chrissyzoricic

Check out this article:
The whole concept of female “circumcision” (I use quotes because its hard not to impose western ideologies about torture and mutilation upon the practice) is a hard one for me to grasp. Perhaps it is the cultural reasoning behind the practice is what I feel I have yet to grasp. It is so easy to sit in this comfortable home in the “civilized” western world and judge a practice based on some sort of western ideology, but I’m not sure that that can be considered a fair analysis of the practice. Doesn’t that cause the same sort of problematic colonial issues? Granted, in the article, women from the same culture confirm that FGM is indeed a problem. So what is my rambling point here? Where does the problem lie? Why do I have such a problem with the article? 
While the writing in the article seems fair and balanced and just touches on the involvement of outside human rights groups, I couldn’t help but thinking of comparing it to a common cultural practice in the west, plastic surgery. Sure, women aren’t tied down and involuntarily have someone fill their chest with silicone or break their nose to “re-sculpt” it, but if it isn’t involuntary directly, you could still make the claim of social and cultural influence. (even the phrase “re-sculpt” is so problematic for me because it evokes thoughts of a male sculptor creating the “perfect” image of ...