By Nardos Hagos (The Orchid Project)
The work to end female genital cutting (FGC) can sometimes seem insurmountable. We know that the practice is linked to deep-rooted social and gender norms that have become entrenched over generations. If there is any chance of eliminating FGC then this is where our focus needs to be.
However, shifting norms that have taken root over generations will take a long time. In the meantime, ARP has been lauded as a way to maintain culture while avoiding the cut. There isn’t one set definition of ARP, but in their most popular and basic form they offer an alternative to cutting that can include a ceremony and an alternative rite, such as pouring milk over the lap of the girl.
The obvious benefit of this is that the community continues to mark the significance of a girl’s transition into womanhood, while the girl avoids the potentially life-long consequences of being cut.
A win-win for everyone, right?
People are conflicted about the efficacy of ARP. There is as yet no clear evidence to show that the use of ARP in communities where FGC is practised as a rite of passage actually works, although research by Amref Health Africa suggests that community-led ARPs (CLARPs) can lead to a reduction in the prevalence of FGC. A recent report from the Population Council on the effectiveness of interventions found there is not enough evidence to show that ARP works. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence has shown that many girls who undergo ARP are still subjected to FGC.
Development agencies such as the Orchid Project and the UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme for the Elimination of FGM have been exploring the potential of gender transformative approaches in tackling FGC. The thinking here is that FGC is a result of deeply entrenched harmful gender norms, and if we are to end the practice, we need an approach that aims to rectify the inequity between girls and women, and boys and men.
To what extent does this approach align with ARP?
The purpose of FGC when practised as a rite of passage is to ‘prepare’ a girl for womanhood and marriage. FGC is believed to ensure virginity, fidelity and cleanliness. Therefore FGC cannot be divorced from harmful gender norms that emphasize/promote virginity, encourage early marriage and view girls only as future wives and mothers. This limits the range of possibilities for the lives of girls and women. Furthermore, FGC is not a standalone harmful practice; for instance, we know that girls who are cut are more likely to be forced into early marriage. Then there is the stigma. If a girl has the agency to refuse FGC, she is likely to face huge disapproval and discrimination from her community. This can be devastating, for the girl and her family – a burden no child should have to carry.
So, FGC is not a harmful gender norm in isolation. It operates in a wider system of gender inequity and inequality that needs to be addressed using a holistic approach.
As they stand, ARPs are not gender transformative. They keep in place the entire system, while only removing the cut. Despite little evidence of the effectiveness of ARP in reducing FGC prevalence, some argue that their not being gender transformative is OK. As long as we remove the cut we are ‘saving’ girls from being cut, or delaying it until they are old enough to have bodily autonomy. If so, what is the problem?
The problem is that we cannot separate FGC from what underpins it – patriarchal systems, gender inequity, economic disparity, and telling girls that their value lies in marriage and child rearing. We cannot separate FGC from the fact that girls who undergo it are more likely to leave school early, and/or be married while they are still children. As is the case with any issue, if we don’t address the root cause of the problem, in this case harmful gender norms, ARP (or any other short-term intervention) is likely to be ineffective. Any interventions aimed at ending FGC should strive to strengthen girls’ agency and provide the support and opportunities girls need to thrive.