ABSTRACT
How can the Geneva Convention’s human rights approach best eliminate patriarchal wounds? Unsustainable, piecemeal efforts to end excision, a vested interest defended by the misguided conflation of culture with tradition, have fallen short despite community-led programs. Public will, together with indigenous oppositional strategies, can, however, sever the anchor of culture. This chapter maps the nexus between human rights, gender equality, and the forces sustaining debilitating practices. Among these is the frequent twinning of female genital mutilation and early child marriage (ECM), and although this relationship remains muted here, it has explanatory power as an expression of subordination under patriarchy of control and ownership of young females. Now, ECM takes place where FGM does not, and vice versa. Yet a temporal connection exists, especially in impoverished villages, and raises pecuniary questions vis-à-vis FGM. How does socio-economic status impact female oppression? Does inculcating “manly” virtues and hegemonic masculinity reinforce men’s power over women? If men also suffer from FGM, what motivates them to continue – or desist? Officially, African regimes support the human rights of women (see the Maputo Protocol at the end of Part 3). Why, then, the gap between theory and practice? This chapter scopes data from DHS and UNICEF surveys and reviews accounts from Djibouti, Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, Senegal, and Sierra Leone. Men’s attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions are critical if lawmakers and academics are to identify deficient policy and improve protocols.
