FGM aka Female circumcision

Boom_Bap

mad muffin wrote: »

It’s not my fault people can’t comprehend what they read? Plus it’s not a jab. Just a simple statement of fact.

Maybe you should read back at what I have posted? Then tell me I’m wrong?

Also reading comprehension does not equate grammar nazi.

There is no need to make your statement of fact. Keep any thoughts of reading comprehension to yourself instead of relaying it back to the forum and the people that post here.

And if I do read back, I see these gems:

"What’s you talkin bout there Willis?"

"Reading comprehension… do you have some?"

Cut that out please.

If you've any more concerns about this, take it to PM and let discussion continue.

Wibbs

suicide_circus wrote: »

Yeah see youre not really condemning it there.
There is no "but". Any medically unnecessary cutting of children is abuse and those who carry it out are scumbags and those who legitimise it by saying it's not that bad are enablers of child abuse.

The "but" is almost entirely cultural. As I have pointed out if the exact same tissue was removed from girls as boys and "left no lasting damage" it would still be condemned in Western eyes. It's a cultural blindness and it's not just those who practice FGM suffer from that.

Our cultural blindness is seeing male genital "augmentation" as "normal" to our culture. This goes double in places like the US of A where it's a near given for boys to be medically mutilated soon after birth as a matter of course. Expressions like "just a piece of skin" illustrate this.

Is it any wonder the practice of FGM is so resistant to change? People from that culture see it just as much a "piece of skin", the "merest cut". And every single reason given for the practice and continuation of the practice of FGM is the same as what the average father and mother of the average American siding over their newborn to the doctor reasons out.

And until we see our own cultural blindness how can we hope to understand and then positively influence cultures that see their practices as equally valid? Imagine an American doctor telling a Sudanese woman not to circumcise her daughters and her asking why not, you circumcise your sons. And the same Sudanese woman would almost certainly claim that the practice she suffered was good for her and left no lasting damage.


We actually see this in the history of the male version. Christianity alone among the Abrahamic faiths doesn't require this blood sacrifice, simply because the RomanoGreco world it was imported into saw it as the ritual of barbarians, so that bit of Judaism was promptly removed(as where the food restrictions. Romans ate everything, especially pork). Islam being of Middle Eastern origins itself and not nearly so influenced by the Classical world kept that stuff in their version of Judaism.

In modern western thought the other factor is that girls are more seen as autonomous of body compared to boys(though this is a more recent thing). Just as girls are seen as lesser in other cultures it can easily be argued that in western culture boys are.

mad muffin

seamus wrote: »

Then why do it?

If it will not change anything, then why do it?

Have a think about how many different procedures one could apply this line of thinking to; piercings, tattoos, branding.

One can even make the argument that you could easily remove a baby toe and it will not bother him one bit nor change his life in any meaningful way.

Yet if I suggested that I lop off my baby's baby toes or put a small tattoo on her arse, I'm sure you'd have some words to say about it.

The effect is irrelevant. It is mutilation, one way or another.

I have never stated circumsision should or could be done for religious reasons. But to say it’s the same as fgm is untrue.

I know how Matt Damon feels now lol.

Wibbs

mad muffin wrote: »

But to say it’s the same as fgm is untrue.

Would you be OK with the removal of the same tissue in girls as in boys?* Would you consider it "just a piece of skin"? Would you see it as any different? If so, why so? I'm trying to get you to walk through your viewpoint here. It's all too easy to be culturally bound in the moral sphere and its quite difficult to get out from under that.




*Which is a form of female circumcision and is condemned by the WHO and the UN, yet male circumcision is not.

Potatoeman

mad muffin wrote: »

I have never stated circumsision should or could be done for religious reasons. But to say it’s the same as fgm is untrue.

I know how Matt Damon feels now lol.

It’s the same in principle and undermines the argument you are making. It’s worse in that it’s practiced by first world educated societies.

mad muffin

Wibbs wrote: »

Would you be OK with the removal of the same tissue in girls as in boys?* Would you consider it "just a piece of skin"? Would you see it as any different? If so, why so? I'm trying to get you to walk through your viewpoint here. It's all too easy to be culturally bound in the moral sphere and its quite difficult to get out from under that.




*Which is a form of female circumcision and is condemned by the WHO and the UN, yet male circumcision is not.

What happens when a male gets circumcised? And why was it ever done in the first place, for religious reasons?

Now why was it done to females? It was done to control them. Demean them. Make it so they won’t enjoy sex, and therefore not cheat on their husbands, or be promiscuous.

Again. I don’t condone either practice for the purpose of it being a religious right of passage. But people should not think they are are the same.

Also if done right. The male will live a life that is unaltered from if ever was done to him. Can the same be said about fgm?

suicide_circus

In both cases a child is violated. In the case of a girl, the repercussions are worse.

Wibbs

mad muffin wrote: »

What happens when a male gets circumcised? And why was it ever done in the first place, for religious reasons?

Now why was it done to females? It was done to control them. Demean them. Make it so they won’t enjoy sex, and therefore not cheat on their husbands, or be promiscuous.

Actually both have the same origins. Group affiliation, class affiliation, Religious affiliation and a blood sacrifice to their god(s), tradition(I want my son/daughter to be the same as me), cultural aesthetics and "cleanliness" and yes both were and are seen as ways to reduce the sexual appetite. Some Jewish thinkers spelled this out on the male form. One even went as far as to say if a woman laid with an unaltered man she'd be driven wild with lust and this was bad.

Much later male circumcision was seen in the west as a way to also reduce sexual desire, straying husbands and masturbation and was medically recommended for this reason. Into the early 20th century. Similar clitorectonies were also on the medical books for a time. They often used acid(yeah) to burn it away. Usually for cases of female "hysteria", "wantoness" and the like. Or they were advised to have a kid as this was thought to dial back their lustfulness. Or early "medical" vibrators were utilised by doctors to help "release' the woman's tension. Mad stuff Ted.

The biggest difference being that quickly enough all that hysteria stuff was dropped by western medicine and women were largely left alone in that regard. Medically at least. With boys/men the practice continued on as a commonplace procedure. In Ireland too. Go back to men born pre the 50's/60's and it was very common that they'd be snipped at birth. It died out here and in the UK by the 70's but kept going in the North Americas up until to today.

Again. I don’t condone either practice for the purpose of it being a religious right of passage. But people should not think they are are the same.

Again I ask the question; if the same tissue was removed from girls as is removed from boys to the same effect* would you see it as the same, or it would still in your eyes be somehow different? I'd bet the farm the latter and that's your cultural blindness coming out.

Also if done right. The male will live a life that is unaltered from if ever was done to him. Can the same be said about fgm?

Again the same question as above.


*Though such a procedure on girls wouldn't dry out the glans of the clit nearly as much as the glans of the penis. Some more extreme body modifiers sometimes do circumcise willing women in the same way as the male. But that's a fetish. Then again the male from can be a fetish too with some.

Wibbs

mad muffin wrote: »

Make it so they won’t enjoy sex

Actually on this score quite a number of observers have reported that the practice is considered to increase sexual desire in women. Yep. And such women also report orgasms and the like. But only with their husbands .. The biggest drivers behind the practice of FGM are women, not men. This of course doesn't account for those many many women who have had the most extreme form of violation that results in scarring and infection and pain.

suicide_circus

While the west systematically performs medically unnecessary circumcisions on baby boys it dosnt have a leg to stand on when condemning those in developing countries circumcising girls.

Simi

suicide_circus wrote: »

While the west systematically performs medically unnecessary circumcisions on baby boys it dosnt have a leg to stand on when condemning those in developing countries circumcising girls.

Actually there's quite a large body of evidence that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection.

https://www.avert.org/learn-share/hiv-fact-sheets/circumcision#footnote1_kssxilf

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/en/

Female genital mutilation has absolutely no benefits & results in thousands of deaths every year, most of which are recorded as allergic reactions to penicillin or other drugs, to protect the parents & doctors from prosecution.

Potatoeman

mad muffin wrote: »

What happens when a male gets circumcised? And why was it ever done in the first place, for religious reasons?

Now why was it done to females? It was done to control them. Demean them. Make it so they won’t enjoy sex, and therefore not cheat on their husbands, or be promiscuous.

Again. I don’t condone either practice for the purpose of it being a religious right of passage. But people should not think they are are the same.

Also if done right. The male will live a life that is unaltered from if ever was done to him. Can the same be said about fgm?

Men in those societies are controlled by responsibly where women are controlled by limitations of freedom. It a symbiotic system of control.

suicide_circus

Simi wrote: »

Actually there's quite a large body of evidence that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection.

https://www.avert.org/learn-share/hiv-fact-sheets/circumcision#footnote1_kssxilf

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/en/

Female genital mutilation has absolutely no benefits & results in thousands of deaths every year, most of which are recorded as allergic reactions to penicillin or other drugs, to protect the parents & doctors from prosecution.

