Judging the Other: Responding to Traditional Female Genital Surgeries

  • Lane S
  • Rubinstein R
80Citations
Citations of this article
68Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Traditional female genital circumcision, or female genital mutilation, performed upon women in some non-Western cultures has provoked considerable international controversy since the late 1970s. Western feminists, physicians, and ethicists condemn such practice. Having made moral judgement against female genital mutilation, however, what is the next step? There is clearly an impasse between cultural relativism on the one hand and universalism on the other. Those at the forefront of the debate on female genital mutilation must learn to work respectfully with, instead of independently of, local resources for cultural self-examination and change. The authors discuss cultural relativism and moral universalism; female circumcision in sections on epidemiology, health effects, and culture, religion, and social change; the debate historically; the response of Arab and African women; and moving beyond the impasse.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lane, S. D., & Rubinstein, R. A. (1996). Judging the Other: Responding to Traditional Female Genital Surgeries. The Hastings Center Report, 26(3), 31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527930

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free