Female Genital Mutilation - Essay Example

I. Introduction Having slight similarity in its ability to kindle an emotional response, the tradition of female circumcision has been encountering severe international attention from news media outlets, health professionals, policymakers, feminist and human rights advocates. Even though resistance to female circumcision has been expressed in the last century, beginning with colonial rulers and missionaries, the present revival of resentment was triggered in part by protesters at conferences commemorating the United Nations Decade for Women (1975-1985). A practice originally disputed as a moral loss has slowly been remodel in discourse on the general wellbeing and health and empowerment of women and international human rights (Nour 2000). Reconsideration has occurred: the domestic has turned out to be an international issue, ‘female circumcision’ has been renamed to ‘female genital mutilation’ (FGM), whereas a ‘traditional practice’ has turned out to be a human rights violation (Shweder 2000). Under the scrutiny of the international community, the subject of female circumcision became a capsule of several affective debates regarding international human rights, sexuality, oppression of women, racism, Western prejudice, medicalization and cultural relativism, leading into a burgeoning of discourses and literature on the subject matter. However, misapprehension, uncertainty, and disagreement over the intricate aspects of this concern have not been resolved. Certainly, the set of literature on female circumcision is to a certain extent dispersed and contrasting, falling into different disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, history, demography, social work, political science, epidemiology, public health policy, and women’s studies. One of my objectives in discussing this human phenomenon is to bridge some of these theoretical limitations through integrating contributions from different fields, ideological and geographic settings and hence emphasizing arising perspectives and associated aspects of the present debates. The tradition of female circumcision compels researchers and commonplace observers alike, inside and outside the intellectual community, to face more expansive philosophical and moral concerns. As stated by an anthropologist, “the very decision to write (or not) about the topic has become a political statement, and so is one’s choice on tone and terminology” (Gosselin 1996: 1). Based on a Western feminist perspective, it seems to be obvious that this practice is a desecration of the human rights of women. The fact that it survives is believed as accountable to extensive male ascendancy over women within tribal communities. It is unquestionable, thus far as from the Western feminist perspective, that the practice should be forbidden. A fully developed woman accepting the tradition willingly is perceived as analogous to a battered wife who chose to live with her husband: she is imprudent and takes actions out of fear. The issue, nevertheless, is more multifaceted than this. There are fervent advocates of the practice who dispute from an evidently rational perspective and there are those who zealously fight for the banning of the quite inhumane ritual practice. This essay will review critically and analyze a number of conceptual paradigms that have been recommended to address this concern in both contexts. Primarily, I will discuss the traditional practice of female circumcision and its many components. Then, I will discuss arguments pertaining to female genital mutilation as a human rights violation. II. Female Genital Mutilation: The Traditional Practice A wide range of traditional, cultural and religious practices is carried out cross-culturally all over the world. Female circumcision, also referred to as female genital mutilation (FGM) is a traditional practice that has ignited controversy among multitudes of people from other cultures unfamiliar to the practice. They have raised the concern of whether female circumcision is an observance that should be supported or even permitted to continue at all. Nevertheless, a closer look on the many components of this traditional practice is valuable. In the article of L.A. Briggs, she puts emphasis on the concern of female genital mutilation in Nigeria, specifically in the Ekpeye village. An evident, all-embracing description of female genital mutilation is given, traditional operations that involve cutting away parts of the female external genitalia, or other injury to the female genitals, whether for cultural or any non- therapeutic reason (Nour 2000: 50). All the scholarly texts I have stumbled upon simply defined FGM as any type of wounding or marring the female genitalia. There were also five different kinds of circumcision discussed. The least brutal kind is the ritualistic circumcision, which is merely done through cutting the clitoris. Then there is sunna circumcision in which the clitoral hood is severed. Then there is clitoridectomy or cutting out is the amputation of the clitoris and the labia minora. The most severe kind is called infibulation or also