FGM debate "renewed"

[Guest TrueMetis]

And if you're attempting to equate male circumcision with FGM, I think you're horribly mistaken.

This lady who has been through FGM disagrees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VsnVmPbgjk&feature=related

Here's another one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOk-rZTk0Rc&playnext_from=TL&videos=h_rCwgUS95s

Edited June 4, 2010 by TrueMetis

[eyeball]

The fact that most men aren't circumsized says otherwise.

I'd say the fact uncircumcised men aren't lining up to have the procedure done says a lot too.

[lictor616]

personally I hope that all females who welcome this stamp of diversity and trademark of "tribal exuberance" (be they liberal egalitarians, marxist feminists or just your average sally soccer mom who has been too thoroughly brainwashed by TV to discriminate between goo and bad anymore) have this done to themselves and their daughters...

may they suffer for the rest of their natural lives for willfully defiling their own people and defacing their Western Culture.

[kimmy]

This lady who has been through FGM disagrees.

It's no doubt a contentious issue.

The second video makes an excellent argument.

I wish to point out that when we in the west discuss circumcision of males, we are almost exclusively referring to what he labels Type 1 and Type 2 (partial or complete removal of the foreskin), which he ranks low on his scale of severity. Discussions tend to ignore what he labels type 3 and type 4 male circumcision, because those procedures are completely unheard of in the west.

Conversely, when we discuss female "circumcision", we are almost inevitably discussing the sort that certain immigrants wish to have performed on their daughters (partial or total removal of the clitoris and partial or total removal of the labia), all of which he ranks high on his scale of severity.

I said earlier I think it is horribly wrong to compare the removal of the foreskin to the removal of the clitoris, and the person who made this video agrees completely, and he says so explicitly.

-k

[Guest TrueMetis]

I said earlier I think it is horribly wrong to compare the removal of the foreskin to the removal of the clitoris, and the person who made this video agrees completely, and he says so explicitly.

This is true, but he also says he thinks no types of circumcision male of female should be performed on anyone under 18.

FYI when I discuss circumcision I'm talking all circumcision. So when you say

And if you're attempting to equate male circumcision with FGM, I think you're horribly mistaken.

I'm thinking of all types of circumcision and I know that what you saying is wrong, but if your talking only about the most harsh of both than that's different.

[kimmy]

I'm thinking of all types of circumcision and I know that what you saying is wrong, but if your talking only about the most harsh of both than that's different.

Removal of the foreskin is obviously still a common practice here in the west.

But if you wanted to find a doctor who would perform "type 3" and "type 4" (as described in that video) male circumcision on a child, I think you would have an extremely difficult time. I think any doctor would view it as a clear violation of the Hippocratic Oath. I think a lobby to legalize and provide access for parents wishing to have this done to their sons would be met with nothing but scorn and derision. I would join in that scorn and derision.

-k

[Bonam]

You don't get to decide if your daughter has a clitoris.

Putting it that way does make it sound quite ridiculous. Perhaps you guys are right.

[August1991]

If a procedure designed to cripple a person's ability to enjoy sexual intercourse isn't a "serious health risk/issue", then what meets the criteria, in your opinion?

-k

This is the key point.

Male Muslims want to control females, and their sexual pleasure. There is no other way to view this surgical intervention.

I am astonished that Leftists, Feminists defend in any way Muslims (Palestinians) in any form. These Leftists and Feminists are in effect promoting Sexist Apartheid, on political grounds.

Edited June 6, 2010 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

I am astonished that Leftists, Feminists defend in any way Muslims (Palestinians) in any form. These Leftists and Feminists are in effect promoting Sexist Apartheid, on political grounds.

What leftists and feminists? The only poster in this thread coming close to defending it is a conservative male.

[bloodyminded]

In the context of FGM and judging by some of the body piercing that's being done these days, I'd say that ship has probably long since sailed.

As for questioning the moral and cultural relativism of the left - the right is no better positioned to do that than it is when trying to explain their own.

And for that matter, why should the self-named "political middle" or "moderates" get off scott free? Do they got 'er all figured out?

That's funny.

[bloodyminded]

This is the key point.

Male Muslims want to control females, and their sexual pleasure. There is no other way to view this surgical intervention.

I am astonished that Leftists, Feminists defend in any way Muslims (Palestinians) in any form. These Leftists and Feminists are in effect promoting Sexist Apartheid, on political grounds.

I find it difficult to believe that you are "astonished," as per your continual refrain lately, that the obssessions you have invented are behaving exactly as you are inventing them to behave, within the political theatre of your imagination.

[lictor616]

This is the key point.

Male Muslims want to control females, and their sexual pleasure. There is no other way to view this surgical intervention.

I am astonished that Leftists, Feminists defend in any way Muslims (Palestinians) in any form. These Leftists and Feminists are in effect promoting Sexist Apartheid, on political grounds.

that<s because feminists and leftists alike really are more concerned with undermining western civilization and destroying our culture then actually achieving equality and fighting for women's rights... I've spoken with many at my university, and they have no qualms about defending islamists and FGM on the ludicrous grounds that by helping them they help their own femenist/ marxist cause!

and this mindless support and defense of sexual oppression of women is incontrovertible proof of that. I mean ... How else could we interpret that? Why this support?

Its because in their minds: Western Civilization (the civilization that allowed them to exist) = bad

but: Diversity (even if it means the importation of million of chauvinistic anti-women anti-equality religious fundamentalists) = GOOD..

simple as that.

[bloodyminded]

that<s because feminists and leftists alike really are more concerned with undermining western civilization and destroying our culture then actually achieving equality and fighting for women's rights... I've spoken with many at my university, and they have no qualms about defending islamists and FGM on the ludicrous grounds that by helping them they help their own femenist/ marxist cause!

and this mindless support and defense of sexual oppression of women is incontrovertible proof of that. I mean ... How else could we interpret that? Why this support?

Its because in their minds: Western Civilization (the civilization that allowed them to exist) = bad

but: Diversity (even if it means the importation of million of chauvinistic anti-women anti-equality religious fundamentalists) = GOOD..

simple as that.

Simple as that, huh?

Because you have "spoken with many" ( a dubious claim), and they have all admitted to the sinister designs you attribute to them (an even more dubious claim).

I'm reminded of Christoper Hitchens, claiming, after decades of his harsh criticism, that the United States government had unilaterally reformed itself and become genuine humanitarians under the government of G.W. Bush; and his evidence for this?:

"Conversations I've had in Washington."

QED.

Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[lictor616]

Simple as that, huh?

Because you have "spoken with many" ( a dubious claim), and they have all admitted to the sinister designs you attribute to them (an even more dubious claim).

I'm reminded of Christoper Hitchens, claiming, after decades of his harsh criticism, that the United States government had unilaterally reformed itself and become genuine humanitarians under the government of G.W. Bush; and his evidence for this?:

"Conversations I've had in Washington."

QED.

Go ahead and familiarize yourslef with any "women's study" faculty in any up to date campus... these are majority position by feminists and liberal egalitarian zealots- they should astonish no one who knows anything about what their positions are most of the time.

I happen to have spoken with many self described socialists, anarcho communists and especially feminists who support veiled women, the burka, FGM and many other oddities that on the surface seem to betray their most fundamental ideals...

but as I said: and as you'll find, their interest is in the destruction of western civilization, which they assure you, is the root of all evil.

[bloodyminded]

I happen to have spoken with many self described socialists, anarcho communists and especially feminists who support veiled women, the burka, FGM and many other oddities that on the surface seem to betray their most fundamental ideals...

I recall somebody saying something about this form of argument...what was it?...oh yeah:

jesus! learn how to argue for god's sake... don't bring in some lame unverifiable anecdotal nonsense!

[Oleg Bach]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a0f1c0cf-2452-42eb-bf75-b56f354f9dce&k=84150

FGM may be legalized in the very near future, already there is chatter among the crypto communists that dominate academia that Female Genital Mutilation should be tolerated in the name of diversity.

