User:Dnigmonova/sandbox

Research Proposal: Female Genital Mutilation

Dilnoza

In this section there will be examined FGM that is legally considered as a violation of women’s human rights since 1993 (Vienna Convention). There exist already Wikipedia entry named Female Genital Mutilation that covers definition, history, origins, and oppositions of Female Genital Mutilation. I found, however, that some aspects of that issue, namely academic debate over effective/best way of tackling FGM is missed; a hot debate/discussion of FGM between Human Rights-based approach and Health approach is also absent in both Wikipedia entries: VAW and FGM. Therefore, it would be relevant to shed light on Female Gental Mutilation not only as a form of VAW, but also as a discourse that generated a large controversy both in feminist and human rights studies.

Since in the main entry there is already provided detailed description of terminology and definition of four types of FGM, this section deals mainly with the FGM as a discourse which discusses the debate over effective interventionist approachesto tackle FGM. It describes the arguments provided by both sides and illustrates the critiques/limitations of those approaches.

The section is based on the works of Bettina Shell-Duncan, Lisen Dellenborg, Jaqui True, Maria Malstrom, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Martha Nussbaum, Yeal Tamir, Andrew Koppelman, Lori L. Heise, R. Elise, B. Johansen, Nafissatou J., Diop, Glenn Laverack, and Els Leye. Statistics data are taken from WHO and UN reports, and Tostan findings.

Additional contribution: While we were working together and were in the process of editing and structuring this Wikipedia page, someone called "skydeepblue" has added several subsections (Honor killings, Dowry violence, Female genital mutilation, Acid throwing,Forced marriage) particularly to Domestic violence section. Therefore within subsection Female Genital mutilation I would also suggest to:

1. Along with WHO's technical definition of FGM, to give other perspective, particularly to mention how FGM is viewed by practitioners themselves (recommended by scholars: Martha Nussbaum,Andrew Koppelman, Lori L. Heise, Duncan and etc. ); - was removed.

2. Provide data on countries with the bottom rates of FGM practice which indirectly tells us about the influence of Health approach;

3. Mention that the practice of FGM is geographically not limited to MENA. Recently we observe that the practice is spreading beyond the borders of Africa and Middle East, mostly because of emigration and globalization (which leads to actually familiarizing the Western world with existence of such practice and generating global public attention); - done.

4. Due to existence of several misinformation about FGM, there will be subsection on "myths and biases related to FGM"; - removed.

'''Suggestions regarding the whole Wikipedia page''':

1. Under “Domestic Violence” section, add chart showing that as Gender Equality scores increase, occurrence of intimate partner violence decreases. - Image does not correspond to the Wikipedia copyright policy. Therefore, it will be replaced by the map depicting prevalence of intimate partener violence if administrator approves. Pending.

2. In subsection "Forced marriage" there is a spelling mistake: ofter = other: " A forced marriage is also often the result of a dispute between families, where the dispute is 'resolved' by giving a female from one family to the ofter." - Done

3. "The custom of bride kidnapping continues to exist in some societies, such as Central Asia and the Caucasus, or parts of Africa, especially Ethiopia." - We would suggest to say "in some regions (such as CA and Caucasus)/countries of Central Asia such as Kyrgyzistan, Kazakhstan" since Central Asia consists of 5 states that NOT all of countires of CA had and has this custom. By saying some societies, such Central Asia, it might give wrong information/misinformation, firstly. And secondly, I found it is misnomer to use the word society for Central Asia region. - Done

4. Should FGM be included into Domestic violence or FGM goes beyond domestic violence? FGM is a broad phenomenon which includes not only violence occuring in domestic context, but also outside of it.

5. The entry is poorly structured, and the sequence of sections is not logically constructed. Following this, sections were moved (after changes: WHO's typology table from introductory part was moved to section Types of violence;  section Relation between violence against women and marriage laws is moved to section number 9/10 following section Access to justice for women victims of violence; )

6. In Introduction part of VAW add: Violence against women can be explained/described by/through the broad categories: (citing of categories; see main article)

7. Gender-based violence by male college athletes - to create new section titled "Sport-related violence against women" which describes different types of VAW occuring in sport context, including vilence perpetrated by college athletes. This issue, namely VAW within sport context, is not fully illustrated and has not previously been discussed as sport-related violence in VAW wikipedia page. Taking into account the fact that sport events (e.g., the Olympic Game and Paralympics in London in 2012) had and continue to have impact on VAW, I suggest adding section “Sport-related violence against women” under which should be included Gender-based violence by male college athletes as a subsection. Also I think the title: Gender-based violence by male college athelets should be changed, since all violence described in VAW page is gender-based.

Content of this section would be as following:

• 5.10 Sport-related violence against women
  • 5.10.1 Sport-related violence by male college athletes
  • 5.10.2 Controversy over contributing factors
  • 5.10.3 Response to violence by male college athletes

First Draft: Female Genital Mutilation

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."[67, original text from Wikipedia page] According to local practitioners FGM is linked to the cultural rite and is considered to be a traditional practice which has been continuing to be practiced in different communities/countries of Africa and Middle East, although it is banned according to their national legislations. The Inter-African Committee defined FGM as a “harmful traditional practice”.

According to a 2013 UNICEF report, 125 million women and girls in Africa and the Middle East have experienced FGM [68, original text] and “3.3 million girls are at risk of being subjected to FGM annually”

The top rates for FGM, according to a UNICEF report, are in Somalia (with 98 percent of women affected), Guinea (96 percent), Djibouti (93 percent), Egypt (91 percent), Eritrea (89 percent), Mali (89 percent), Sierra Leone (88 percent), Sudan (88 percent), Gambia (76 percent), Burkina Faso (76 percent), Ethiopia (74 percent), Mauritania (69 percent), Liberia (66 percent), and Guinea-Bissau (50 percent).[70, original text] However, in some African countries FGM is less observed: 43 % in the Central African Republic, 43 % in the Ivory Coast, and 12% in Togo.. FGM is practiced in small degree/rate in Indonesia, India, Malaysia, and Pakistan. Due to globalization and emigration process the FGM is spreading beyond the borders of Africa and Middle East (including Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, New Zealand, US, and UK) .

Interventionist approaches

There exist several approaches that were set up by WHO and Tostan aimed at eliminating the practice of FGM in implemented countries:

1. FGM as a Health issue (also known as health risks approach)
2. FGM as a HR issue (also known as Human Rights approach)

While fighting against FGM, it is usually suggested by some scholars to take lessons from history, particularly 19th-century campaign against foot-binding in China which was successful.

FGM as a health issue

It is acknowledged that FGM affects women health, reproduction, and sexual functioning. FGM can "result in myriad complications, from infections, menstrual difficulties and painful intercourse to complications in childbirth, stillbirths and brain-damaged infants, increased risk of HIV infection, and psychological and emotional stress.“ In order to eradicate the procedure advocates of that approach build their arguments upon the citing/raising awareness of negative impacts of FGM to women's body and health. According to the WHO’s findings (2006 WHO report) “women who have had Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) are significantly more likely to experience difficulties during childbirth and that their babies are more likely to die as a result of the practice” .

Health approach was commonly used and promoted until it was criticized/replaced by HR approach.

FGM as a human rights issue

In the 1993, at Vienna World Conference on Human Rights the issue of FGM was for the first time addressed /raised as a form of Violence against women under the framework of International Human Rights. Since then the elimination of FGM took prominent place in the agenda of the international human rights movement that left behind the health risk approaches.. "The global human rights discourse differs from earlier Western policies, which focused on health in relation to female genital mutilation. It modifies earlier Western feminist arguments that read female genital mutilation as patriarchal control over women’s bodies and sexuality, and as a symbol of women’s subordination".

The use of International Human Rights discourse to tackle FGM has, however, faced challenge which was “there are no international human rights instruments that specifically address FGC.”. Therefore advocates of elimination/eradication of FGC, building their arguments upon the UN Declarations, Conventions, and theory of Justice suggest that the issue of FGM can be addressed under the legal framework of the three legal instruments such as: Violation of Rights of Child, violation of rights of women, and torture . According to Shell-Duncan FGM is violence against not only women, but it violates also rights of child not yet achieved puberty.

Criticism of both approaches

The critique of health approach is related to the fact that concentration on health risks neglects the other aspects of FGM practice( for example, legal) and leads to a single-sided approach. Another critique is defined by Shell-Duncan which is: "A final problematic aspect of the health approach as a rationale for abandoning FGC is that the emphasis on health risks is believed by anti-circumcision advocates to have inadvertently promoted the conceptualization of FGC and obstetrical complications."

In Human Rights approach it is noticed lack of legal instruments to address FGM. In addition to that, "the post-colonialist critique as an approach to the politics of female circumcision stresses the need for contextualised understandings of indigenous meanings arguing against the human rights approach."

