Year-end Reflection: Andrew Blake

Blogging for the Women’s Center this semester has been a great opportunity to explore social justice and gender equity issues that are not as always as keenly fixated in my mind as they should be. Unfortunately, it sometimes seems that there is a general consensus that gender equity issues have been largely resolved in our society, and that feminist ideology or goals are no longer necessary. Being involved with a blog like this is a great illustration of how far from the truth this is. In staying attentive to news or headlines that would be pertinent for pieces in this blog, I was surprised to see the frequency of discriminative practices or unequal treatment.

What was particularly nice about this course is the flexibility that has been built in to allow bloggers to write about subjects they are interested in. By doing this, I think it not only motivates bloggers to write better pieces, but it has also allowed for me to further explore issues within my degree programs. Particularly, it was nice to have the freedom to write pieces about feminist movements or gender policies in several nations as it has furthered my understanding of women’s issues in the international arena and in some ways has given me an additional lens through which to analyze and understand world events. As an International Studies and Political Science major, this is an invaluable tool and something I believe will help me in my studies.

This being said, there are definitely things that I would like to try in further blogging. Often times, my interest and comfort lay in writing about policy or events relating to gender equity. While this was great, I would enjoy exploring more local issues and events, and also would enjoy writing a more reflective or personal piece.

A Major Coming Out

Recent months have seen a swelling amount of news related to LGBTQA issues in nearly every area of our society. The 2012 election cycle ended with the first ever adoptions of same sex marriages by popular vote in Maine, Maryland, and Washington and the election of a president who would go on to speak of the 1969 Stonewall Riots on par with other watershed civil rights moments in his inaugural address. Three additional nations, Uruguay, New Zealand, and France have legalized same-sex marriage, adding to a growing list of diverse nations.

In late March, the nation’s attention was fixated on the Supreme Court as it heard two cases concerning California’s Proposition 8 and the federal governments Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Hearings on both cases are anticipated by many as they stand to make great strides the attainment of equal rights.  The nation seems to have made a pivotal shift, with the Pew Research Center reporting that “recent polling clearly shows that Americans are much more accepting of same-sex marriage than they were a decade ago” with “all of the major national polls now find more supporters than opponents of same-sex marriage.”

Even more conservative organizations like the Boy Scouts of America seem poised to move towards equality with as scout executives last week unveiled a new policy that “no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone,” even with the support of the Mormon Church, the organizations largest sponsor of scout troops.

But while progress is being made, many unfriendly environments remain. Particularly visible has been major league sports which has had a curious absence of LGBT identified individuals and has had hostile moments including Kobe Bryant’s shout of a homophobic slur and cornerback Chris Culliver saying he’s not okay with gay players in the NFL or on his team. But someone has stepped forward to break this absence and become the first male U.S. athlete in a major professional sport to come out as gay. Jason Collins has done so in a Sports Illustrated story to appear May 6^th, but accessible online currently. In this article, Collins describes his struggle in accepting his sexuality and the challenge of being different in major league sports.

Taking the helm of a delicate issue, Collins says, “I didn’t set out to be the first openly gay athlete playing in a major American team sport. But since I am, I’m happy to start the conversation. I wish I wasn’t the kid in the classroom raising his hand and saying, ‘I’m different.’ If I had my way, someone else would have already done this. Nobody has, which is why I’m raising my hand.”

While Collins was remarked he had “no idea” about the reaction of fellow players and officials, it has been a largely warm reception. The Huffington Post reports, “NBA commissioner David Stern applauded Collins in a statement cited by ESPN, noting, ‘Jason has been a widely respected player and teammate throughout his career and we are proud he has assumed the leadership mantle on this very important issue.’” Washington Wizards President Ernie Grunfeld felt similarly, calling Collins “a leader on and off the court and an outstanding teammate throughout his NBA career.”

Collins joins a list of leaders who are navigating an important time in the struggle for equal rights in our nation and world. As it becomes more of a national issue, these brave voices help personalize the struggle and provide hope for coming generations. Through this sort of action and the concerted efforts of activists the world over, 2013 may prove to be one of the most important years in LGBT rights.

Women of the Boston Marathon

This week our national attention has been engrossed by the tragic events surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing and the chillingly familiar feelings of uncertainty and sorrow it brought. The indiscriminate and unforeseeable nature of the violence forces us to confront our vulnerability. But just as previous attacks and catastrophes have done, the event is being shaped not only by the stories of unimaginable suffering and loss but also by stories of heroism. There are endless accounts of brave acts and genuine compassion coming from every corner of Boston, the U.S., and even the world at large. Between marathon finishers running directly to give blood, first responders and civilians attending to the wounded, and the hospitality Bostonians showed the world tragedy seems to have brought out the best.

For many, the bombings may be the first time they have turned their attention to the Boston Marathon. Without a doubt, this will prove to be a formative event in the race and town’s history, but the Boston Marathon is much more than a bombing. Thomas Grilk, the Executive Director of the Boston Athletic Association, said in a statement regarding the attacks that “the Boston Marathon is a deeply held tradition – an integral part of the fabric and history of our community.”  Now the world’s oldest annual marathon, this race boasts a birth dating back to April of 1897 and has become one of the most prestigious races worldwide. Notorious for its stiff qualifying times and rigorous course, it holds a place within running community lore and has been the back drop for many of the sport’s most formative moments. Particularly, it has been an important proving ground for women and their assertion of belonging in the event. Although women were not allowed to officially participate in the marathon until 1972, courageous trailblazers began to push the limits much earlier. In 1966, Roberta “Bobbi” Gibb became the first woman to run the entire marathon and was tailed a year later by Kathrine Switzer, the first woman to completed the race as a registered participant. The later was part of the infamous incident in which Jock Semple, a race official, tried to rip off her numbers and eject her from the race. While no female racers were killed this year in the bombing, two were killed on the sidelines, supporting and cheering on the racers, men and women alike.

What these women and the many heroes who emerged from Monday’s events show is a spirit of resiliency and commitment that should exemplify the Boston Marathon and its community. While Monday’s bombings were an immensely tragic event that should be remembered and learned from, it must not become this race’s defining characteristic. Every year, for nearly a century, thousands of people from across the world come together as athletes, spectators, support crews, and volunteers to help each other through 26.2 miles of toil and determination. This sort of comradery, both in past races and in the most recent, has overwhelmingly dwarfed the terribly dark actions seen at this year’s race.

FEMEN’s Sextremism Hitting Headlines

Feminism has been capturing headlines and front page photos around the world recently, but not in the manner you may expect. Pictures of topless protesters with incendiary slogans or images drawn on their chests have garnered much attention as the women marked ‘International Topless Jihad Day’ on April 4^th with demonstrations in Britain, Germany, Australia, Sweden, France, Canada, Belgium, and Italy. Topless women in these countries gathered around mosques and Tunisian embassies, some with beards, turbans, the Islamic star and crescent, in protest of the firestorm created by the posting of topless photos to Facebook in which Tunisian student Amina Tyler appeared with the slogans “Fuck Your Morals” and “My Body Belongs To Me, And Is Not The Source Of Anyone’s Honour” written on her body. Organized by FEMEN (a feminist Ukrainian protest group founded in 2008, based in Kiev, and known for demonstrations on social issues including sexism, sex tourism, international marriage agencies, religious institutions, and the human rights violations and authoritarian practices of Putin’s Russia), the events have started an intriguing discussion on Islam and religion in relation to women’s rights as well as the issue of mainly European women protesting against issues in the Middle East. But is this shock tactic feminism effective in furthering issues of gender equity or is it simply making a scene with extremist action?

The group describes its movement as “a new ideology of the women’s sexual protest presented by extreme topless campaigns of direct action, FEMEN is sextremism serving to protect women’s rights, democracy watchdogs attacking patriarchy in all its forms: the dictatorship, the church, and the sex industry.” It is clear from this (information available on FEMEN’s English website) that the organization identifies as a ‘sextremist’ organization that is keen on attracting attention with their shock tactics. They continue to say, “FEMEN – is the new Amazons, capable to undermine the foundations of the patriarchal world by their intellect, sex, agility, make disorder, bring neurosis and panic to the men’s world. FEMEN – is the ability to feel the problems of the world, beat it with the naked truth and bare nerve. FEMEN – is a hot boobs, a cool head and clean hands. Be FEMEN – means to mobilize every cell of your body on a relentless struggle against centuries of slavery of women!”

This sort of rhetorical heavy handedness paired with their recent depictions of Islamic symbols in tandem with their nudity have been lightning rods for criticism. Particularly interesting has been the creation of a Muslim Women Against FEMEN Facebook page which features women holding signs with slogans rejecting the actions of FEMEN. Signs read: Nudity does not liberate me and I do not need saving as well as FEMEN, I am a strong woman, do I look like I need imperialists to free me from oppression? In many ways, the members of this group describe FEMEN with the same vocabulary FEMEN uses against its adversaries. That FEMEN has assumed the responsibility of speaking for these women in a manner in which they may not agree or for values they may not endorse has engendered a sense of resentment. At the crux of this seems to be the very manner in which FEMEN is communicating has become divisive, not necessarily the ideas they advocate. Few of the women in the Muslim Women Against FEMEN Facebook group seem to take issue with the principle issues surrounding women’s rights, but much more so with the commandeering of their voice, particularly in such a culturally different manner. Eline Gordst of the Huffington Post writes, “Pakistani-American feminist Farah Rishi pointed out that while protesting topless may seem an effective tool in a European context, the concept translates differently in the Middle East — making it perhaps not the most appropriate form to get across the message.”

Even with their radical rhetoric, FEMEN may occupy an important role as an agitator of sorts in the struggle for gender equity, but recent events show how problematic this is when applied across cultures. Protesting on behalf of another community while incorrectly and somewhat vulgarly using their identifiers has alienated the women meant to be served. Despite their intentions, FEMEN seems to have made a troublingly common mistake in appropriating Islamic imagery without its context and impressing Western values on an autonomous community. As we move closer to a global normalization of human rights, greater attention needs to be had for culturally contextualized communication.

 

A Call For Greater State-Led Gender Equity

Having grown enormously in importance and reach in recent decades, the domestic effort for gender equity has reached nearly every corner of our society. It’s found a stronger grounding in academia and public policy analysis, and developed a rich literature exploring the dynamic and multifaceted expressions of gender and  gender dynamics in many sociological, cultural, racial, and economic realms. It also seems to have found a home for itself in our culture with more frequent and substantial actions being taken in our daily lives, with new norms being reflected in the media.

Yet it seems that an often underestimated, and possibly forgotten, forum for the advancement of gender equity is the power each nation has in assuring  and promoting these human rights for each of its citizens. On December 18th, 1979, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was adopted by the UN General Assembly and has acted as an important codification of the rights of women. Intended to act as a bill of rights for women, this convention was signed by the United States and nearly 200 additional signatories and “provides the basis for realizing equality between women and men through ensuring women’s equal access to, and equal opportunities in, political and public life — including the right to vote and to stand for election — as well as education, health, and employment. States’ parties agree to take all appropriate measures, including legislation and temporary special measures, so that women can enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

An incredibly important moment for human rights and gender equity in the international arena, this convention is hugely significant in creating a set of international norms for the treatment of women and has allowed for more substantial international comparison. While this sort of international critique is an important aspect of any social movement, it is important that we not only use this sort of international lens to critique others but also turn the lens on ourselves, learning from the practices and norms of other nations.

Sadly, this lens isn’t as flattering as we may assume. According to The Global Gender Gap Index 2012, the United States ranks 22 out of 135 measured nations in terms of gender equality and is outranked by nations like Nicaragua (9), Lethoso (14),  and South Africa (16). This index is designed by the World Economic Forum as a “framework for capturing the magnitude and scope of gender-based disparities and tracking their progress. The Index benchmarks national gender gaps on economic, political, education, and health criteria, and provides country rankings that allow for effective comparisons across regions and income groups, and over time.”

So who are the international leaders in gender equality and what do we have to learn from them to improve our domestic situation? “Seven European countries rank among the top 10 and 14 countries rank among the top 20” making the European region the international leader. One driving force behind this is the profound commitment found among the Nordic nations as “all, with the exception of Denmark, have closed over 80% of the gender gap and thus serve as models and useful benchmarks for international comparisons.”

With an incredible list of gender equitable policies, the report goes on to say, “Nordic countries, on the whole, these economies have made it possible for parents to combine work and family, resulting in high female employment participation rates, more shared participation in childcare, more equitable distribution of labour at home, better work-life balance for both women and men and in some cases a boost to declining fertility rates. Policies in these countries include mandatory paternal leave in combination with maternity leave, generous federally mandated parental leave benefits provided by a combination of social insurance funds and employers, tax incentives and post-maternity re-entry programmes. The Nordic experience points to fewer problems with ageing in the future, as well as higher labour activity and a more robust economy” (GGG Index 2012).

It is clear that the Nordic nations’ strong record of  gender equity is benefiting them and is firmly tied to strong state leadership. As shown, national policies have created a more inclusive, equitable, and productive environment in government, business, and their nation as a whole. While the United States has a proud tradition of social mobility and equality, international comparisons allow us to gauge our performance and take a critical look at the credibility of social mobility and equality of women within our domestic systems. These comparisons often highlight institutional rules and roadblocks and force us to realize that things don’t have to be the way they are. While this sort of thinking is often used to reassure ourselves of our progression in comparison to the plight faced by many, it seems time we also use this information to follow the example of our international peers.

Women in Combat

The U.S. military, often seen as a conservative organization, has recently become a trailblazer in social progress with forward-thinking decisions that embrace (or at least begun to accept) the position minority groups have within its ranks. Importantly among these is the milestone decision in gender equality and equal opportunity.

On January 24^th, 2013, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, with a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that women would no longer be excluded from direct ground combat. This announcement revokes the Department of Defense policy, revised in 1994, which made it so that “women may not be assigned to units, below the brigade level, whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground. Primarily, this means that women are barred from infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, and special operations units of battalion size or smaller.” This announcement follows a pattern of modernization in our military policy that in many ways reflects the changing position women hold in our society.

In 1948, Congress passed the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act which permanently incorporated women into military, albeit with caps on the proportion they were to constitute. In large part because of the equal rights movement and the end of the draft, the role of women expanded and throughout 1970s a patchwork of incorporative legislation moved through Congress. But the ongoing war in Afghanistan and recent war in Iraq have shown a spotlight on the contributions of female service members and is thought to have catalyzed the recent changes.

Department of Defense data shows that as of late February 2012, a total of 20,062 females were deployed constituting 10.92% of total forces.  The LA Times comments that “Panetta’s decision was seen as a recognition of women’s contributions to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Because of the demand for troops, women often found themselves on the front lines serving as drivers, medics, mechanics and in other roles when commanders attached their units to combat battalions. They didn’t receive combat decorations or other special recognition, however.” President Obama also commented on this occasion saying, “This milestone reflects the courageous and patriotic service of women through more than two centuries of American history and the indispensable role of women in today’s military.”

Although some occupations may be closed to women by exception, and only based on the approval of the respective defense secretary, the lifting of the ban on women in direct combat roles opens significant doors for enlisted females. This decision is to make available up to 237,000 positions and remove the obstacle of not having combat experience, often a hindrance to promotions and climbing military rank.

Interesting questions have arisen in this debate and often focus on the responsibility for equality on both sides. Particularly intriguing is if women should now be required to register with the Military Selective Service Act, as almost all men aged 18 through 25 are currently required to do. Additionally will women and men be held to the same physical standards deemed necessary to complete their duties? It will be interesting to see how our representative address these issues as this policy change comes into fruition.

Male Birth Control… Pills?

Options in the Upcoming Reality of Male Birth Control

Within any sexual relationship, there are consequences that arise from the activities preformed. Not least among these consequences is the threat of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Due to the seemingly innumerable amount of contraceptives available, this risk has been heavily negated. The contraceptive chosen most often by US women of childbearing age is the birth control pill, a highly effective, convenient, and generally affordable option. It has freed women from a reliance on male use of contraceptives which, in turn, has led to increased female sexual independence and control. Additionally, through its interference with egg release and increase of cervical mucus, it can be up to 99% effective, if taken correctly. It has even been shown to facilitate lighter and less painful periods, clearer skin, and bring the user premenstrual syndrome relief.

With information like this, the pill seems to be a wonder drug. What could be better than such an effective option that’s so non-evasive? Yet, this story, as many of us feared, is too good to be true. Recent findings from Indiana University show an increasing amount of side effects associated with the pill. While the more bothersome symptoms (nausea, breast tenderness, fatigue, etc.) have been generally well understood, the findings show that there may be more unsettling side effects. As reported on The Daily Beast, “An Indiana University study presented this week at the American Public Health Association’s annual meeting examined the sexual side effects of all hormonal forms of birth control through a survey of 1,101 women, half of whom were using non-hormonal contraception. The women using the pill and other hormonal methods reported feeling generally less sexy than those using non-hormonal protection. They had fewer orgasms and less-frequent sex, and found it more difficult to get aroused.”

Some of the most popular forms of birth control are condoms and the pill. While women have many options outside of the pill, men seem to be stuck a rock and a hard place. But what if there was another way for men to prevent pregnancies while still being sexually active?

In what only seems like a cruel irony, the most preferred, affordable, and available contraceptive for women has troubling sexual side effects. How can this issue be addressed and contraceptive use made more compatible and safe for women? Technological and medicinal advances may hold the answer, but not in the manner you may expect. Instead of further tampering with the complicated internal reproductive systems of women, the responsibility for using contraceptives may be better suited for men. Although there are contraceptive options for men, many complain that they interfere with fully enjoying sex and one’s sexual life as vasectomies are invasive (and require additional surgery to reverse) and condoms frequently reduce sensation. The answer may not come in a pill form. Several non-hormonal contraceptives are being developed which show significant promise of offering reversible and safe options to prevent pregnancy. From proposed ultrasounds to heat therapies, male contraceptives are being explored at an exciting rate.

With a more viable male contraceptive, men and women in relationships may be able to share their contraceptive responsibility more equally and capitalize on the differences in anatomy to create the safest and easiest option for both.

—–

Check out these sites for more male contraceptive information!

New Male Contraception

Male Contraceptives

MSNBC Men’s Health: New Cancer Drug Affects Sperm

Why I Want A Male Birth Control Pill (Personal Essay)

Feminism Doesn’t Discriminate Against Genitalia, Why Should You?

Most of the time I try to not think about it, because if I do it just makes me sad and not a whole person. I feel a part of my body is stolen from me without any permission. I was only 6-years-old when they cut me in pieces and threw it away for no good reason at all.

Remember this quote for the conclusion of this piece. It is part of a personal account given by a survivor of genital mutilation, speaking to the emotional and physical scars left behind from this operation. Genital mutilation, often defined as “any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs,” has received worldwide attention and quickly become a divisive issue for the international community. Exposing cultural and religious rifts, genital mutilation has called into question the limits of what can be legitimately explained or justified through cultural, traditional, and religious rational. While being denounced and discouraged by the Western world and large international organizations like the United Nations, nearly 140 million women worldwide have experienced the specter of female genital mutilation (FGM). These women have survived operations in which their clitoris, labia majora, labia minora, or other areas of their genitalia may be partially or wholly removed with or without any sort of anesthetic. Women may also be subjected to forms of “pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterizing” to the genital area. These procedures have no medical benefit to the patients and are often carried through “to help her resist ‘illicit’ sexual acts,” and/or increase her femininity, beauty, and cleanliness.  There is no lack of long term consequences as well. For those operated on, usually between infancy and age fifteen, long-term consequences may include infection, infertility, childbirth complications, corrective surgery, and a slew of mental effects.

Fortunately, FGM has been thrust into the spotlight and the plight of these women is being recognized. A prominent United Nations organization, the World Health Organization, has recognized this practice as a human rights violation towards affected girls and women, stating that it

reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

In addition to its condemnation by the United Nations, FGM is illegal in many Western nations such as Australia, Canada, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America as well as multiple African nations (“Female genital mutilation.”). It is promising that this issue is at the center of an often too illusive world spotlight, but it must continue to remain fixedly there or risk devolving back to what it was before it became an addressed issue.

However far the conversation concerning genital mutilation has gone, there is still a concerning blind spot. Male genital mutilation, which most often takes the form of circumcision, is rarely discussed. Although many parallels in the logic against mutilation between the sexes exists, it is rarely extended to males. Male circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin, a sensitive part of the male genitalia which contains thousands of highly sensitive nerve endings and plays many important functions in regards to general health and sexual function. This practice is most often performed on infants in the United States, African nations, and the Middle East, and has historical ties to the Abrahamic faiths, particularly Judaism. The United States has one of the highest circumcision rates in the world, with 79% of the male population being circumcised (Waskett). Many of the same arguments in favor of female circumcision are made for male circumcision, which include cleanliness, coming-of-age rituals, religious reasoning, and aesthetics. Unfortunately, the concern regarding the medical and ethical foundation of this practice has not been extended to male circumcision. The United Nations has remained disturbingly silent on the manner and there is almost no formal recognition of the issue within the USA.