Their defense is that if the government of Canada doesn't allow it, then the practice might be performed by ill-equipped immigrants, which could lead to botched clitoredectomies, infections etc.

Plus, isn't intolerance for FGM... somehow... a little RACIST?

Surely Canada will benefit from the strength of this type of diversity!

And Why stop there? We should overturn the decision on Sharia and let some communities in the GTA and other "brown" areas expand the list of wondrous cultural customs to include ritual stoning, honor killings, child slavery... stoning of catholics, jews and all infidels...

In a multicultural, multiracial, multireligious we must respect all traditions!!! Live with it bigots!

IF some traditions consisted of cutting the right thumb off of infants - that type of forced crippling should not be allowed - mutilation of male or female genitals is barbaric and vodoish..I watched a film clip of a poor young girl in shock getting the treatment..she was shaking and screaming " I will never forgive you for this" That said it all.

[M.Dancer]

Go ahead and familiarize yourslef with any "women's study" faculty in any up to date campus... these are majority position by feminists and liberal egalitarian zealots- they should astonish no one who knows anything about what their positions are most of the time.

Yet your own link doesn't support your claims...what ever they may be..

[Yesterday]

So the right to cut up your children's genitalia is actually being considered in a country where you can't even spank your kids?

My position...keep your bloody hands to yourself! This is Canada, a country where Scots, French, German and the like, Muslim, Arabic or Japanese gather to escape the woes of their mother countries. Multiculturalism has nothing to do with retaining old ways, it has to do with being able to take the best of the best customs from around the world and the ability to leave the rest.

Physically deforming our bodies in the name of a God or Gods, well, that's tribal and archaic. Deeply disturbing to me.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Yesterday

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps I am letting my individualist ideology go too far on this issue in preventing me from plainly cheering the banning of this abhorrent practice, but I cherish individual rights and the limitations of the powers of the state to interfere in parent's decisions more than I cherish the sexual enjoyment experienced by the children of uneducated savages.

You seem to be believe in individualism, but don't seem willing to afford that right to other peoples' children. If an adult wants to slice off their clitoris, I won't stand in the way. But parents are not gods, and do not get to have absolute rights over their children's bodies. Part of the notion of "guardianship" is "guardian".

You Libertarians live in such a strange fantasy land.

[bloodyminded]

You seem to be believe in individualism, but don't seem willing to afford that right to other peoples' children. If an adult wants to slice off their clitoris, I won't stand in the way. But parents are not gods, and do not get to have absolute rights over their children's bodies. Part of the notion of "guardianship" is "guardian".

You Libertarians live in such a strange fantasy land.

Perhaps the "property" fetish extends all the way......

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps the "property" fetish extends all the way......

I suspect for many Libertarians it does. Mainly its because most Libertarians don't give a crap about anyone. I mean, the idea that parents should have absolute power over their children, right down to permitting genital mutilation, suggests to me an almost sociopathic disregard for their fellow humans. I think Bonam really does believe that children are chattel.

[Bonam]

I suspect for many Libertarians it does. Mainly its because most Libertarians don't give a crap about anyone. I mean, the idea that parents should have absolute power over their children, right down to permitting genital mutilation, suggests to me an almost sociopathic disregard for their fellow humans. I think Bonam really does believe that children are chattel.

Clearly you failed to read my posts in their entirety. I specifically stated that any procedure that is determined to be significantly harmful or pose significant health risks should not be allowed. However, I posited that some of the less extreme forms of FGM may perhaps be carried out without such risks, and, if that were the case (note the if), then the government should not take it upon itself to outlaw such things (though non-governmental entities could still intervene, such as a doctor refusing to perform the procedure).

It is a far more nuanced position than what you are trying to paint it as. Nowhere have I said that parents are Gods or that they own their children.

That being said, I am just as happy as the next guy to condemn the barbarism of this particular custom, and would fully support efforts to eliminate it. Education and assimilation into Western culture and values has a very important role to play in this regard. But I will continue to argue that the less coercive power the government has over its citizens, the better.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Bonam