THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY

The New York Times’ decision to refer to FGM (female genital mutilation) as "female genital cutting" downplays the oppressive nature of the act, argues Slate’s Christina Cauterucci. In her view, the invasive procedure involves far more than just "cutting," and should always be called a mutilation to highlight its horridness. She highlights how "cutting" is far more likely to be seen as a medical procedure, making it seem warranted, which it never is. The New York Times' decision to pursue political correctness around such a sensitive topic is wildly misguided, believes Cauterucci.

Keep on reading at Slate

Celia Dugger of the New York Times used the term "cutting" to refer to FGM (female genital mutilation) in order to stay away from using Western-centric language to describe an act generally performed in Africa, reports Alex Griswold of Free Beacon. He writes that she made this decision based on her own experiences as a journalist in Togo and the Ivory Coast, insinuating that it gave her a better understanding of the cultural relevance of the practice. She stresses that FGM can be horribly damaging, but that there is a spectrum of severity that Westerners tend to be unaware of.

Keep on reading at Free Beacon
50.0%
Where do you stand?
50.0%
SHOW COMMENTS
Write a response...
See what else you’re missing
single