NationStates Jolt Archive

If a grown man held down a frightened little girl, mutilated her genitals with a dirty razor blade then sewed her vagina shut leaving only a small hole to urinate through you would have no problem calling it a crime and punishing the scumbag. So why do some cultural relativists defend the practice when it's done to every little girl in a region of the world?

scumbags defending this disgusting practice
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/circumcision/response.html
http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/smit.htm (part 2 of this document defends Female genital mutilation)

I consider myself to be a moderate cultural relativist. There are some things however, that are universally unacceptable, like this. Other things which do not seriously breach human rights are acceptable.

If a grown man held down a frightened little girl, mutilated her genitals with a dirty razor blade then sewed her vagina shut leaving only a small hole to urinate through you would have no problem calling it a crime and punishing the scumbag. So why do some cultural relativists defend the practice when it's done to every little girl in a region of the world?

scumbags defending this disgusting practice
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/circumcision/response.html
http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/smit.htm (part 2 of this document defends Female genital mutilation)

OK... has anyone on this forum EVER defended female genital mutilation?

If a grown man held down a frightened little girl, mutilated her genitals with a dirty razor blade then sewed her vagina shut leaving only a small hole to urinate through you would have no problem calling it a crime and punishing the scumbag. So why do some cultural relativists defend the practice when it's done to every little girl in a region of the world?

scumbags defending this disgusting practice
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/circumcision/response.html
http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/smit.htm (part 2 of this document defends Female genital mutilation)

Well well, everyone has their pet scapegoat it seems. For DK, it's Muslim extremists (or Muslims. Hypothetically.) For New Mitanni, it's all Muslims, non hypothetically. For Myrmidonisia, it's "liberals." For Ny Nordland, it's Non-Whites. For you, it's "cultural relativists."
You all really mean the same people but you disagree with just the right word to lump your enemies all into the same group for convinient hating.

OK... has anyone on this forum EVER defended female genital mutilation?

No, but I think people have said they're moral or cultural relativists - the OP is asking them how far that should go by starting with a completely OTT practise. Part of the debate might be establishing what a more reasonable level of relativism is acceptable.

Well that’s certainly disgusting, but what do you want to do about it?

I'd say there are certain things that are universals, regardless of culture...rape, murder, etc. can all be looked down upon regardless of what culture spawns them. This, I would say, is one of those.

No, but I think people have said they're moral or cultural relativists - the OP is asking them how far that should go by starting with a completely OTT practise. Part of the debate might be establishing what a more reasonable level of relativism is acceptable.

You do realize that you can be a moral relativist without rejecting moral judgment?

Well well, everyone has their pet scapegoat it seems. For DK, it's Muslim extremists (or Muslims. Hypothetically.) For New Mitanni, it's all Muslims, non hypothetically. For Myrmidonisia, it's "liberals." For Ny Nordland, it's Non-Whites. For you, it's "cultural relativists."
You all really mean the same people but you disagree with just the right word to lump your enemies all into the same group for convinient hating.

Nope, you've got it all wrong. I don't use the term cultural relativists to refer to Muslims. Most Muslims are far from being cultural relativists. Your statement is just plain dumb.

No, but I think people have said they're moral or cultural relativists - the OP is asking them how far that should go by starting with a completely OTT practise. Part of the debate might be establishing what a more reasonable level of relativism is acceptable.

I draw the line at serious breaches of human rights, FGM, murder, rape, etc.
But I am ok with other unpopular customs such as

Hijab
Arranged marriages
adultery laws
Death penalty
male circumcision
various painful rights of passage
public decency laws

Well well, everyone has their pet scapegoat it seems. For DK, it's Muslim extremists (or Muslims. Hypothetically.) For New Mitanni, it's all Muslims, non hypothetically. For Myrmidonisia, it's "liberals." For Ny Nordland, it's Non-Whites. For you, it's "cultural relativists."
You all really mean the same people but you disagree with just the right word to lump your enemies all into the same group for convinient hating.

So, we'll put you down as someone who thinks female genital mutilation is great.

I'd say there are certain things that are universals, regardless of culture...rape, murder, etc. can all be looked down upon regardless of what culture spawns them. This, I would say, is one of those.

I really can't think of a way to put it better than that. I don't know that most "cultural relativists" take things to this extreme, though some probably do. Defending India's right to bar the consumption of beef, assuming there is a legal prohibition against it, in the name of "cultural relativism" is different from defending gang rape, female genital mutilation, or executing rape victims in the name of "cultural relativism."

You do realize that you can be a moral relativist without rejecting moral judgment?

Dude, I don't care about this debate - I take a relativist perspective myself to a degree, and am fairly secure in it, so not very interested in going over it yet again. I was just suggesting that the poster had the wrong idea about the debate.

So, we'll put you down as someone who thinks female genital mutilation is great.

...I'm pretty sure he's just jumping to the "This guy must hate mustlims!" conclusion...

Either way, he's an idiot.

It's a terrible practice, and one that should be stopped. Basic Human Rights transcend any 'cultural' boundaries.

I really can't think of a way to put it better than that. I don't know that most "cultural relativists" take things to this extreme, though some probably do. Defending India's right to bar the consumption of beef, assuming there is a legal prohibition against it, in the name of "cultural relativism" is different from defending gang rape, female genital mutilation, or executing rape victims in the name of "cultural relativism."

exactly. there is a huge difference between defending non-violent customs and crap like FGM

Some of you nice folks have placed gang rape along with female circumcision in a category of practices that are unacceptable regardless of culture. Good for you. A while back I wrote a post about a Pakistani woman who was sentenced to be gang raped by the men of a different family. I don't remember the reason, but the heads of the families involved agreed that this was approrpriate punishment for what she did. I said that a culture that allowed that was inferior and I got a bunch of shit for being intolerant about other cultures.

Clearly some folks on NS think that culture can justify gang rape.

Some of you nice folks have placed gang rape along with female circumcision in a category of practices that are unacceptable regardless of culture. Good for you. A while back I wrote a post about a Pakistani woman who was sentenced to be gang raped by the men of a different family. I don't remember the reason, but the heads of the families involved agreed that this was approrpriate punishment for what she did. I said that a culture that allowed that was inferior and I got a bunch of shit for being intolerant about other cultures.

Clearly some folks on NS think that culture can justify gang rape.

I think the qualm with that one is that your genralizing an entire culture based on the actions of one backward family.....

I live in the home city of the Mayo Clinic and we have had this issue already.
Muslims wanted the Mayo Clinic to perform the operation and the Clinic not only refused but (as it seems more and more) LEAKED the knowledge of the desired operation's ramifications as well as Mayo's response.

Basically, that in the USA such an operation is ILLEGAL and IMMORAL.

Abdul Diaperhead can go back to Muslimland if he wants such an operation done.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11660891']
Abdul Diaperhead can go back to Muslimland if he wants such an operation done.

hatred and bigotry are not american values.

Clearly some folks on NS think that culture can justify gang rape.

It's to do with a Imperialism guilt complex; in Europe, this is from historical events, in America, it is from present day economics. Such people feel so bad about the things that their nations have done in Third World countries that they turn a blind eye to anything that goes on in them on the basis that it's "none of our business".

It's to do with a Imperialism guilt complex; in Europe, this is from historical events, in America, it is from present day economics. Such people feel so bad about the things that their nations have done in Third World countries that they turn a blind eye to anything that goes on in them on the basis that it's "none of our business".

I don't think so, I think its because of modern communications and travel. As people see and expirience other cultures, they tend to become less prejudiced...

Some of you nice folks have placed gang rape along with female circumcision in a category of practices that are unacceptable regardless of culture. Good for you. A while back I wrote a post about a Pakistani woman who was sentenced to be gang raped by the men of a different family. I don't remember the reason, but the heads of the families involved agreed that this was approrpriate punishment for what she did. I said that a culture that allowed that was inferior and I got a bunch of shit for being intolerant about other cultures.