In that case it may have uses in areas plagued by aids but not in the west.

jackofalltrades

Simi wrote: »

Actually there's quite a large body of evidence that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection.

https://www.avert.org/learn-share/hiv-fact-sheets/circumcision#footnote1_kssxilf

http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/en/

Male circumcision only provides some benefit for men contracting HIV through sex with women.
It has no benefit when it comes to men having sex with other men or when it comes to men passing on HIV to women.
Condoms are highly effective in the above cases and also when it comes to other STD's too.

Female genital mutilation has absolutely no benefits & results in thousands of deaths every year, most of which are recorded as allergic reactions to penicillin or other drugs, to protect the parents & doctors from prosecution.

And if FGM was shown to have health benefits would you support it then?
I'm guessing you still wouldn't and I'd say that would go for everyone else promoting the health benefits of circumcisions as well.
I'd also like to know how many men die from circumcisions each year.

Kidchameleon

I would not support anyone who is against FGM while at the same time has their head in the sand about MGM

Never Say Never Again

There is no doubt tho that it is cleaner to have a circumcised penis

SusieBlue

Never Say Never Again wrote: »

There is no doubt tho that it is cleaner to have a circumcised penis

Not if you maintain a normal standard of hygiene? If you wash yourself regularly and properly there will be no issues.

jackofalltrades

Never Say Never Again wrote: »

There is no doubt tho that it is cleaner to have a circumcised penis

1/10 for effort.

dotsman

mad muffin wrote: »

I agree it should never be done for religious reasons but…

The male baby will never remember if it’s done correctly. It will not bother him one bit, and will not change his life in any meaningful way.

On the other hand, the female baby will live with the effects of having fmg done to her, for the rest of her life.

You seem to be missing the point. The "It will not bother him one bit, and will not change his life in any meaningful way" could equally apply to the girl - what they never had they won't miss.

The boy will suffer. Both as the child during and post surgery, but also from diminished sensitivity on the head of the penis for the rest of his life.

Genital mutilation, regardless of the gender is coming from the same evil thought process that sexual pleasure/desire is wrong and should be diminished. As others have said, there is no denying that GM applied to girls is more extreme, but it is the exact same barbaric custom. But we don't look at it that way because, for us, it is an ignorant, sexist, racist view. That, because MGM has traditionally been done in the west, it is OK - it's just FGM is a foreign, strange, third world custom, so is bad. Likewise, because MGM is only applied to boys, it is fine, but because FGM is done to girls, it is wrong.

You will notice that some of the most vocal people against FGM are Feminists. That somehow, it is a woman's issue. They are perfectly happy to mutilate their own boys here in the west, but don't you dare let a girl half-way around the world be mutilated as part of her tradition/custom. Likewise, Feminists will often try to twist it to look like FGM is males oppressing Females when FGM is always carried out by women, on women, for women, supported by women. In the countries that practice it, far more men are against the barbaric custom than females.

One eyed Jack

I think FGM is one of those circumstances where education is more likely to have an effect on cultural norms rather than introducing laws to prosecute those who carry on the practice in western societies. I think rather than condemnation in this case, education would achieve far more in the long term. I know it's old mow but this is an abstract from an article from 2005 on the issue of FGM in Scandinavian countries among African immigrants -


Female circumcision (FC) has remained a common practice in the countries where it has traditionally been performed. Following increased global mobility, it has also become a common medical issue in the predominantly non-Islamic countries where an increasing number of immigrants from regions where FC is still traditional, have settled.

To investigate types of FC found in a group of immigrants from northern Africa with a current domicile in Scandinavia. To characterize these women with regard to education, socio-economic status and experienced complications and sequelae. To report attitudes to FC among the women and their husbands.

An autoquestionnaire was distributed to 220 immigrant women (16-42 years old), who belonged to an African community in Scandinavia and who had all been circumcised. Information was also gathered concerning 76 of their daughters (aged 1-13 years). Of the women's husbands, 95 were asked about their attitudes to FC.

Of the 140 women, who had been circumcised in their home country before they migrated, 78 (35%) had been clitoridectomized, 38 (17%) had been subjected to genital excision and 24 (11%) to infibulation. The corresponding percentages in the remaining women, who had had FC when returning home for a visit, were 0%, 14% and 22%, respectively. Of the daughters, 15 (19%) had been circumcised whilst living in Scandinavia; all had been clitoridectomized. Twenty-eight (13%) women reported having experienced late complications or post-FC sequelae. A positive attitude to stopping the tradition of FC was reported twice as often by the husbands (69%) as by the circumcised women (35%). Religion (95% of the responders were Muslims and 5% Christians), cultural tradition, and increased chance of marriage or of continued health were the reasons put forward in favor of the continuation of FC by 58%, 27%, 10% and 4 %, respectively. Five per cent could not supply an opinion.
FC is performed in immigrant women even after settling in areas where this practise is legally banned. Circumcised immigrant women experience medical and sexual problems which have to be dealt with in their new domicile country. Many African Islamic women, who have migrated to Scandinavia, seem still to be in favour of the continuation of circumcision for varying reasons.