referred to as pharaonic circumcision. This is done through removing the clitoris and the labia minora. Afterwards, the labia majora are severed or grated and the raw edges are stitched together to plaster the urethral and vaginal apertures. A small stick is a tool used to provide an opening for urine and menstrual flow. The legs of the female then are fastened together for a specified period of time until the lesion is healed. The scar tissue is usually opened again with a razor-sharp implement on the female’s honeymoon and during childbirth (Ericksen 1989). Another kind of circumcision involves the aforementioned processes and includes placing acidic materials and herbs inside the vagina. The most frequent kinds of FGM are infibulation and clitoridectomy. Circumcision is typically performed with a very young female, usually 3-8 years old, prior to their first menstruation, even though, circumcision based on age varies geographically. In most regions where FGM is carried out it is done so with no anaesthesia. A girl is commonly restrained by some women, while a midwife or an elder performs the surgical procedure. In several areas, wounds are coated with animal dung or mud to assist in blood clotting (Carr 1997). Female circumcision, the half-done or total removal of the external female genitalia, has been an African practice for centuries, usually as one component of a ceremony or a rite of passage preparing girls for adulthood and marriage. Frequently carried out with no aesthetic under infected circumstances by medical practitioners with trivial or no knowledge of medicine or human anatomy, female genital mutilation can bring about death or long-term illnesses and diseases as well as painful bodily conditions. In spite of these critical threats, its lay practitioners think of it as a fundamental element of their cultural and ethnic character, and some look at it as a religious responsibility (Carr 1997). Female circumcision is as well a fundamental component of the societies that perform it, where male-dominated and power over sexuality and fertility of females are specified. In communities where an individual’s position in society is identified by patriarchal lineage, female circumcision lessens the uncertainty pertaining to paternity through dampening or putting off women’s sexual affairs outside of matrimony. Even though the societies that perform female circumcision differ in several ways, most young girls receive modest or no education and are regarded mainly for their prospective role as pools of labour and baby makers. In a number of communities, the soon-to-be husband’s family confers a bride price to the bride’s family, granting his family the privilege to her manual labour and her children; but the wife herself is given no right to or power over either (Duncan & Hernlund 2000). The virginity of a girl may be regarded important to the ability of her family to decide on and arrange her marriage and obtain a bride price, and also to family integrity. In Somalia, for instance, a soon-to-be husband’s family can have the privilege to examine the body of the bride before the wedding rites and mothers regularly monitor their infibulated daughters to guarantee that their genitalia are still sealed up. In this setting, parents perceive both the practice of infibulations and early marriage as ways of ascertaining that their daughter remains virgin or pure and hence deserving of the bride price (Duncan & Hernlund 2000). In several cultures, significant social demands are given to the families who oppose the practice of female circumcision. In a town in the center of Côte dIvoire, a Yacouba girl who was not circumcised was not regarded as worthy of marriage. Among the Kenyan Samburu, who regard girls who have not been circumcised as unclean, licentious and unripe, girls are commonly circumcised in their puberty age, normally just before their marriage. A girl with a brother younger than her may endure circumcision if she stays unattached by her late adolescence, since norm orders that a boy with an older sister who is uncircumcised may not be allowed to join the warrior class (Boulware-Miller 1985). Girls’ need to obey the rules or peer customs may make them willing to endure circumcision, for the reason that those who stay uncircumcised may be mocked and insulted by their age companions. Moreover, the ritual circumcision is frequently entrenched in ceremonial rites in which the young girls are famous and bathe with gifts and their families are held in high esteem. A girl’s desires, at any rate, are frequently immaterial; it is her family, particularly her father or older female kin, who choose whether she will endure circumcision. According to a father of one Yacouba girl, “My daughter has no choice. I decide. Her viewpoint is not important” (Boulware-Miller 1985: 157). Undoubtedly, these young girls have little or no choice. Provided with their young age and their illiteracy and lack of resources, they are reliant on their parents and in time on their chosen husband, for the essential requirements of life. Those who oppose may be circumcised through coercion. If they