The current debate on FGM

Over several years there have been heated debates over FGM between FGM opponents and its supporters within and outside of gender studies. The debate was basically provoked around the interventionist policy of opposition. For opponents, FGM is as an unacceptable practice that violates women's human rights and it needs to be banned. The interventions to eliminate FGM, however, was met with critiques. The demand to abolish FGM is perceived by some authors/ethical relativists as a judgment of others’ cultural moral norms and imposing one's values and norms upon others. The FGM supporter’s argument is that "It is morally wrong to criticize practices of another culture unless one is prepared to criticize comparable practices in one’s own culture." Another criticism is that Western scholars are blamed being “”ethnocentric”. [must be developed further]

The feminists-opponents, however, justify their intervention by referring to universal character of legal values and rights (such as right to health, rights of child, right to freedom) and claim that "the female genital mutilation discourse must be understood against the backdrop of post-colonial politics and modernisation, which transform ideals of gender.". "There are at least five rejoinders defined by Rawls:

1. FGM as a kind of child abuse;

2. FGM permanently deprives girls of a valuable option, thereby restricting their equality of opportunity and capacity for moral choice;

3. FGM violates women’s basic right to health;

4. FGM violates the integrity of the person;

5. FGM is an instance of gender inequality."

Opposition to FGM from locals

Opposition to FGM is shown not only by developed world. Locals also demonstrate strong opposition through establishing Committees,civil societies, and participating in anti-female genital mutilation campaigns. Inter-African Committee that launched “Zero Tolerance on FGM” day (Feb 6, 2003) is one of them.

Several African women take active participation in campaigns against FGM and are not afraid to speak out in public about negative aspects of the procedure. Diallo Assitan is an activist from Mali and "she is among a strong chorus of women who spoke against the practice in some of the 1,000 workshops at Forum 85, the meeting of nongovernmental organizations that paralleled the official United Nations Decade for Women conference.".

Myths and biases related to FGM

• False: FGM is acknowledged by religion.

FGM is not supported by any religion. Often FGM is linked to Islam, which is not proved by any religious leaders. “No religious text requires or even supports cutting female genitals. In fact, Islamic Shari'a protects children and protects their rights. From a Christian perspective, FGC has no religious grounds either. In fact, research shows that the relationship between religion and FGC is inconsistent at best.”

• False: FGM is compared with dieting.

FGM and dieting are morally not comparable and there exist prominent differences between them. According to Nussbaum, dieting is a matter of choice (even if it is affected by social pressure ) while FGM is physically and culturally forced and happens when girls are under below age (4-5 or 12) and they do not have chance to make a choice. Dieting – consensual, it is a matter of choice; FGM – non-consensual.

• False: FGM and male circumcision is considered to be the same.

FGM is not equal to/comparable with male circumcision. There is a difference in terms of motivation of male circumcision and FGM such as: XXX. “Male equivalent of infibulation is “removal of entire penis, its roots of soft tissue, and part of scrotal skin.””

• False: FGM is needed for women to have children.

"There is a common belief that women need to have FGM to have babies. In fact FGM does not improve fertility but can cause infertility and an increased risk of childbirth complications and even deaths in newborns." [3]

Second improved version: Female genital mutilation

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." According to a 2013 UNICEF report, 125 million women and girls in Africa and the Middle East have experienced FGM. The WHO states that: "The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women" and "Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, infertility as well as complications in childbirth increased risk of newborn deaths" and "FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women". According to a UNICEF report, the top rates for FGM are in Somalia (with 98 percent of women affected), Guinea (96 percent), Djibouti (93 percent), Egypt (91 percent), Eritrea (89 percent), Mali (89 percent), Sierra Leone (88 percent), Sudan (88 percent), Gambia (76 percent), Burkina Faso (76 percent), Ethiopia (74 percent), Mauritania (69 percent), Liberia (66 percent), and Guinea-Bissau (50 percent).

According to some local practitioners, it is believed that FGM is linked to cultural rites and customs. It is considered to be a traditional practice which continues to take place in different communities/countries of Africa and Middle East, including in places where it is banned by national legislation. FGM is defined as a “harmful traditional practice” in accordance to the Inter-African Committee.

map

Prevalence of FGM among African women aged 15-49. For more detailed maps, see [1] UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on FGM, 2012

Due to globalization and immigration, FGM is spreading beyond the borders of Africa and Middle East, to countries such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, New Zealand, US, and UK.

Interventionist approaches

There exist several approaches that were set up by international health organizations and civil societies (for example, Tostan) aimed at eliminating the practice of FGM in implemented countries:

1. FGM as a Health issue (also known as health risks approach)
2. FGM as a Human Rights issue (also known as Human Rights approach)

Some scholars suggests that, when dealing with FGM, it is necessary to take lessons from history, particularly 19th-century campaign against foot-binding in China which was successful.

Female Genital Mutilation as a Public Health Issue/Discourse

It is acknowledged that FGM affects women's health, reproduction, and sexual functioning. FGM can "result in myriad complications, from infections, menstrual difficulties and painful intercourse to complications in childbirth, stillbirths and brain-damaged infants, increased risk of HIV infection, and psychological and emotional stress.“ In order to eradicate the procedure, advocates of the health risks approach build their arguments upon the citing/raising awareness of negative impacts of FGM to women's body and health. According to the WHO’s findings (2006 WHO report) “women who have had Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) are significantly more likely to experience difficulties during childbirth and that their babies are more likely to die as a result of the practice”.

The health approach was commonly used and promoted until it was criticized/replaced by the Human rights approach.

Female Genital Mutilation as a Human Rights Issue

In 1993, at Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, the issue of FGM was for first time addressed as a form of violence against women under the framework of International Human Rights. Since then, the elimination of FGM has taken a prominent place in the agenda of the international human rights movement which has left behind the health risk approaches. "The global human rights discourse differs from earlier Western policies, which focused on health in relation to female genital mutilation. It modifies earlier Western feminist arguments that read female genital mutilation as patriarchal control over women’s bodies and sexuality, and as a symbol of women’s subordination".

The use of International Human Rights discourse to tackle FGM has, however, faced challenge/obstacle because there was “there are no international human rights instruments that specifically address FGC.”. Therefore advocates of elimination/eradication of FGC, building their arguments upon the UN Declarations, Conventions, and theory of Justice suggest that the issue of FGM can be addressed under the legal framework of the three legal instruments such as: Violation of Rights of Child, violation of rights of women, and torture. According to Shell-Duncan FGM is violence against not only women, but it violates also rights of child not yet achieved puberty.

Debates about best approaches

There are growing debates about what is the most appropriate approach to tackle FGM. Both the health and the human rights-based approaches have been criticized.

The critique of the health approach is related to the fact that concentration on health risks neglects the other aspects of FGM practice( for example, legal) and leads to a single-sided approach. Another critique is defined by Shell-Duncan which is: "A final problematic aspect of the health approach as a rationale for abandoning FGC is that the emphasis on health risks is believed by anti-circumcision advocates to have inadvertently promoted the conceptualization of FGC and obstetrical complications."

The human rights approach notices the lack of legal instruments to address FGM. In addition to that, "the post-colonialist critique as an approach to the politics of female circumcision stresses the need for contextualised understandings of indigenous meanings arguing against the human rights approach."

Sport-related violence against women

Sport-related violence against women refers to any physical, sexual, mental acts that are “perpetrated by both male athletes and by male fans or consumers of sport and sporting events, as well as by coaches of female athletes”.

The documenting reports and literature suggest that there are obvious connections between contemporary sport and VAW. Such events as the 2010 World Cup, the Olympic and Commonwealth Games “have highlighted the connections between sports spectatorship and intimate partner violence, and the need for police, authorities and services to be aware of this when planning sporting events”.

Sport-related violence can occur in various contexts and places, including homes, pubs, clubs, hotel rooms, the streets.

Sport-related violence by male college athletes

ORIGINAL Text: Violence against women is a topic of concern in the United States' collegiate athletic community. From the 2010 UVA lacrosse murder, in which a male athlete was charged guilty with second degree murder of his girlfriend, to the 2004 University of Colorado Football Scandal when players were charged with nine alleged sexual assaults,[190] studies suggest that athletes are at higher risk for committing sexual assault against women than the average student.[191][192] It is reported that one in three college assaults are committed by athletes.[193] Surveys suggest that male student athletes who represent 3.3% of the college population, commit 19% of reported sexual assaults and 35% of domestic violence.[194] The theories that surround these statistics range from misrepresentation of the student-athlete to an unhealthy mentality towards women within the team itself.[193]

'''Controversy over contributing factors''' (see VAW article)

'''Response to violence by male college athletes''' (see VAW article)

For future Wikipedians:

Final: Female Gental Mitulation

Female genital mutilation

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." According to a 2013 UNICEF report, 125 million women and girls in Africa and the Middle East have experienced FGM. The WHO states that: "The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women" and "Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, infertility as well as complications in childbirth increased risk of newborn deaths" and "FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women". According to a UNICEF report, the top rates for FGM are in Somalia (with 98 percent of women affected), Guinea (96 percent), Djibouti (93 percent), Egypt (91 percent), Eritrea (89 percent), Mali (89 percent), Sierra Leone (88 percent), Sudan (88 percent), Gambia (76 percent), Burkina Faso (76 percent), Ethiopia (74 percent), Mauritania (69 percent), Liberia (66 percent), and Guinea-Bissau (50 percent).

According to some local practitioners, it is believed that FGM is linked to cultural rites and customs. It is considered to be a traditional practice which continues to take place in different communities/countries of Africa and Middle East, including in places where it is banned by national legislation. FGM is defined as a “harmful traditional practice” in accordance to the Inter-African Committee.

map

Prevalence of FGM among African women aged 15-49. For more detailed maps, see [2] UNFPA-UNICEF Joint Programme on FGM, 2012

Due to globalization and immigration, FGM is spreading beyond the borders of Africa and Middle East, to countries such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, New Zealand, US, and UK.

Interventionist approaches

There exist several approaches that were set up by international health organizations and civil societies (for example, Tostan) aimed at eliminating the practice of FGM in implemented countries:

1. FGM as a Health issue (also known as health risks approach)
2. FGM as a Human Rights issue (also known as Human Rights-based approach)

Some scholars suggests that, when dealing with FGM, it is necessary to take lessons from history, particularly 19th-century campaign against foot-binding in China which was successful.

Female Genital Mutilation as a Public Health Issue

The existing approaches to eliminate FGM are principally founded on health-based arguments and methods. Supporters of that approach established their arguments on the need to protect women’s health from hazards caused by FGM. It is acknowledged that FGM affects women's health, reproduction, and sexual functioning. According to the World Health Organization’s findings [4] “women who have had FGM are significantly more likely to experience difficulties during childbirth and that their babies are more likely to die as a result of the practice”. Moreover, it can "result in myriad complications, from infections, menstrual difficulties and painful intercourse to...stillbirths and brain-damaged infants, increased risk of HIV infection, and psychological and emotional stress.“ Therefore, in order to eradicate the procedure, advocates of the health risks approach designed strategies to raise public awareness of negative impacts of FGM to women's bodies and health. The health approach was commonly used and promoted, until it was criticized and, to a certain extent, replaced by the Human rights approach.

Female Genital Mutilation as a Human Rights Issue

In 1993, at the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, the issue of FGM was for the first time addressed as a form of violence against women under the framework of International Human Rights. Since then, the elimination of FGM has taken a prominent place in the agenda of the international human rights discourse, leaving behind the health risk approach.

"The global human rights discourse differs from earlier Western policies, which focused on health in relation to female genital mutilation. It modifies earlier Western feminist arguments that read female genital mutilation as patriarchal control over women’s bodies and sexuality, and as a symbol of women’s subordination".

The human rights-based arguments are founded principally on a concept of universal human rights. Supporters of that approach emphasize the flagrant violation of fundamental rights, and they consider FGM as a violent violation of woman ‘s and child’s fundamental rights including the right to life, the right to be protected from cruel treatment, the right to physical integrity, and the right to health. According to Shell-Duncan FGM is violence against not only women, but it also constitutes a violation in the rights of child not yet achieved puberty.

The use of International Human Rights discourse to tackle FGM has, however, faced challenges such as “there are no international human rights instruments that specifically address female genital cutting”. Therefore advocates of FGM's elimination, building their arguments upon the UN Declarations, Conventions, and a Theory of Justice suggest that the issue of FGM can be addressed under the legal framework of the three legal instruments such as: Violation of Rights of Child, violation of rights of women, and the right to be protected from torture.

Debates about best approaches

There are growing debates about what is the most appropriate approach to tackle FGM. Both the health and the human rights-based approaches have been criticized.

The critique of the health approach is related to the medicalization of FGM , meaning that concentration on health risks neglects the other aspects of FGM practice(for example, legal) and leads not to the banning of practice, but to medically safe performance of FGM. This critique is defined by Shell-Duncan:

"A final problematic aspect of the health approach as a rationale for abandoning FGC is that the emphasis on health risks is believed by anti-circumcision advocates to have inadvertently promoted the conceptualization of FGC and obstetrical complications."