Clearly some folks on NS think that culture can justify gang rape.
I seem to remember that thread, but I think I never got around to posting in it despite wanting to. There is a difference between being intolerant out of ignorance or excessive pride in your own culture and being intolerant out of common sense. Intolerance isn't always a bad thing.

hatred and bigotry are not american values.
They have been becoming such increasingly since 9/11...

If a grown man held down a frightened little girl, mutilated her genitals with a dirty razor blade then sewed her vagina shut leaving only a small hole to urinate through you would have no problem calling it a crime and punishing the scumbag. So why do some cultural relativists defend the practice when it's done to every little girl in a region of the world?

scumbags defending this disgusting practice
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/circumcision/response.html
http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/smit.htm (part 2 of this document defends Female genital mutilation)

As has been pointed out in one of the letters, there are a number of different forms of female circumision, some of which are quite minor. Secondly, its most often performed by women. While the more extreme cases are something thats clearly damaging, I see no reason why the lesser ones should be censured.

So why do some cultural relativists defend the practice when it's done to every little girl in a region of the world?


For the same reason some people defend the actions of terrorists. :eek:

Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.

Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.

So, we'll put you down as someone who thinks female genital mutilation is great.

But honestly, who in their right mind gives a flying fuck what a 24/7 sectarian bigot and his pro-genocidal lackey think? Seriously. At any given moment we're liable to see a post emanating from the same quarters advocating mass slaughter, and the force feeding of various foods to practioners of a world religon - which would include those being used as a propoganda tool here. You can't have "save the women" one second and genocide/sterilise the next.

I don't give a damn about FGM, as long as it isn't performed upon girls under the age of 18, or without their consent. Adult people have all the right to do whatever they want with their own body.

Feel the same about circumcision, it shouldn't be practiced on anyone without their consent, which they can only legally give as adult. If this goes against religious practices, well fuck these religious freaks.

As soon as someone reaches adulthood, i wouldn't even care if they want to be cannibalised, as long as it all happens consentual.

Cthulhu-Mythos;11661028']They have been becoming such increasingly since 9/11...

Which is not a good thing.

For the same reason some people defend the actions of terrorists. :eek:

Yup, you only have to look to the good ol' USA and the Middle East to see some pristine examples of this...:D

So, we'll put you down as someone who thinks female genital mutilation is great.

...

Fuck off.

I draw the line at serious breaches of human rights, FGM, murder, rape, etc.
But I am ok with other unpopular customs such as

Hijab
Arranged marriages
adultery laws
Death penalty
male circumcision
various painful rights of passage
public decency laws

What about the practice of certain Muslim groups of taking twelve year old boys and circumcising them without anesthetic and in public?

...

Fuck off.

"I'm not hearing a no" ~Zoidberg

It's a terrible practice, and one that should be stopped. Basic Human Rights transcend any 'cultural' boundaries.

Agreed...

In my opinion many of these such things are better off being struck from tradition and from the world.

"I'm not hearing a no" ~Zoidberg

Coincidentally, I didn't write a "FGM is just great" or anything to that effect either. But I guess in DK world absence of evidence is evidence of presence. Or something.

I don't give a damn about FGM, as long as it isn't performed upon girls under the age of 18, or without their consent. Adult people have all the right to do whatever they want with their own body.

Feel the same about circumcision, it shouldn't be practiced on anyone without their consent, which they can only legally give as adult. If this goes against religious practices, well fuck these religious freaks.

As soon as someone reaches adulthood, i wouldn't even care if they want to be cannibalised, as long as it all happens consentual.

Seconded.

Why are you OK about circumcision DCD, but not OK about female circumcision?

ANY mutilation of the body of a person can only be acceptable if it is done with the explicit consent of the person concerned. This covers FGM, circumcision, tattooing etc.

If a grown man held down a frightened little girl, mutilated her genitals with a dirty razor blade then sewed her vagina shut leaving only a small hole to urinate through you would have no problem calling it a crime and punishing the scumbag. So why do some cultural relativists defend the practice when it's done to every little girl in a region of the world?

scumbags defending this disgusting practice
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/circumcision/response.html
http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/smit.htm (part 2 of this document defends Female genital mutilation)

Cultural relativism is all relative, as circumstances differ in different places. Relativists are by nature and almost by definition non-extremist, because extremism lacks elegance. Thus, a true relativist would never sanction something as extreme and inelegant as infibulation.

BTW, your use of the word "dirty" to describe the razor blade was unnecessary (and therefore inelegant), as female genital mutilation is horrible enough. It's also probably not quite accurate, since who's to say the razor blade is dirty every time?

Seconded.

Why are you OK about circumcision DCD, but not OK about female circumcision?

ANY mutilation of the body of a person can only be acceptable if it is done with the explicit consent of the person concerned. This covers FGM, circumcision, tattooing etc. the etc including, operations?

The different between Male and female is that the male doesn't get most of his outer areas chopped off.
And it's not done so that other males can prove on how they dominate women. That's the real reason behind Female Circumcision. It's to state
"You are nothing more than our bitch, you are not an equal, your only purpose is to make babies and be our slaves."
That and those who believe it, I would love to give them a one way ticket to the bottom of an active volocano.

Seconded.

Why are you OK about circumcision DCD, but not OK about female circumcision?

ANY mutilation of the body of a person can only be acceptable if it is done with the explicit consent of the person concerned. This covers FGM, circumcision, tattooing etc.

I feel the same about regular circumcision as i do about FGM. Thought i'd made that clear. :cool:

edit: Nevermind, didn't see straight away it was directed at them dunk commies.

the etc including, operations?

The different between Male and female is that the male doesn't get most of his outer areas chopped off.
And it's not done so that other males can prove on how they dominate women. That's the real reason behind Female Circumcision. It's to state
"You are nothing more than our bitch, you are not an equal, your only purpose is to make babies and be our slaves."
That and those who believe it, I would love to give them a one way ticket to the bottom of an active volocano.

No. Operations are not mutilation. They are done only through medical necessity. (Any that are not medically necessary are assault on the person concerned - legally)
Now circuncision is not medically necessary - it is mutilation. The degree of mutilation is irrelevant, if it is not necessary then don't do it.

I find FGM repulsive, but then again so is hacking away at the genitals of a pubescent boy.

If a grown man held down a frightened little girl, mutilated her genitals with a dirty razor blade then sewed her vagina shut leaving only a small hole to urinate through you would have no problem calling it a crime and punishing the scumbag. So why do some cultural relativists defend the practice when it's done to every little girl in a region of the world?

scumbags defending this disgusting practice
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/circumcision/response.html
http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/smit.htm (part 2 of this document defends Female genital mutilation)

The way I see it, we either have a priori moral knowledge, or our ideas of right and wrong are cultural and social phenomenon.

As far as I can tell, no morality is even close to universally held, so I think we can assume that right and wrong are social phenomenon and thereby culturally dependent.

That does not mean that I am going to defend what they do.

No. Operations are not mutilation. They are done only through medical necessity. (Any that are not medically necessary are assault on the person concerned - legally)
Now circuncision is not medically necessary - it is mutilation. The degree of mutilation is irrelevant, if it is not necessary then don't do it.

I find FGM repulsive, but then again so is hacking away at the genitals of a pubescent boy.

Circumcision has at various times been done at birth for non-religious reasons, it was thought of as a sanitary measure. At birth it is impossible for a child to consent to anything, so would this be problematic? What about the choice of being an outie or an innie? Obviously, a baby can't make that choice, so would you call it mutilation/assault?

What about the practice of certain Muslim groups of taking twelve year old boys and circumcising them without anesthetic and in public?

I've never heard of that being practiced, and I find it hard to believe considering islamic decency laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab

Most mainstream scholars say that men should cover themselves from the navel to the knees

I'll regard it as a hypothetical:

Well, that is definetely toeing the line on my tolerance, it is unecessarily painful and humiliating. Although unlike FGM it doesn't cause permanent pain...

Circumcision has at various times been done at birth for non-religious reasons, it was thought of as a sanitary measure. At birth it is impossible for a child to consent to anything, so would this be problematic? What about the choice of being an outie or an innie? Obviously, a baby can't make that choice, so would you call it mutilation/assault?

If it is done for a genuine medical reason then it is not problematic. However the vast majority of circumcisions are done purely on the basis of religious prejudice.

As for the sanitary reasons - soap and water work very well. There is no need to cut off protective skin to be clean.

EDIT: Medical info. (http://familydoctor.org/042.xml)

What about Sharia and Sharia based hudood laws?

For ex, per Shariat laws, a woman who is raped is required to produce 4 muslim male witnesses. If a raped woman takes this to the shariat court and fails to prove her case she is the one who will get accuse do slandering the rapist and get punished for that.

Is this ok because shariat courts are the legally recognised law system in muslim countries and because "it is their religion/culture and who are we to judge" type thinking?

What about Sharia and Sharia based hudood laws?

For ex, per Shariat laws, a woman who is raped is required to produce 4 muslim male witnesses. If a raped woman takes this to the shariat court and fails to prove her case she is the one who will get accuse do slandering the rapist and get punished for that.

Is this ok because shariat courts are the legally recognised law system in muslim countries and because "it is their religion/culture and who are we to judge" type thinking?

Sharia is nothing more than another system of opression that also needs to be wiped off the face of the planet.

And if the people who invoke and hate the fact that the Sharia laws would be gone? There is plenty of room in that Volocano I was talking about.

I've got the perfect solution to all these problems.

Cultural imperialism.

More specifically, Roman cultural imperialism.

Just do what they did; invade, establish order with overwhelming and uncompromising force, kill those that resist, reward those who obey, establish incentives to those that assist you, forcibly assimilate every aspect of your society into the people; erase their leaders, histories, ideals, religious values, symbols and traditions while either replacing them with your own or combining theirs with yours so it's easier to swallow.

People today compare America to Rome. Ha! We could only be so fucking fortunate as them! They dominated their world for 400 years with unquestionable supremacy, they extinguished war and spread prosperity and progress that would last centuries. By the time their empire fell, the people left behind clung to their new identity! If you think that your culture is superior it these savages then prove it! Leave no doubt in anyone's mind.

One thing is certain about absolute, overwhelming force when bending the masses to your will.

It works.

It's up to you to decide whether or not I actually hold any of this to be "right" or "wrong." It's also up to you to decide whether or not it's "true" or not.

I've got the perfect solution to all these problems.

Cultural imperialism.

More specifically, Roman cultural imperialism.

Just do what they did; invade, establish order with overwhelming and uncompromising force, kill those that resist, reward those who obey, establish incentives to those that assist you, forcibly assimilate every aspect of your society into the people; erase their leaders, histories, ideals, religious values, symbols and traditions while either replacing them with your own or combining theirs with yours so it's easier to swallow.

People today compare America to Rome. Ha! We could only be so fucking fortunate as them! They dominated their world for 400 years with unquestionable supremacy, they extinguished war and spread prosperity and progress that would last centuries. By the time their empire fell, the people left behind clung to their new identity! If you think that your culture is superior it these savages then prove it! Leave no doubt in anyone's mind.

One thing is certain about absolute, overwhelming force when bending the masses to your will.

It works.

It's up to you to decide whether or not I actually hold any of this to be "right" or "wrong." It's also up to you to decide whether or not it's "true" or not.

small problem: rome= 31B.C.E.-476A.D.

its the year 2006, theres been a few more inventions since then, like gunpowder.

So?

You can't tell me that if the US threw 20,000-30,000 more troops into Iraq, replaced the governing body with total martial law, bombed every Mosque, killed every religious figure along with anyone who showed even the slightest resistance, stripped every one of their rights, instituted a system by which the only way to gain them back is through an "Auxiliary" type program of military service over a period of time, and systematically indoctrinating the nation (the youth especially) with new values along with the general sentiment that their old ways are evil, destructive and regressive while simultaneously rebuilding their infrastructure and economy so that those values become synonymous with prosperity, that they would not come around in a generation or so.

If anything, technology makes it easier. All you need is time and the will to follow through. You are superior afterall.

Hello,

I'm a cultural relativist, and a moral relativist, but only relatively so.;)

A man named Fran Trehearne (I bet Sinuhue's met him) once defined human rights as 'allowing each person the space they need to be the person they want to be.'

So, from a cultural perspective, I should ensure that my culture allows other cultures to evolve or stagnate as they wish, but only insofar as those cultures provide that space for the individuals within that culture.

Once a society, government or culture does not allow people that space, then I feel I should put whatever pressure possible on that society, government or culture to ensure its respect of that space.

I hope that is a clear and logical summation of my position, and if I may say, Drunk Commies, I have always enjoyed your threads and posts, though we may disagree on many things.

As you are, so we all are, a

Gift of god.

I'm a relativisit. Does this mean that I have no negative opinions about beliefs, practises and ways of doing things? No, it means that I seek to understand these things relative to their context. It means that I prefer understanding to damming and that I seek to frame practises within their context of the human condition. I see this as being more likely to result in understandings that would facilitate addressing the cause than name-calling and finger-pointing.

The fact is FGM wont be stopped by 'feeling superior' or pointing out to others how very 'inferior' they are. Take one of the earlier posters who insists FGM is about males proving how in control of their bitches they are. This approach completely ignores the fact that females are not only those FGM is practised on, they are also it's practitioners and strongest supporters.

If someone actually cares about the females being FGM'ed, then they'll be more interested in 'how might we effect change in this issue' than they are in the thrill of damming others. That being the case the only sensible approach I can see is to employ relativism in order to gain an understanding of the real motivations behind this practise. After all any attempt to persuade in the hopes of effecting change will need to address the rational of FGM and 'it's all about proving our men dominate us bitches' seems to me a friggen unlikely rational...

If a grown man held down a frightened little girl, mutilated her genitals with a dirty razor blade then sewed her vagina shut leaving only a small hole to urinate through you would have no problem calling it a crime and punishing the scumbag. So why do some cultural relativists defend the practice when it's done to every little girl in a region of the world?
Possibly because it's not done in our region? What the heck does this have to do with cultural relativism? Your question is more one of "Why is this morally condoned?" The answer is the same: We have no jurisdiction over other regions.

If a grown man held down a frightened little girl, mutilated her genitals with a dirty razor blade then sewed her vagina shut leaving only a small hole to urinate through you would have no problem calling it a crime and punishing the scumbag. So why do some cultural relativists defend the practice when it's done to every little girl in a region of the world?

scumbags defending this disgusting practice
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/circumcision/response.html
http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/Diana/fulltext/smit.htm (part 2 of this document defends Female genital mutilation)

how are either of these sites cultural relativism?

the first one seems to me to be a defense from someone who is from a culture that circumsizes women. his/her points in favor certainly doesnt represent a western view of "good". in any case, s/he doesnt identify her/himself so there is no way to know if s/he is being culturally relative or is an apoligist for his/her own culture.

the second one is an academic paper putting forth a feminist view on the practice. that it includes a description of the practice and the common defenses for it doesnt mean that it actually supports the practice. it is an attempt to find better methods to bear against the practice.

Circumcision has at various times been done at birth for non-religious reasons, it was thought of as a sanitary measure. At birth it is impossible for a child to consent to anything, so would this be problematic? What about the choice of being an outie or an innie? Obviously, a baby can't make that choice, so would you call it mutilation/assault?

theres a choice?

FGM, in some cultures, is as vital a rite of passage for women as male genital mutilation (circumcision) is in others. It can be performed safely, sanitarily, and in most cases it is performed by other women who have already undergone FGM. Under those circumstances, it's voluntary, as safe as any other elective surgery, and it is important to the women who undergo FGM as part of their identity as women within their culture. In cases like these, I would let the tradition stand.

