone female genital mutilation. And about 2 million girls are at risk of undergoing it every year. ( scary stats, ya??)

FGM is typically a preformed as a rite of passage on girls between the ages of 4 and 14. In some cultures, people think it enhances female fertility. Women who have not experienced it, are said to be less likely to remain virgin before marriage and faithful within it. Some even think that FGM eradicates sexual arousal in women.

so for this issue, we are basically split into 2 groups, each with their own perspective
one with the "human rights perspective" and the other one regards the human rights perspective as ethnocentrism.
of course, under the human rights perspective, arguments such as this form of violence against women should be eradicated. Pain, humiliation, psychological trauma and loss of sexual pleasure are definitely something that we couldnt imagine and understand. Furthermore, we have to consider that all these surgical practices are usually not done with proper sterilisation and possiblilty of infection is high. Internal bleeding, increase susceptibility to HIV, hep B eventually will lead to the death of the women unergoing FGM. So, we conclude that FGM should be eradicated and people found performing this practice should be put to death!! ( T.A. : that'a a bit serious huh)

Proponents of the second perspective on FGM are cultural relativism. They regard the human rights perspective as ethnocentrism, which means that we are interfering with the their practices. From their point, all talk about "universal human rights" denies cultural sovereignty to less powerful peoples. We should affirm the rights of other cultures to practice FGM even if we regard it as destructive, senseless, oppressive, and abhorrent. To them, this practice may seem of value and we should respect them and not because they are the less powerful bunch so we exert our superiority over them, forcing them to completely remove this practice.

so people, what's your take on this?? which perspective is more compelling.. although it is naturally that people will agree that this form of cruelty should be removed COMPLETELY from the society today, then what is the respect of other cultures that we are constantly talking about?? are they all talks without real actions? if we try to remove this practice by force, will people think that we are simply exerting our superiority over them?? and when we are still arguing about this issue( be it months or year before we come to a conclusion), we have to realise that many girls at the same time have been force to undergo FGM.. tragic life huh..