Fauziya Kassindaja is a woman who fled her country and came in America in 1996 because she was being forced to have an excision. Excision, or female circumcision, is a procedure that involves mutilating a female’s genitals in a way that results in her no longer being able to receive pleasure from sexual intercourse. Fauziya was the youngest of five daughters who had all been able to avoid excision because of their father’s wealth, but when she was sixteen, he died suddenly. This caused her aunt to gain custody and therefore control of her and she was suddenly being forced into a procedure and a marriage that she did not want. Luckily, her mother and sisters were able to help her escape to America where they thought she would be able to find
…show more content…
The three central stakeholders we will look into further are people within this culture, people outside of this culture, and Americans. The technical problem in this case is how the customs of other cultures should be regarded. Excision is considered a form of torture, and most cultures consider torture to be immoral. This is also true for the American culture, but it is not true for Fauziya’s culture or for the culture in 28 other African nations. This leads to the ethical issue of how we handle other cultures. In order to solve this ethical problem we will first consider the case from the view of people within this culture. For these people excision is not only considered normal, but also as a right of passage. Men of this culture don’t want to marry an excised because they are considered unclean and immature. They use this procedure to make women less likely to cheat or be promiscuous, prevent unplanned pregnancies, and, by removing the distraction of sex, they believe women will be more attentive to their husbands and children. As you can see, this perspective involves focusing on the benefits of excision in order to draw attention away from the terrible …show more content…
The view of Americans is different from the perspective of people outside of this culture, because America has past experience with something similar to this that gives some different perspective to the case. Americans were responsible for the genocide to the Native Americans. This means we have experience with judging another culture and deciding their fate based on our own moral standards. So, from the perspective of Americans, it’s better safe than sorry when it comes to judging cultures that choose to practice excision. But it is important to know that there is a difference between simply making a judgment of a culture and applying diplomatic pressure to said culture. In conclusion, I personally believe that forcing women to have surgery against their will is morally wrong, and therefore excision is wrong. Most people outside of this culture, especially women, will agree with me. Nevertheless, I do not believe that one culture should be able to tell another what’s right and what’s not. Therefore, I guess my conclusion is still inconclusive. Although many will agree that excision is wrong, many will also agree that it’s not their place to decide what goes on in other cultures, and that will cause the cycle to continue for
The three central stakeholders we will look into further are people within this culture, people outside of this culture, and Americans. The technical problem in this case is how the customs of other cultures should be regarded. Excision is considered a form of torture, and most cultures consider torture to be immoral. This is also true for the American culture, but it is not true for Fauziya’s culture or for the culture in 28 other African nations. This leads to the ethical issue of how we handle other cultures. In order to solve this ethical problem we will first consider the case from the view of people within this culture. For these people excision is not only considered normal, but also as a right of passage. Men of this culture don’t want to marry an excised because they are considered unclean and immature. They use this procedure to make women less likely to cheat or be promiscuous, prevent unplanned pregnancies, and, by removing the distraction of sex, they believe women will be more attentive to their husbands and children. As you can see, this perspective involves focusing on the benefits of excision in order to draw attention away from the terrible …show more content…
The view of Americans is different from the perspective of people outside of this culture, because America has past experience with something similar to this that gives some different perspective to the case. Americans were responsible for the genocide to the Native Americans. This means we have experience with judging another culture and deciding their fate based on our own moral standards. So, from the perspective of Americans, it’s better safe than sorry when it comes to judging cultures that choose to practice excision. But it is important to know that there is a difference between simply making a judgment of a culture and applying diplomatic pressure to said culture. In conclusion, I personally believe that forcing women to have surgery against their will is morally wrong, and therefore excision is wrong. Most people outside of this culture, especially women, will agree with me. Nevertheless, I do not believe that one culture should be able to tell another what’s right and what’s not. Therefore, I guess my conclusion is still inconclusive. Although many will agree that excision is wrong, many will also agree that it’s not their place to decide what goes on in other cultures, and that will cause the cycle to continue for