stay on being uncircumcised and their families are hence incapable of arranging a marriage, they may be segregated and stripped of any livelihood or means of subsistence (Boulware-Miller 1985). Due to their lack of control over their decisions and the commanding influence of tradition, many young girls approve of circumcision as an indispensable, and even normal, part of their life, and take on justifications provided for its presence. Of the countries wherein data are available on the opinions of women toward circumcision, the Central African Republic is identifies as the only one in which the mainstream population prefers discontinuation. A number of rationales are provided by the respondents who prefer perpetuation of the practice, comprising in protection of virginity before marriage, faithfulness after marriage, augmentation of the sexual gratification of the husband, reduction of infant and child mortality rate, purity and religious conditions, but tradition is considerably the most usually stated justification (Hosken 1993). These data reveal that women themselves are implicated in the continuation of the practice of female circumcision. Data on the outlooks of men have been gathered merely in Sudan and Eritrea. Data for the latter reveal that men are somewhat more probable than women to prefer discontinuation and those men who think that the practice should be discontinued are roughly twice as probable as females to mention medical problems and lack of sexual pleasure as justifications. In Sudan, a research conducted in 1981 discovered that men are to a certain extent more probable than women to think that female genital mutilation should carry on, yet are less than half as probable as women to favour infibulations (Hosken 1993). Most of the available literature defines female circumcision as brutal sexual marring of females and argues that the practice has been preserved in the male-dominated societies so as to repress the sexuality of women. In contrary to that thinking, the practice is almost at all times regulated, carried out, and strongly supported by women. Men have exceptionally little involvement in these rituals and oftentimes know trivially about it. As a matter of fact, it is normally African women, and not men, who persevere for the circumcision of their young daughters. The practice becomes an imperative avowal of one generation of the power of women over another. It is broadly assumed by women that these genital mutilations enhance their physical features and make them more attractive looking, more womanly, more refined, and more admirable. One of the most fascinating cultural rationales for female circumcision is the conviction that female genitalia, in its normal condition, are unpleasant and the clitoris, disgusting. Women think that if the clitoris is not severed, it will grow continuously and later on droop between a woman’s legs. A number of women think that as women ages their clitoris will grow longer and that a woman with a large clitoris is comparable to a man. They consider the clitoris as the root of pungent odours and discharges and through cutting it, it will make the body of the woman pure, clean and pleasant smelling. Some women think that if the infant touches the clitoris during childbirth, the infant or the mother will die. Before the circumcision on a girl, the female family members will notify the midwife who performs the surgical procedure to make it soft and fine-looking. The cutting of the clitoris is absolutely related with the achievement of full female individuality, initiation into a social organization and support group of influential adult women, and decisively marriage and eventually motherhood (Shweder 2000). Women who refused be circumcised are considered pathetic and defenceless. They are normally secluded and considered unworthy of marriage or a prostitute and her offspring will as well be stigmatized. To refer to a woman as uncircumcised or to refer to a man a child of an uncircumcised mother is the greatest mockery (Shweder 2000). The practice of circumcision or female genital mutilation is escorted by a rite of passage and gender individuality ceremony comparable to a marriage celebration. The celebration includes feasting, music, dancing and gift giving. Young girls receive presents of money, precious minerals such as gold, and clothes. Family members and friends are called upon and often carry with them food and music to the celebrations. The ritual is perceived as a rite of passage into adulthood for the girl making it greatly advantageous to them (Duncan & Hernlund 2000). The assumption of innate strength indicates that facing a life experience is an aspect that may result into self-autonomy, a constructive self identity, and psychological health. Female circumcision is a life phenomenon that is accepted by and profoundly entrenched in the culture and civilization of multitudes of African women. The women who embrace the performance of FGM optimistically assess its implications for their physical, social, spiritual and psychological wellbeing. It is assumed by women that these painful genital mutilations make them more womanly, more attractive-looking, and more admirable. This practice enables the women, the prospect to achieve approval into a social organization of highly esteemed women (Duncan & Hernlund 2000). It is significant to remember that there are no particular religious consents for female genital mutilation. It is not observed in every Muslim society and is not drawn from any textual foundation; to a certain extent, the practice is a cultural element. Justifications or explanations for the tradition involved induction into adulthood, preparation for childbirth pains, and putting off of the likelihood of women to commit adultery (Shweder 2000). From a feminist point of view, it seems to be obvious that this practice is an infringement of women’s rights. The reality that it continues is believed to be attributable to wide-ranging male power over women within customary communities. It is unquestionable, up to now as feminists are concerned, that the tradition should be legally prohibited. An adult woman approving of the practice eagerly is seen as similar to a battered wife who chooses to live with her husband. III. Female Genital Mutilation: A Cultural Practice or a Human Rights Violation? The needs and demands of ethnic minority groups in Western societies have increased in the recent decades because of intensified migration of ethnic minority groups’ members, and their enlarged political power. Guiding principles of multiculturalism or also referred to as cultural pluralism that consider the issues of ethnic minority groups have turn out to be both accepted and indispensable. Multiculturalism is a guiding principle that takes place when several subcultures are present within an identical jurisdictional structure, where there is both a wide-ranging policy that influences all constituents, yet which, nonetheless, enables space for an array of cultural norms. Multiculturalism policies have been endorsed in several manners, and have concentrated on such aspects as the defence and preservation of ethnic minority cultures, or on the initiation of particular group rights for a cultural minority. Such rights may involved assured political representation and positive response in chosen areas; exceptions from laws that get in the way of cultural traditions; acknowledgment of the traditional legal rules of a minority group within the mainstream legal structure; and support in carrying out those practices that the majority can do single-handedly (Tamir 1998). Normally, there are thinkers who resist the notion of multiculturalism or cultural pluralism. These comprise those that promote assimilationist strategies, or bifurcationist tactics, where a difference is established between the public dimension where minority groups are anticipated to take on board, and the private realm where minority groups are permitted to perform their own traditions. A rule of cultural pluralism, nevertheless, is commonly believed to be the most justifiable framework in modern liberal culturally plural societies for the reason that it better resolves the legitimate claims of unity and multiplicity than the others (Tamir 1998). Even though the general framework of multiculturalism is broadly recognized as indispensable, theoretical paradigms justifying a multicultural pluralist rule differ in the degree to which they grant cultural minorities independence. The fundamental concern for multiculturalism, as Grillo (1998) stated, is What kind of pluralism is possible or desirable in countries like Britain. France and the USA, where there is commitment to universalistic, democratic ideals? What room should such societies allow for being French or British or American ‘differently?’ (p. 189). The main advocate of collective rights in multiculturalism support their arguments in some way on liberal principles. These spread out from the rigid liberal perspective supported, whereby rights of minority groups by no means limits individual rights, to the less conventionally liberal perspective motivating greater recognition of cultural traditions, suggested by Kukathas (1986), which recommends that minority groups should be allowed to make their own customs without state intervention. The paradigm of Kukatha is frequently applied as the groundwork for the defence of the female genital mutilation practice in ethnic minority groups. Kymlicka (1995) adopts the concept that the rights of groups in liberal countries themselves obtain from rights of the individual to independence. According to this standpoint as well, the individual has to be a part or member of a rich and stable cultural organization so as to build up self-esteem, a firm self-identity and a capability to make own decisions. It should be emphasized that the foundation of the argument of Kymlicka (1995), a presumed need for cultural belongingness, nonetheless, has not been broadly recognized as a major benefit for the individual. Without it, some cultural minority groups think that they should have particular collective rights to allow the group to safeguard its own culture, which would hence make possible the progress of the cultural identity of the individual