Paul Farmer, a world-renowned global health leader, describes structural violence as “social arrangements that put individuals in harm’s way (Farmer, 2006, p.2).” These factors are enshrined in the social and political framework of a social community. These are normally enshrined in social and political frameworks within societies. From the perspective of gender and development, structural violence heightens gender inequalities. It is rooted in discriminatory social, economic, and political systems that harm women or men and hinder their development. These inequalities manifest as unequal access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. Structural violence particularly impacts women’s ability to meet basic needs, reduces their agency, and traps them in a cycle of vulnerability, poverty, and disempowerment. This blog post looks at how Female Genital Mutilation is an example of a structural violence that has plagued many communities in Africa, but specifically the Pokot people in Uganda.
Female Genital Mutilation: Uganda’s Perspective
In Uganda, FGM is an example of a structural violence practiced initiating girls from childhood into adulthood. It is, however, a harmful practice that could result in hemorrhage, infection, chronic pain, childbirth complications, and even death in severe cases (UN Women, 2022). In Uganda, Female Genital Mutilation is illegal and punishable by law. However, it is still practiced in some communities that belief that it’s a mandatory rite of passage for girls. FGM is therefore a good example of a structural violence rooted in strong cultural, tribal, and social beliefs. FGM is not just practiced in communities like Pokot; it is also a global issue. Globally, over 230 girls have undergone FGM, with 144 of these coming from Africa (UNICEF, 2024). Addressing FGM is important because when this practice continues, it can lead to severe physical and psychological trauma, which can negatively affect women’s ability to engage in economic work (Abdulcadir, 2014). As a result, there have been strategies put in place to address this structural violence.
The persistence of FGM significantly undermines efforts to improve women's health outcomes and economic opportunities, as it can lead to severe physical and psychological trauma, limiting women's ability to participate fully in social and economic life (Abdulcadir et al., 2014).
Driving Out FGM in Uganda
Cynthia is using her childhood experience to advocate against FGM in communities where it is still practiced. Cynthia’s advocacy efforts are part of a larger body of strategies being used to address FGM. Some strategies utilized to drive out FGM in the rural Uganda communities INCLUDE THE USE of community dialogues, communications, and media to tackle the root cause and address the social dynamics that result in FGM being practiced. Stakeholder engagement towards ensuring community gatekeepers as sensitized about the dangers of FGM and brought on board as advocates against this practice is another strategy that has been employed. Some the stakeholders engaged include community elders who are influential leaders who gatekeep traditions and norms. Finally, a group of individuals referred to as community activist are another group that goes into communities and talks to community members about the dangers and risks of FGM towards driving out this harmful practice from communities.
FGM is an example of a structural violence that directly affects women and if not addressed will continue to have negative health impacts on the lives of women all around the world.
References
Rooting out FGM in rural Uganda | UN Women – Headquarters. (2022, February 2). UN Women – Headquarters. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/feature-story/2022/02/rooting-out-fgm-in-rural-uganda
UNICEF. (2024,March).Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/female-genital-mutilation/
Abdulcadir, J., Rodríguez, M., & Say, L. (2014). Research gaps in the care of women with female genital mutilation: an analysis. Bjog an International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 122(3), 294-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13217
Comments
Post a Comment