So we end up with the question, how is it that the human rights violated by female circumcision are not also violated when applied to males? Both involve removing sensitive portions of the sex organs, have little medical validity, are frequently performed in unsanitary conditions, and can lead to highly damaging mental and physical effects. While an adult has the right to alter their body as they see fit, should the mutilation of infants of either sex be an accepted practice? When there is no personal choice in the manner, this is a troubling scenario. Several European nations have stepped up to the plate in considering legislation granting males the same rights and protections of females. Jenny Klinge, a spokesperson for Norway’s Centre Party, summarizes the issue, saying,

In my view, this is a custom that we cannot accept in a modern, civilized society. Our aim is to prioritize the rights of small children. Fortunately, it has become forbidden to circumcise girls, now it’s time for boys to get the same legal protection. I’m not buying the argument that banning circumcision is a violation of religious freedom, because such freedom must involve being able to choose for themselves. It represents an irreversible operation on a boy who is not in a position to protect himself, and as such is in breach of basic human rights (Duke).

In what should not be reduced to competition between the two, male circumcision must receive the same attention and concern that FGM has garnered. As a movement grounded in gender equality and against body shaming, feminism is posed to enact change and protect the fundamental human rights of all males and females. This is an issue that must not be ignored with either gender, but male circumcision, in particular, cannot be discounted as merely a far-off or backwards tradition, as it’s happening at an alarming rate in our nation and many others. As with most issues of social justice and advocacy, inaction does nothing. Nineteenth century philosopher, John Stuart Mill, stated that “a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.”

(Which Do You Cut?)

So what can be done? There are many simple steps that can be taken to address this issue:

• Educate yourself ~ As with any issue, knowing more about the subject at hand does nothing but help. There are a number of websites that speak to the cultural reasoning, ethical considerations, and medical complications for genital mutilation of both genders. Here are some particularly helpful websites:
  • Wikipedia.org ~ a great source for general information and overviews of the arguments for and against, as well as general physical information of the practices and genitalia involved
  • Banning circumcision: Against the cut ~ speaks to the ‘intactivist’ movement in America
  • World Health Organization: Female genital mutilation ~ an amazing fact sheet pooling statistics from across the world and succinctly summarizing the issue of female genital mutilation
• Be a responsible parent ~ Leave the decision of what your child’s genitalia will consist of to your child. It is your child’s right to make their own decision on what will be done with their body and they deserve to make their own decision on what their future health and sexual life should look like.
• Remove the stigma ~ Open a dialogue about the issue and help remove the stigma and silence surrounding male and female circumcision.  This short, and quite vulgar, clip from Sex in the City (Sex in the City ‘Uncut’) shows the disturbing attitude many American women make towards uncircumcised penises and circumcision in general. This is a glaring example of sexism and body shaming that has become terribly normalized. No partner, in a healthy relationship, should be objectified or made to feel unwanted for how they were born.

Can you tell from the quote at the beginning of this entry if the recipient of the genital mutilation was a male or female? With effects and consequences so similar, it should not matter. Genital mutilation is a fundamental violation to any person’s human rights and each of us must play an active role in the fight against the violation of human rights for any issues to be solved.

Works Cited

Duke, Barry. “Religious leaders furious over Norway’s proposed circumcision ban.” The Freethinker, 17 June 2012. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/06/17/religious-leaders-furious-over-norways-proposed-circumcision-ban>.

“Female genital mutilation.” Media Center. World Health Organization, Feb. 2012. Web. 30 June 2012. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/>.

Sara254. “I Am Circumcised Female Too.” Experience Project. EP, 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 13 July 2012. <http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Am-A-Circumcised-Female/2153591>.

Waskett, Jake H. “Global circumcision rates.” Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service. CIRCS, 25 Apr. 2012. Web. 13 July 2012. <http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global>.

Which Do You Cut? Web. 14 July 2012. <http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/cut-documentary-film-on-fgm-female.html>.