A women’s devotion has to be earned with faith and love, but not with barbaric ceremonials. It is time that the old ways of suffering be left behind.

There are innumerable cultural practices which usually create resentment between people who are generally against such practices. Women from around world are subjected to cultural practices that are deemed ‘heinous’ and ‘unjust’. The most shared problem is that which such practice creates a situation where lives of people are put at risk. An eminent practice which is taken into attention is female genital mutilation. This writing shall discuss clashes between human rights and cultural relativism with my personal stance about these two ethical dilemmas.

Female genital mutilation is considered as unlawful act by many people while in several cultures it is a common cultural practice. “Female circumcision is mainly carried out in western and southern Asia, the Middle East and large areas of Africa” (bacquet, 2009). In several cultures, some elderly women carry out these practices without any medical backing. It is a shared practice in many cultures with a belief that it makes a girl clean, beautiful and to kill the erotic longings before they get married.

Moving on, female genital mutilation is said to rear conflicts amid human rights and cultural relativism. Female circumcision violates human rights because each human being is born to live and make their personal decisions. However at it is also a religious act so one cannot just overlook their religious norms and values. According to African Women’s Organization female genital mutilation has many immoral effects. It causes injuries to the female genital organs which results in bleeding, urinary problem, and infertility (Organisation, 2011). According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the following articles of rights describe how the rights of women have been violated; article 5 says that it is a right to prohibition of torture or inhuman acts. Article 19 argues that a woman should be protected from all forms of mental and physical violence. (Organisation, 2011).

Moreover, cultural relativism mainly means that each culture has its ethical codes and is equally binding that truth solely is fundamental, reliant on the cultural upbringing. Cultural relativists often depict culture as an important trait of self- determination and giving the people an ultimate human dominance. Cultural and tribal leaders have argued that female circumcision is equivalent to male circumcision, which is a common practice in many Islamic and African countries. Although it is true that both procedures are cultural traditions, there are vast differences between the two. The most important difference between female circumcision and male circumcision is that, female circumcision hinders the natural functioning of the female body in ways that male circumcision does not.

Furthermore female circumcision is convicted as violation of universally protected human rights, yet it is practiced in many cultures .Many organizations have claimed against such practices which prohibit differences made on the basis of gender while at the same time many cultures are still denying women to have equal rights. Female circumcision misleads the theory of humanitarian concern which lets one human being show compassion and care for other human beings (UNICEF, 2006) . Human right is persistently alongside female genital mutilation because it deceives the right of women who are forcefully taken into such cultural acts. However, cultural relativism takes on the stand of letting the culture do its part since whichever cultural act is performed should be taken into thought for one’s personal gain. The theory of positivism claims the existence of human rights and that the foundation of human rights does not depend on the different cultures instead in international law from where universal rights originates.While considering the act of female circumsion, the theory of postivism is against this practice as it overrules human rights (Europe, n.d.).

Moving on, my personal stance is that the practice of female circumcision is ‘heinous’ and ‘unjust’. Every individual in the world is born naturally then taking nature into our control is simply inhumane. Female circumcision is heinous, meaning that it is a monstrous practice since it gives immense physical pain and leaves both physical and emotional scars on a woman. Each person has the right to make their choice about their possessions, in this case it is their own body. It is unfair and unjust to perform a cultural act which is medically harmful to women even more worse if it is performed without their own will. I strongly debate that stern decrees be imposed to stop such practices in countries that still follow this outrageous act. I claim this view is because there are many damaging results associated with female genital mutilation. It harms women in ways that one cannot even imagine. Healthy and normal genital tissue is damaged hindering the natural function of female bodies. Other effects are severe soreness, shock, extreme bleeding, difficulty in urine passing out and other serious injuries (UNICEF, 2006). Thus performing this heinous act shows the vice characteristics people possess who follow this custom.

To sum up, female genital mutilation is a debatable subject which is practiced by several cultures violating human rights. There is a massive argument mainly on the human rights side against cultural relativism. Cultural relativism demonstrates that such practices are carried out by keeping in mind cultural standards and is deemed to be virtuous however such practices is clearly against the human rights because it violates the right to guard one’s own body. According to the theory of positivism, such cultural practices are wrong since it violates human rights. Meanwhile cultural relativists argue that these cultural norms are deemed to be ethical regardless of its consequences. Thus it can be resolved that proper decrees should be put in position which takes into consideration cultural beliefs and at the same time looks at what the penalties are on the parties linked to it.

My final thought is that people often mix evil acts with religious convictions which give them a belief that what they are doing is ethical, which is certainly not.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Osifo, D.O. & Evbuomwan, I. 2009, "Female Genital Mutilation among Edo People: The Complications and Pattern of Presentation at a Pediatric Surgery Unit, Benin City", African Journal of Reproductive Health, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 17-25.

Wakabi, W. 2007, "Africa battles to make female genital mutilation history", The Lancet, vol. 369, no. 9567, pp. 1069-70.

Lehman, D.J. & Nath, S.R. 2009, "Female genital mutilation: Insider/outsider discourses and the politics of judgment", Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 406-413.

French, H.W. 1997, Africa's Culture War: Old Customs, New Values, New York, N.Y., United States, New York, N.Y.

Chauhan, R. 2002, "The Female Circumcision Controversy: An Anthropological Perspective / Female Genital Mutilation: A Guide to Laws and Policies Worldwide", NWSA Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 230-233.

Kaplan-Marcusán, A., del Rio, N.F., Moreno-Navarro, J., Castany-Fàbregas, M.J., Nogueras, M.R., Muñoz-Ortiz, L., Monguí-Avila, E. & Torán-Monserrat, P. 2010, "Female Genital Mutilation: perceptions of healthcare professionals and the perspective of the migrant families", BMC Public Health, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 193.