alluded to be Kymlicka. In further explaining his point of view, Kymlicka (1995) defends the bestowal of collective rights, but with restrictions. As he stated, for instance, a collective right cannot bring about the repression of a right of liberty of an individual. If otherwise, it would negate the major objective of collective rights as he conceptualizes them. Within his point of view, then, collective rights are hence merely relevant for a cultural group that recognizes liberal ideals. Opposite to the cultural identity he claims as a strong point, an individual would not be anticipated to draw from positive advantages from a group that is unwelcoming and represses an individual’s free will. The primary objective of Kymlicka (1995), nonetheless, is the liberalization of every cultural minority group. Therefore, his theory of collective rights would not permit cultural groups to practice FGM for the reason that it would go against individual freedom, especially if it is carried out on minors. Even when conducted on willingly compliant adult women, female circumcision is perceived as not liberal, since it is fragment of a series of repression and violence against women. Within the theory of collective rights, cultural minority groups are mandated to emancipate or liberalize their traditions. Because the justification of collective rights by Kymlicka (1995) grants inadequate autonomy to cultural groups and inadequate attention to cultural variation, several multiculturalists have not recognized his perspective as acceptable, and have looked for other perspectives. There is a rational conflict between the need for international human rights and concurrent recognition of the right of every culture to identify its own ethical norms. The identification of international human rights founded on the individual’s liberty is itself divergent to the conception of an individual and his/her place in society of various cultures. Traditional feminism in the West has depended on the founding of universal rights for women and the insistence that these should be complied to. These assumptions have been under scrutiny from new wave feminists who have advocated the acknowledgment of diversity among women. New wave feminists maintain that traditional feminist perspectives have regarded women as identical or all being of the same character and identity, and as a result overlooked fundamental differences between women of various cultures. In some cases, these dissimilarities are so essential, that a number of African American feminists, for instance, that their black colour disqualifies their sharing the convictions feminists regarding white women. The indication is that there is no absolute indistinct significance of womanhood on which a general feminist ethic can be grounded (Gifford 1994). Feminism of colour can be thought as an annex of feminism of diversity, which puts emphasis on the fact that women are discriminated because they are raised and socialized in a different way from men. Theorists of feminism of colour see cultural variations among women as equivalent causes of discrimination. This recent wave of feminism relates the repression of women to colonialist and imperialist subjugation on non-Western civilizations, while protecting its connection with class oppression previously argued by earlier wave of feminists. Motivated by postmodernist principle, feminist of colour believe in providing rights to be heard to women of various cultures, who have already been stigmatized inaccurately by Western feminists. Hence, they argue that white feminists might not perhaps comprehend concerns affecting women from other cultures. They as well claim that white feminism has frequently represented women of other cultures in a racially prejudiced manner, indicating that they are submissive and irrational because they accept cultural practices that appear oppressive and abusive to women of the West (Dorkenoo 1996). Western feminists express disapproval of cultural traditions such as purdah or the veiling and regulated diffidence of women in Muslim rules; sati or the widow sacrifice, which was observed in India by Hindus; polygamy and female genital mutilation, denouncing them from the Western perspective of cultural and moral norms, without seriously attempting to understand the principles of the particular cultures where these traditions are carried out, and in so doing reviewing the genuine moral significance of these practices (Dorkenoo 1996). Even though feminists of colours do not openly mentioned about FGM, their broad argument for tolerating other cultural practices does appear to absolutely defend its practice, specifically as part of a rite of passage ceremony wherein the girl moves from one life stage to the next. The arguments of feminist of colour are similar to those of cultural relativists who found their arguments on empirical, anthropological evidence rather than philosophical concepts. The paradigms of cultural relativism and universal human rights expanded as responses to the dilemma of an anthropologist of locating cross-cultural standards by which to assess various cultures (Tamir 1998). All cultures have to a certain degree moral structure, but the substance of these structures differs broadly among cultures. Norms and beliefs fundamental to a particular culture were believed to be plainly irrelevant to others. For instance, while Western culture concentrates on the distinctiveness of the individual, a number of non-Western cultures do not envision an individual as existing independently from other members of society. Fundamental differences such as these significantly restrict the relevance and applicability of Western principles to other cultures. Nevertheless, the practice of FGM is perceived to be a universal human rights violation and majority of the member states of the United Nations have approved on their Declaration of Human Rights. These approvals, though, often do not embody basic notions of every existing culture. Certainly, as the previous discussion indicates, some think of this as meaning that Western societies have compelled their notions of legal rights on member states that are non-Western. While the practice of female circumcision is not openly referred to in the first General Declaration, it is thus far considered section of the human rights argument that feminists of colour protest on various bases, including the thought that the international community prevailed upon by Western notions does not have the right to oblige its moral norms all over the world. Some feminists of colour as well advocate the sustained observance of FGM. They argue that the tradition of FGM is not impartially immoral, since there are no unbiased moral principles (Berkovitch & Bradley 1999). Actually, even in England and the United States, female genital surgical operations were carried out as late as the 1940s as a remedy for promiscuity, masturbation, and nymphomania (Steiner & Alston 1996). The explanations for the survival of the practice in non-Western civilizations is not essentially part of the system of male repression of women and male control of female perception. They claim that in a lot of places it is not even conducted to regulate women’s sexuality, but plainly for the reason that it is a tradition that is neglected. Neither men nor women are required to perceive the practice as repressive; it is only a norm, just as they see the practice of male circumcision in other societies. A number of the arguments articulated by feminists of colour are significant, specifically those that indicate that cultural traditions are a lot more intricate than they initially seem to those not belonging to the culture, and frequently have to be reviewed within the setting of their own cultural and moral structure. In some cases, nonetheless, their own perspectives are as generalized as they maintain others to be. They have a tendency to distinguish their group as more integrated and undivided in their judgments than they really are. They often fall short to acknowledge that within any cultural group, there are groups of women who do have the feeling that they are being oppressed by the norms of their own communities, and who have the desire for cultural transformations, and those who do not have. Thus, feminist view of cultural relativism is in threat of perpetuating the status quo in societies basically on the grounds of cultural standards, while leaving the original feminist objectives of advocating equal rights for women. Some feminists of colour attempt and defend cultural traditions such as female genital mutilation through arguing that it is better than the cosmetic surgery and dieting of Western societies (Nour 2000). Whereas there may be a number of similarities, these practices are unnecessarily tolerable to Western feminists, and also not culturally obliged upon children. While trying to justify their cultural practices, feminists of colour occasionally end up advocating the continuous repression of women who resist to be circumcised or to circumcise their daughters. Women who resist more brutal surgery have frequently replaced token acts in communities where women who are uncircumcised are regarded as unworthy of marriage, such as merely scraping the clitoris (McGarrahan 1991). A decisive counterargument hauled against feminists of colour is that the concept of cultural relativism is yet another kind of oppression. The indication of their claims is that universal human rights that are relevant equally to men and women are exclusively sought out in Western societies, while non-Western societies should be respected to seek out practices that Western societies would not tolerate (Nour 2000). This is tantamount to the desertion of the quest of women’s fight for equality. IV. Conclusions The international community should create an equilibrium between preservation of cultural and religious belies and advancing human rights. Female genital mutilation is widely performed. To some people, it is a cultural tradition and to other, a human rights violation. This dichotomy of outlook regarding the practice generates conflict in the global community between those who hold fast to the practice of female circumcision and those who advocate human rights