The human rights approach notices the lack of legal instruments to address FGM. In addition to that, the usage of universal human rights language might be at a variance with collective identity and cultural understandings of indigenous people. That is why "the post-colonialist critique as an approach to the politics of female circumcision stresses the need for contextualised understandings of indigenous meanings arguing against the human rights approach."

Sport-related violence against women

Sport-related violence against women refers to any physical, sexual, mental acts that are “perpetrated by both male athletes and by male fans or consumers of sport and sporting events, as well as by coaches of female athletes”.

The documenting reports and literature suggest that there are obviously connections between contemporary sport and Vioelnce against women. Such events as the 2010 World Cup, the Olympic and Commonwealth Games “have highlighted the connections between sports spectatorship and intimate partner violence, and the need for police, authorities and services to be aware of this when planning sporting events”.

Sport-related violence can occur in various contexts and places, including homes, pubs, clubs, hotel rooms, the streets.

Sport-related violence by male college athletes

ORIGINAL Text: Violence against women is a topic of concern in the United States' collegiate athletic community. From the 2010 UVA lacrosse murder, in which a male athlete was charged guilty with second degree murder of his girlfriend, to the 2004 University of Colorado Football Scandal when players were charged with nine alleged sexual assaults,[190] studies suggest that athletes are at higher risk for committing sexual assault against women than the average student.[191][192] It is reported that one in three college assaults are committed by athletes.[193] Surveys suggest that male student athletes who represent 3.3% of the college population, commit 19% of reported sexual assaults and 35% of domestic violence.[194] The theories that surround these statistics range from misrepresentation of the student-athlete to an unhealthy mentality towards women within the team itself.[193]

Controversy over contributing factors

(see VAW article)

Response to violence by male college athletes

(see VAW article)

References

External links

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

Further readings

• Bellemare, Marc F.New Working Paper: Explaining The Persistence Of Female Genital Cutting In The Gambia. June 17, 2013. [8]

• Gerry Mackie, Female Genital Cutting: A harmless Practice? Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 135-158p. http://dss.ucsd.edu/~gmackie/documents/FGCHarmlessPractice.pdf

• Jacqui True, "The Political Economy of Violence against Women". USA. 240 pages | 235x156mm. 978-0-19-975591-2 | Paperback | 06 September 2012.

• James, S.M. (1998), “Shades of Othering: Reflections on Female Circumcision/Genital Mutilation,” Signs 23(4): 1031-1048.

• Jones, H., N. Diop, I. Askew, and I. Kabore (1999), “Female Genital Cutting Practices in Burkina Faso and Mali and Their Negative Health Outcomes,” Studies in Family Planning 30(3): 219-230.

• Jones, W.K., J. Smith, B. Kieke, Jr., and L. Wilcox (1997), “Female Genital Mutilation/Female Circumcision:

Who Is at Risk in the US?,” Public Health Reports (1974—), 112(5): 368-377.

• Kwame Anthony Appiah, Convincing Other Cultures To Change. September 21, 2010, 12:00 Am. [9]

• Liz Kelly, Inside Outsiders: Mainstreaming violence against women into human rights discourse and practice. International Feminist Journal of Politics. 4-5 December 2005, 451-495.

• Lori L. Heise, Jacqueline Pitanguy and Adrienne Germain, "Violence against Women (World Bank, 1994):The Hidden Health Burden". World Bank Discussion Paper No. 255. The World Bank Washington, D.C.

• Nora Almosaed (2004), Violence against women: a cross-cultural perspective. Published online: 23 Jan, 2007. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs.

• Shell-Duncan, B., and Y. Hernlund (2006), “Are there ‘Stages of Change’ in the Practice of Female Genital Cutting? Qualitative Research Findings from Senegal and the Gambia,” African Journal of Reproductive Health 10(2): 56-71.

• Skaine, R. (2005), Female Genital Mutilation: Legal, Cultural and Medical Issues, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.
• Wagner, N. (2013), “Why Female Genital Cutting Persist?,” Working Paper, University of Rotterdam.

• Wakabi W. (2007), “Africa Battles to Make Female Genital Mutilation History,” The Lancet 369(9567):1069-70.

• Williams, L., and T. Sobieszczyk (1997) “Attitudes Surrounding the Continuation of Female Circumcision in the Sudan: Passing the Tradition to the Next Generation,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 59(4):966-981.