In 1994, a United States immigration judge lifted an order to deport a woman named Lydia Oluloro. Deportation would have forced her to either leave her five- and six-year-old children in America with an abusive father or take them with her to Nigeria. There, they would have been at risk of a genital cutting practice called infibulation, in which the labia majora and minora are trimmed and fused, leaving a small opening for urination and menstruation.
Many Americans will agree that the judge made a good decision, as children shouldn’t be separated from their mothers, left with dangerous family members, or subjected to an unnecessary and irreversible operation that they do not understand. I am among these Americans. However, I am also of the view that Americans who oppose unfamiliar genital cutting practices should think long and hard about how they articulate their opposition.
The judge in the Oluloro case, Kendall Warren, articulated his opposition like this:
This court attempts to respect traditional cultures ... but [infibulation] is cruel and serves no known medical purpose. It’s obviously a deeply ingrained cultural tradition going back 1,000 years at least.
Let’s consider the judge’s logic carefully. First, by contrasting the “court” (by which he means America) with “traditional cultures,” the judge is contrasting us (America) with a them(Nigeria). He’s implying that only places like Nigeria are “traditional”—a euphemism for states seen as backward, regressive, and uncivilized—while the U.S. is “modern,” a state conflated with progressiveness and enlightenment.
[For more of this story, written by Lisa Wade, go to http://www.psmag.com/health-an...male-genital-cutting]
Comments (0)