through trying to illegalize the practice. Through permitting this conflict to persist, neither rival prevails; limitations on cultural freedoms and infringements of human rights take place concurrently. The international community should find a middle ground. Those against FGM should acknowledge that the practice is a form of cultural as well as a religious belief. In the meantime, practitioners of female genital mutilation should become more enlightened and educated about the operation’s possible health hazards and possible substitutes to the severe kinds of the practice. How to address this cultural tradition and others quite similar to it within Western societies has been the concentration of attention of several theories. A number of contradicting theories were mentioned, even though not to everybody’s gratification. FGM apparently embodies an ‘experimental case’ of these different theories that address the relative contributions of individual and collective rights. The arguments of feminism of colour have further applicability to the sustained practice of female circumcision in non-Western societies. Based upon a wide-ranging multicultural framework, these arguments have been the cultural standards on one group, even though exceptionally overriding, should not be obliged on non-Western communities, where FGM is practiced, and international policy making is less probable to influence cultural standards in these societies than compromise and cooperation. The initial section of their argument embodies a conviction; the following section is prospectively confirmable, but has not been. Appealing to cultural relativism, nevertheless, does not eliminate all values and opinions in the actual world. Liberal feminists from Western societies are still permitted to argue that female genital mutilation is wide of the mark, and to promote their principles. Considering the outlooks and standards of others and not acting in a paternalistic way would be beneficial in this attempt. The goal of Western feminists in relation to female genital mutilation should be to back up the right of free speech for those individuals of communities who are against the cultural practice and are at present incapable of articulating themselves and let their voices be heard. References Abusharaf, R. (1995), Rethinking Feminist Discourses on Female Genital Mutilation: The Case of Sudan, Canadian Women Studies , 52-54. Anthias, F. & Yuval-Davis, N. (1992), Racialized Boundaries: Race, Nation, Gender, Colour and Class and the Anti-racist Struggle, London: Routledge. Berkovitch, N. & Bradley, K. (1999), The Globalization of Womens Status: Consensus/Dissensus in the World Polity, Sociological Perspectives , 481-498. Boulware-Milller, K. (1985), Female Circumcision: Challenges to the Practice as a Human Rights Violation, Harvard Womens Law Journal , 155-177. Brennan, K. (1989), The Influence of Cultural Relativism on International Human Rights Law: Female Circumcision as a Case Study, Law and Inequality , 367-398. Carr, D. (1997), Female Genital Cutting: Findings from the Demographic and Health Surveys Program, Calverton, Md: Macro International. Daly, M. (1978), African Genital Mutilation: The Unspeakable Atrocities, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism , 153-177. Dorkenoo, E. (1996), Combating Female Genital Mutilation: An Agenda for the Next Decade, World Health Statistics Quarterly , 142-147. Duncan, B. S. & Hernlund, Y. (2000), Female Circumcision in Africa: Culture, Controversy and Change, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Ericksen, K. (1989), Female Genital Mutilations in Africa, Behavioral Science Research , 182-204. Gifford, E. (1994), The Courage to Blaspheme: Confronting Barriers to Resisting Female Genital Mutilation, UCLA Womens Law Journal , 329-364. Grillo, R. D. (1998), Pluralism and the politics of difference, New York: Oxford University Press. Gosselin, C. (1996), The Politics of Doing Feminist Ethnography on Excision, Toronto: University of Toronto. Hosken, F. (1993), The Hosken Report: Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Females, Lexington, Mass: Womens International Network News. Kellner, N. (1993), Under the Knife: Female Genital Mutilations as Child Abuse, Journal of Juvenile Law , 118-132. Kukathas, C. (1986), Liberalism and its critics, Humane Studies Review, Winter, pp. 1-110. Kymlicka, W. (1995), Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights, In W. Kymlicka (Ed.), The rights of minority cultures, New York: Oxford University Press. McGarrahan, P. (1991), The Violence in Female Circumcision, Medical Anthropology Quarterly , 269-270. Nour, N. (2000), Female Circumcision and Genital Mutilation: A Practical and Sensitive Approach, Contemporary OB/GYN , 50. Parker, M. (1995), Rethinking Female Circumcision, Africa , 506-523. Shweder, R. (2000), What about female genital mutilation? and why understanding culture matters in the first place, Daedalus , 209. Steiner, H. & Alston, P. (1996), International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tamir, Y. (1998), Two Notions of Multiculturalism, Politicka , 79-93. Read More