What do you think?
Rate this book
Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights
Female Circumcision: Multicultural Perspectives
Bolokoli , khifad , tahara , tahoor , qudiin , irua , bondo , kuruna , negekorsigin , and kene-kene are a few of the terms used in local African languages to denote a set of cultural practices collectively known as female circumcision. Practiced in many countries across Africa and Asia, this ritual is hotly debated. Supporters regard it as a central coming-of-age ritual that ensures chastity and promotes fertility. Human rights groups denounce the procedure as barbaric. It is estimated that between 100 million and 130 million girls and women today have undergone forms of this genital surgery.
Female Circumcision gathers together African activists to examine the issue within its various cultural and historical contexts, the debates on circumcision regarding African refugee and immigrant populations in the United States, and the human rights efforts to eradicate the practice. This work brings African women's voices into the discussion, foregrounds indigenous processes of social and cultural change, and demonstrates the manifold linkages between respect for women's bodily integrity, the empowerment of women, and democratic modes of economic development.
This volume does not focus narrowly on female circumcision as a set of ritualized surgeries sanctioned by society. Instead, the contributors explore a chain of connecting issues and processes through which the practice is being transformed in local and transnational contexts. The authors document shifts in local views to highlight processes of change and chronicle the efforts of diverse communities as agents in the process of cultural and social transformation.
Female Circumcision gathers together African activists to examine the issue within its various cultural and historical contexts, the debates on circumcision regarding African refugee and immigrant populations in the United States, and the human rights efforts to eradicate the practice. This work brings African women's voices into the discussion, foregrounds indigenous processes of social and cultural change, and demonstrates the manifold linkages between respect for women's bodily integrity, the empowerment of women, and democratic modes of economic development.
This volume does not focus narrowly on female circumcision as a set of ritualized surgeries sanctioned by society. Instead, the contributors explore a chain of connecting issues and processes through which the practice is being transformed in local and transnational contexts. The authors document shifts in local views to highlight processes of change and chronicle the efforts of diverse communities as agents in the process of cultural and social transformation.
296 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2006
2 people are currently reading
18 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 18, 2023
Ohhhh boy! DNF – I truly did go into this with an open mind. However, the entire book felt like cherry-picked information randomly in order to hide brutal realities. It was completely biased and this was made evident as early as the first few pages. I was hoping for accuracy, history, and logic, but I guess that was too much of an ask.
They start the book out (in the Introduction chapter) with an astonishingly little amount of introductory information regarding female genital mutilation (FGM), what’s involved in the process, or what types and levels of FGM there are. It read like a very sheltered and native version of history being used as a lifeline to hold onto the practice. It was as if they didn’t do any research at all before writing this.
Brain: But hey, you should keep reading and give it a chance, right?
Me: Yes, I’m approaching this open mindedly. Let’s keep reading!
Chapter 2 starts us off with bizarrely comparing FGM to plastic surgery like nose jobs, breast implants, etc. The fact they started their book off with such a weak argument should say by itself that they have no valid argument pro-FGM to discuss. Unlike FGM, plastic surgery has both age and consent requirements. I really thought this was a joke at first, but they continue to make this comparison multiple times throughout the chapter.
They failed at establishing an accurate history of FGM as well. While seemingly starting multiple sentences implying that they were about to get into the history, they instead blame Europe for the brief period of time in history when they practiced FGM for experimental “medical” purposes in the 19th century. The 19th century? No mention whatsoever of the mummies found to have undergone FGM in Egypt thousands of years prior to that. They continuously jump around and get off topic with little to no organization in this book, especially when it came to talking (or not talking, really) about the history.
It then had a section that attempts to discuss FGM as a practical use to “demasculinize” the female genitalia. What!? They write, “female circumcision is about altering the female body to confirm its femininity.” Nothing more masculine than FEMALE genitalia, right? They also later say, “circumcision is intended to control the sexual energy of a virgin until marriage.” The sexual energy until marriage… wait, do they think the clitoris grows back after cutting it off of a woman’s body?
This book approached the entire subject from a pro-FGM perspective and I stopped reading after about one quarter of it. Even if they were trying their best not to be biased, it was absolutely pro-FGM and constantly rationalizing the mutilation by refusing to call it as it is. The author took a stance against referring to female circumcision as “female genital mutilation,” which seems like a weird stance to take weird when we’re discussing the topic of young girls being held down and cut up without anesthesia and without any logical reason, to permanently alter the function of their body, at a massive risk to their life, while traumatizing them mentally forever. No, dear author, that’s not “circumcision.” That is female genital mutilation.
“But, it’s cultural!” Yeah, so was human sacrifice at one point, but you don’t see people using their culture to justify that cruelty in this century, do you? Cultures can and do change. Find a better argument if you feel the need to defend the forceful mutilation of girls.
-----
Note: This book was written in 2006 and it seems that 10 years later, Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf did come out publicly against the practice, for whatever that's worth. It certainly seems to show the opposite in this book.
They start the book out (in the Introduction chapter) with an astonishingly little amount of introductory information regarding female genital mutilation (FGM), what’s involved in the process, or what types and levels of FGM there are. It read like a very sheltered and native version of history being used as a lifeline to hold onto the practice. It was as if they didn’t do any research at all before writing this.
Brain: But hey, you should keep reading and give it a chance, right?
Me: Yes, I’m approaching this open mindedly. Let’s keep reading!
Chapter 2 starts us off with bizarrely comparing FGM to plastic surgery like nose jobs, breast implants, etc. The fact they started their book off with such a weak argument should say by itself that they have no valid argument pro-FGM to discuss. Unlike FGM, plastic surgery has both age and consent requirements. I really thought this was a joke at first, but they continue to make this comparison multiple times throughout the chapter.
They failed at establishing an accurate history of FGM as well. While seemingly starting multiple sentences implying that they were about to get into the history, they instead blame Europe for the brief period of time in history when they practiced FGM for experimental “medical” purposes in the 19th century. The 19th century? No mention whatsoever of the mummies found to have undergone FGM in Egypt thousands of years prior to that. They continuously jump around and get off topic with little to no organization in this book, especially when it came to talking (or not talking, really) about the history.
It then had a section that attempts to discuss FGM as a practical use to “demasculinize” the female genitalia. What!? They write, “female circumcision is about altering the female body to confirm its femininity.” Nothing more masculine than FEMALE genitalia, right? They also later say, “circumcision is intended to control the sexual energy of a virgin until marriage.” The sexual energy until marriage… wait, do they think the clitoris grows back after cutting it off of a woman’s body?
This book approached the entire subject from a pro-FGM perspective and I stopped reading after about one quarter of it. Even if they were trying their best not to be biased, it was absolutely pro-FGM and constantly rationalizing the mutilation by refusing to call it as it is. The author took a stance against referring to female circumcision as “female genital mutilation,” which seems like a weird stance to take weird when we’re discussing the topic of young girls being held down and cut up without anesthesia and without any logical reason, to permanently alter the function of their body, at a massive risk to their life, while traumatizing them mentally forever. No, dear author, that’s not “circumcision.” That is female genital mutilation.
“But, it’s cultural!” Yeah, so was human sacrifice at one point, but you don’t see people using their culture to justify that cruelty in this century, do you? Cultures can and do change. Find a better argument if you feel the need to defend the forceful mutilation of girls.
-----
Note: This book was written in 2006 and it seems that 10 years later, Rogaia Mustafa Abusharaf did come out publicly against the practice, for whatever that's worth. It certainly seems to show the opposite in this book.
May 1, 2008
I read what I needed to read for my research paper.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews