ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
Female Genital Mutilation is widespread in Kenya and globally. With it come myths and misconceptions creating misinformation on the practice to stigmatize against ‘the uncut’. Reports by global agencies and scholars have delved into the topic and findings suggests a lacuna in this cultural practice. Deeper understanding of misconceptions promoting the practice through stereotyping and stigmatization concerns this research. The United Nations put in place efforts to create global awareness through a dedicated day, ‘The International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation’, first marked in 2003. The Kenya Demographic and Health Survey (2020) reports the national its prevalence at 21%, despite stakeholder efforts. Nevertheless, communities practicing FGM argue of more than just ‘the cut’ hence their stigma justification. The paper aims at unravelling misinformation about FGM through investigating how knowledge levels contribute to its prevalence in Kenya; demystifying myths and misconceptions around the practice; evaluating the efforts by agencies in the campaign against FGM; and also establishing alternative knowledge sharing mechanisms on the FGM practices. Using mixed approaches in data collection and reports collating, the researchers established that the practice in communities is highly stigmatized and those not initiated were deemed social misfits. Much ground had been covered in demystification of the practice while much remains shrouded in cultural mystery. Significance is attached to the practice across generations and the initiation process is also considered an opportunity to pass over cultural values. Alternative approaches towards understanding FGM could grant further research into communities maintaining valuable cultural aspects while shunning ‘the cut’ for being retrogressive.
Abusharaf, R. M. (2000) Revisiting Feminist Discourses on Infibulation: Responses from Sudanese feminists, in Shell-Duncan and Hedlund (ed.), Female ‘Circumcision’ in Africa
Amnesty International Vlaanderen. (2004). Vrouwelijke Genitale Verminking, Factsheet. Available online: https://www.aivl.be/sites/default/files/bijlagen/Vrouwelijke_Genitale_Verminking_ versiejul08.pdf
Barnawi, N. A. (2018). The Effects of a Digital Educational Intervention On Undergraduate Nursing Students’ Attitudes, Knowledge and Self-Efficacy with Female Genital Cutting. State University of New York at Binghamton.
Berg, R. C., & Denison, E. (2013). A tradition in transition: factors perpetuating and hindering the continuance of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) summarized in a systematic review. Health Care for Women International, 34(10), 837–859.
Berg, R. C., Denison, E. M.-L., & Fretheim, A. (2010). Factors promoting and hindering the practice of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services.
Loloju, B. F. M. (n.d.). Understanding the kenya prohibition of female genital mutilation act,2011. Understanding the Kenya Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act,2011, 2, 20.
Fee, E. (1980). The Hosken report: Genital and sexual mutilation of females. JSTOR.
Isman, E., Warsame, M. A., Johansson, A., Fried, S., & Berggren, V. (2013). Midwives’ experiences in providing care and counselling to women with female genital mutilation (FGM) related problems. Obstetrics and Gynecology International, 2013.
Kakela, E. (2020). Rethinking female genital cutting: from culturalist to structuralist framework for challenging violence against women.
Kandala, N.-B., Kinyoki, D., Sarki, A., Gathara, D., Komba, P., & Shell-Duncan, B. (2017). Modeling and mapping of girls’ female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) in the context of economic, social, and regional disparities: Kenya Demographic and Health Surveys 1998-2014.
Kenya News Agency. (2018). No Title. FGM.
Kenya Bureau of Statistics-Government of Kenya. Demographic and Health Survey 2014. Rockfield, MD USA 2016 https://dhsprogramcom/publications/publication-fr308-dhs-final-reportscfm Accessed 11 May 2022.
KNBS. (2019). Kenya population and housing census volume 1: population by county and sub-county.
Lightfoot-Klein, H. (1983). Pharaonic circumcision of females in the Sudan. Med. & L., 2, 353.
Matanda, D., & Kabiru, C. W. (2019). Using Demographic and Health Surveys in the campaign to end FGM/C: A Kenyan example.
NeWS, K. (2020). No Title. FGM and Child Marriages among the Communities.
O’Neill, S., Bader, D., Kraus, C., Godin, I., Abdulcadir, J., & Alexander, S. (2020). Rethinking the Anti-FGM Zero-Tolerance Policy: from Intellectual Concerns to Empirical Challenges. Current Sexual Health Reports, 1–10.
Oloo, H., Wanjiru, M., & Newell-Jones, K. (2011). Female Genital Mutilation Practices in Kenya: the role of alternative rites of passage. A case study of Kisii and Kuria districts.
Organization, W. H. (1996). Female genital mutilation: report of a WHO technical working group, Geneva, 17-19 July 1995. World Health Organization.
Pinheiro, Y. A. N., Moore, Z., & Gathara, D. (2019). Associations between FGM/C and HIV in Ethiopia, the Gambia, Kenya, and Sierra Leone: A limited analysis of Demographic and Health Survey data.
Republic of Kenya. (2019): National Policy for The Eradication of Female Genital Mutilation Towards a society free from harmful cultural practices
Sereya, L. (2015). The response of Maasai people in regard to initiatives to stop female genital cutting: a case study of Imbirikani group ranch. University of Nairobi.
UNICEF. (2020). No Title. FGM, FGM prevalence.
Yasin et al. 2011.pdf. (n.d.).
UNICEF. (2013). Female Genital Mutilation /cutting: a statistical and exploration of the Dynamics of change.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, (2008). Embu District Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey.
Population Council & Njue, C. (2004). Medicalization of Female Genital Cutting among
In-Text Citation: (Mukabi et al., 2022)
To Cite this Article: Mukabi, F., Chepngeno, V., & Onchagwa, D. (2022). The “Uncut” Stigma: Debunking the Myths and Misconceptions that Promote Female Genital Mutilation in Kenya. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 12(7), 1978 – 1995.
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode