On FGM( female genital mutilation) and its defenders

Readers of the British daily The Guardian (Fenruary 6, 2014) may have noted an editorial and front page story about FGM( female genital mutilation) along with other British newspapers.

The paper(in common with others) unambiguously condemns the practice( aka Pharonic infibulation) concluding that it has no defence either in Christianity or Islam,altough it is practised by both faith's adherents

Given that this practise has its defence amongst certain African intellectuals and Western anthopologists( who regard criticism of it in the West as being "racist" or even "Islamophobic"-although significantly it is NOT practised in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam), let us examine the rationale for FGM.

A-FGM is a "cultural" practise and therefore it should be allowed to continue even in the West. R- true, but this "jam jar" concept of culture is specious, - healthy cultures grow and change( in my own lifetime alone never mind my mother's )homosexuality was criminalized, murder was punishable by death on the gallows and in the past, witches were burned alive at the stake, it was legal to buy ,sell and own slaves, husbands could legally beat their wives( as long as the stick was no thicker than a man's thumb- hence the phrase"rule of thumb"), kids were sent down mines and up chimneys- and who would seriously defend such practises nowadays based on "culture"???

B. Criticism of FGM by Western( and indeed some African) commentators is "racist"- Europeans just don't UNDERSTAND the African mindset. I believe the reverse to be true- implying that Africans are so irredeemably backward that they engage in practises even though they have been criticised for so doing.

Who cares about the concept of universal human rights?- just leave us alone to brutalize one another, slaughter each other and generally "thin the herd"( this is roughly the argument made against the indictments of several African leaders, Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan, Uganda's Joseph Kony of the Lord's Resistance Army, Kenya's President and Vice President) on war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court).

In conclusion- NONE of the pro-FGM arguments put forward by its proponents hold water. Other societies have abolished practises now considered inhumane in the light of changing mores- suttee in India and foot binding in China- and not even the most militant Indian or Chinese nationalist has campaigned for its reinstatement!

Anybody think as I do?

Terry

...

I remeber having a conversation with @lykopis about this so I'll just point out my response from this.....

To point out female genital mutilation/modification (personally I prefer the former), my ethnic roots are from an area where this is still practiced, though in decreasing numbers. I have always though of it to be a cruel and unjust thing to do. Clitoral removal is sometimes the most kind way of doing things, relatively speaking, as sometimes the genital area is sewn up leaving only a small hole for peeing, until the unfortunate girl is married- though I believe this is a practice which pretty much exclusively done in Muslim regions, my ethnicity (Nigeria if anyone is interested- is literally half split between Islam and Christianity). While this practice is completely unfair though- its meant to ensure loyalty to the man, as if the woman can't enjoy sex at all, she not going to be tempted to cheat (at least that's the logic- though cheating can be as much for emotional gratification from another party as sexual), I wouldn't put it down to solely Islam. While some sects of "Islam" could be considered to match with such practices, at best it was incorporated into the faith, as FGM seems to be a very old practice, pre-dating Christianity and Islam IIRC.

later on

Also with your point to FGM, it is a horrible practice, but it would be unfair to assume that all those who commit this crime are inherently evil. It often comes down to tradition- It has been passed down through generations in parts of African and the middle east that this is the appropriate thing to do, so why would men do otherwise. Also, I would definite concede that their is a large social pressure for woman to do this to themselves in these parts, but I know of women (including relatives back in Nigeria) who have more than willingly done it, without any over pressure from close family relatives. This was a major theme in the Color Purple, the book I recommenced to@lykopis but as I presumed had already read :P. Basically one of the major characters Tashi, decides to have it done in order to stay in touch with her culture, which was being completely bull-dozed by the British Empire at the time. Again its horrible, but should be handled with a bit more tactfulness than all those men are barbarians, lets nuke em. After all its only luck of the draw, which means that we are not born in such parts, and are subjected to teachings which would make think practices like this are acceptable.

...

I'm not touching this one.

i'm sure there are cultures that see circumcision as equally abhorrent. I'm not defending it, its just that people are protective of their culture. Why else do Americans get so pissy at anything that controls guns

@rogueshadow:

To be fair, I think what the OP meant by:

B. Criticism of FGM by Western( and indeed some African) commentators is "racist"- Europeans just don't UNDERSTAND the African mindset. I believe the reverse to be true- implying that Africans are so irredeemably backward that they engage in practises even though they have been criticised for so doing.

...is that, the commentators who decry the criticism of female genital mutilation as racist, imply through their indignation, the impression these societies who have this horrific practice unchallenged within them, are irredeemably backward (which of course, the countries in Africa are not.)

Just how I interpreted it but I acknowledge that I am assuming both your reaction and perhaps, even the OP's original thoughts.

@laflux:

Oh geez.

I have been avoiding the Off-Topic Forums for a while (outside of wrestling and silly stuff) but you just had to drag me into something that I could easily crash a whole sh*tload of information and my own opinion about.

I think I am going to give myself a little time to mull this over. I remember our conversation from before -- vividly.

Well -- I consider circumcision as a horrific practice as well, however, there are studies which have proven that in societies without access to quality education and sanitary living conditions, circumcision has provided a sizable amount of not protection, but the less likelihood of contracting STDs.

@lykopis: As to the private views and intentions of the OP in posting that... I'm sure I have no Idea, I only know that it was horribly articulated.

@rogueshadow:

I completely agree. I had to re-read it a few times to make sense of it, and when I saw your post, I was glad to see it wasn't my comprehension skills that were the issue. :)

ok

To just go off topic slightly. I remember getting into a debate in the religion thread, over circumcision. That is practiced in Judaism. And people were saying how a parent has a right to have their child circumcised, without the child giving consent (they are usually at an age likely where they cannot). I completely disagreed and would say it is mutilation, when the person cannot give their consent.

I am not trying to compare it to female circumcision. But Id say the principle is essentially the same. To take away/alter a persons body parts is wrong. No matter what is concerned.

That's just it_ to my mind- (male) circumcision in Judaism can be defended as part of the faith whereas its female counterpart in countries like Somalia can NOT be!

Terry

Using faith as a shield to justify it or not doesn't make any difference. It is still wrong regardless.

When was the last time you read a comic?

To my mind the charge that criticism of FGM is "racist/Islamophobic" has the same semantic overtones that critics of Israel are "anti-Semites/self-hating Jews"- a boo word used to silence criticism of the indefensible!

Terry

Who are you to say what I can and can't bring up? I shall bring what I wish up.

Weather it has benefits or not, it is wrong to mutilate someone without there permission. Weather it be foreskin or clitoris.

One being more severe and damaging than the other does not matter, the principals are the same.

If people want it done then let them have it. There are many tribal groups in Africa that perform female genital mutilation as a rite of passage and/or religious ceremony. The same with circumcision, though circumcision is more widespread. Personally, I don't see a need in either things and wouldn't think it's necessary to perform them, unless for medical reasons. However, I do respect people's wishes and cultures. So it's really up to the individual.

Hmm

Well, not really to be honest. The foreskin is simply excess skin, where as the parts that are removed in fgm are actual sexual organs. I understand other cultures/people that view circumcision as wrong, ( i am one of them) however, doing so (usually) doesn't affect your ability to experience an orgasm, and it doesn't take the fun out of being with someone intimately.