On the other hand, as DCD decribed, FGM can be imposed on women. It can be done unsafely and unsanitarily, and it can be used as a means of control, not as a rite of passage. In these cases, I say that change needs to be made, although I've never been a fan of interventionism.

The real difference in what makes any tradition, FGM or otherwise, acceptable to me is whether it is embraced or imposed. If the women within some of these cultures truly wish to undergo FGM as part of a rite, then I won't object. But, if FGM is imposed within a culture on women, then something needs to be done.

I draw the line at serious breaches of human rights, FGM, murder, rape, etc.
But I am ok with other unpopular customs such as

Hijab
Arranged marriages
adultery laws
Death penalty
male circumcision
various painful rights of passage
public decency laws

So it's okay if we routinely carve up male genetals, but it crosses a line when it happens to females?

hatred and bigotry are not american values.

Personally, I find they are among the most widely held of american values. Not that it's a good thing.

OK... has anyone on this forum EVER defended female genital mutilation?
Anyone who has ever said that we shouldn't point out human rights abuses. (Gauthier)

Amnesty international anyone? Join today!

So it's okay if we routinely carve up male genetals, but it crosses a line when it happens to females?
I can understand your ignorance but despite the casually applied name "female circumcision", FGM is a much more invasive and destructive procedure than the Jewish snip. It often results in the inability to gain pleasure from sex and lifelong pain and bleeding.

However, I don't think that male circumcision should be legal either.

It's to do with a Imperialism guilt complex; in Europe, this is from historical events, in America, it is from present day economics.
As a person from Ireland I'm entirely clean of the sin of imperialism.

So it's okay if we routinely carve up male genetals, but it crosses a line when it happens to females?

its not about gender here. FGM causes extreme, torturous pain for the rest of the woman's life, during both urination and sexual intercourse. Male circumcision, likewise has absolutely no lasting effects, after the wound is healed, it is painless. I know because I have been circumcised, I have no pain whatsoever from sexual intercourse;)



Personally, I find they are among the most widely held of american values. Not that it's a good thing.

Agreed.

its not about gender here. FGM causes extreme, torturous pain for the rest of the woman's life, during both urination and sexual intercourse. Male circumcision, likewise has absolutely no lasting effects, after the wound is healed, it is painless. I know because I have been circumcised, I have no pain whatsoever from sexual intercourse;)


My objection is not about gender either. It's about people believing that their own culture is inately superior to other cultures. Infants and children having the most sensitive part of the body cut up without their say so is not right whether it happens in a village in Africa or a hospitol in Nebraska.

Everyone cries fowl over FGM, yet very few people seem to have the slightest problem with cutting up a little boy's penis. (Incidentally, that includes my own parents.)


Agreed.

It's too bad we aren't likely to see the end of that behavior any time soon.

My objection is not about gender either. It's about people believing that their own culture is inately superior to other cultures. Infants and children having the most sensitive part of the body cut up without their say so is not right whether it happens in a village in Africa or a hospitol in Nebraska.

I do not believe my culture is any better than anyone elses, I am a relativist(moderately). Minors have very few rights until they're 18(well in the US anyway). Parents are allowed to send their kid to whatever school they want without the minor's consent, They can indoctrinate them into whatever religion they want, and force them to live in whatever house they want. Thats called parenting

Everyone cries fowl over FGM, yet very few people seem to have the slightest problem with cutting up a little boy's penis. (Incidentally, that includes my own parents.)

Thats because FGM amounts to a lifetime torture, Male circumcision can be done when the child is less than 1 day old, far before they can create memories of the event, and under a local anesthetic(at least in developed countries). There are absolutely no lasting traumatic effects. If I was given the choice I would prefer to be circumcised.



It's too bad we aren't likely to see the end of that behavior any time soon.

if anything, its only going to get worse.:(

*Snip*
Sad to say... It'd work that's for sure.

I do not believe my culture is any better than anyone elses, I am a relativist(moderately). Minors have very few rights until they're 18(well in the US anyway). Parents are allowed to send their kid to whatever school they want without the minor's consent, They can indoctrinate them into whatever religion they want, and force them to live in whatever house they want. Thats called parenting

I know that depriving children of their human rights and forcing them to do whatever they are told is what passes for parenting these days. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I would support those practices. I don't.

Thats because FGM amounts to a lifetime torture, Male circumcision can be done when the child is less than 1 day old, far before they can create memories of the event, and under a local anesthetic(at least in developed countries). There are absolutely no lasting traumatic effects. If I was given the choice I would prefer to be circumcised.


So if we carve someone up, then utilise extreme physical or emotional trauma to induce amnesia, it's okay? If FGM were conducted under more sterile conditions, under anastetic, and in such a way that it did not result in constant pain for life it would be hunky dorey?

And you don't get a say. That's the point. Just because you happen to agree with the choice that was made for you decades ago doesn't mean it was your choice. It's the deprivement of choice in an unneccissary and irreversable procedure that's the problem, not the medical specifics of said procedure.

And don't give me that crap of babies can't feel pain!

So if we carve someone up, then utilise extreme physical or emotional trauma to induce amnesia, it's okay? If FGM were conducted under more sterile conditions, under anastetic, and in such a way that it did not result in constant pain for life it would be hunky dorey?
If Female Circumcision was done at a very young age, before the girl in question was capable of remembering it, and it was done in a way that produced no permanent trauma/disabilties, then yes I would have no qualm with it.

And you don't get a say. That's the point. Just because you happen to agree with the choice that was made for you decades ago doesn't mean it was your choice. It's the deprivement of choice in an unneccissary and irreversable procedure that's the problem, not the medical specifics of said procedure.

Deprivement of choice is an everyday part of life, and growing up. I had no choice in determining my sex, hair color, skin color, height, weight, eye color, or country of origin. I have two genetic skin diseases and flat feet, does that mean my mother is at fault for not giving me a choice as to my defects?

And don't give me that crap of babies can't feel pain!

Babies most certainly can feel pain. The question is whether the person can remember the pain. The answer is they can't

If Female Circumcision was done at a very young age, before the girl in question was capable of remembering it, and it was done in a way that produced no permanent trauma/disabilties, then yes I would have no qualm with it.

Good for you. Now that we've established that, it seems we've reached an impass and have no need to further discuss it.

Deprivement of choice is an everyday part of life, and growing up. I had no choice in determining my sex, hair color, skin color, height, weight, eye color, or country of origin. I have two genetic skin diseases and flat feet, does that mean my mother is at fault for not giving me a choice as to my defects?

Your mother didn't chose to give you those defects. She (and/or your father) did chose to have you circumcised. If you honestly can't understand the difference between not having a say in a situation where NO ONE has a say, like your genetic makeup, and a situation in which someone does get to decide, and your opinion is simply dismissed as irrelavent, I'm going to have to dismiss you entirely.

Babies most certainly can feel pain. The question is whether the person can remember the pain. The answer is they can't

Let's try putting this another way. My best friend was raped as a child. She doesn't have any memory of the event and experiences no lasting physical trauma. Does that make what happened to her okay?

Sad to say... It'd work that's for sure.

Precisely. :(

Generally speaking, people today have no sense of perspective. Throughout history there are examples of single battles with bigger body counts then the whole Iraq war. Slaughters of tens of thousands of prisoners after battles, massive purges of populations, etc, and it was standard practice. No one gave it a second thought except to observe how damn effective it was. Meanwhile, the "rights" we enjoy today are a strikingly recent development. Slavery, second-class citizenship, general oppression and the like were nearly universal across world civilization up to only the last century (and in a lot of places to this day).

Comparatively, the world today is probably the freest, most peaceful, and least brutal epoch of human history but everyone takes it for granted. A shame really. People talk war without having even the slightest idea what it's really like, they talk about oppression having never felt it, they talk about atrocities without ever seeing one.

Meh…