Female genital mutilation—An exported medical hazard. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7613809_Female_genital_mutilation-An_exported_medical_hazard [accessed Dec 22 2017].

And to look at the scale of the issue in the UK -


Female genital mutilation in the United Kingdom is the ritual removal of some or all of the external female genitalia of women and girls living in the UK. According to Equality Now and City University London, an estimated 103,000 women and girls aged 15–49 were thought to be living with female genital mutilation (FGM) in England and Wales as of 2011.

FGM was outlawed in the UK by the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, which made it an offence to perform FGM on children or adults. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Act 2005 made it an offence to arrange FGM outside the country for British citizens or permanent residents, whether or not it is lawful in the country to which the girl is taken.

To date there have been no convictions. The first prosecutions took place in 2015 against a doctor for performing FGM and another man for aiding and abetting; both were found not guilty.

Wikipedia, Female genital mutilation in the United Kingdon


What it suggests to me is that women in these cultures are promoting the idea of FGM themselves and that rather than being for religious reasons, cultural and socioeconomic factors play a far greater role in the continuation of the practice. Personally, I don't imagine people in these cultures will take a blind bit of notice of Western standards, other than finding ways to avoid being prosecuted. I know in France for example that young girls are flown to the UK to have the procedure done, and it is only through self-reporting or examination during pregnancy that statistics on FGM can be gathered.

If we actually want to stop the practice, then I don't know that banning it is the way to go, as historically prohibition of cultural norms has led to resistance rather than compliance with Western cultural norms and values.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What it suggests to me is that women in these cultures are promoting the idea of FGM themselves and that rather than being for religious reasons, cultural and socioeconomic factors play a far greater role in the continuation of the practice.

FGM is practised on women, by women. That doesn't mean it's something women want, not if you mean in any meaningful way when we talk of choice.

The countries that practise FGM - and in particularly the most extreme - where the labia can be removed with a rusty knife, the clitoris dug out, the vagina all but sewn shut and most of the remaining labia sewn up with the smallest left unsewn so urination can take place - those are the countries with the most to answer for in terms of savage gender inequality.

If a girl isn't multilated in some places, she's considered to be little more than a wanton slut, probably born to become a prostitute, unclean in every way and a slave to baser instincts that render her absolutely unmarriageable. She is outside of civilised society, and will never have a respectable life. No man would consider a loose girl likely to be a slut and who's childrens parentage is likely to be called into question on the basis of how barbaric the cutting on her young body has been.

The female relatives who usually cut the child up so brutally have also been sliced to pieces themselves, in the name of respectability. In order for those women to protect the future life of the child, who in a society of extreme inequality is very vulnerable without the framework of a husband and children, feel they have no option but to perform the same kind of barbarity on the child as they've been subjected to themselves.

Of course they see it differently, as a necessary rite of passage that all 'good' women go through, but calling it a free choice when it's basically a choice between a life of poverty and abuse or marriage, security and respectability with the status and security of having a husband, is a misnomer.

FWIW, I think circumcision is barbaric, but the reason it's performed is primarily religious and while it may certainly affect a boys life, it is not primarily performed to keep him utterly and completely subjugated and dependent. The entire society is to blame, holding women up as responsible for the continuation of the tradition is blatantly unfair since it's situation with no winners either way, and the process has become so culturally entrenched that both genders buy into it.

Circumcision is completely unacceptable also, cutting off parts of a childs body of either gender is savage and indefensible, but comparing FGM with MGM is like comparing a broken finger with a severed arm.

One eyed Jack

Candie wrote: »

FGM is practised on women, by women. That doesn't mean it's something women want, not if you mean in any meaningful way when we talk of choice.

The countries that practise FGM - and in particularly the most extreme - where the labia can be removed with a rusty knife, the clitoris dug out, the vagina all but sewn shut and most of the remaining labia sewn up with the smallest left unsewn so urination can take place - those are the countries with the most to answer for in terms of savage gender inequality.

If a girl isn't multilated in some places, she's considered to be little more than a wanton slut, probably born to become a prostitute, unclean in every way and a slave to baser instincts that render her absolutely unmarriageable. She is outside of civilised society, and will never have a respectable life. No man would consider a loose girl likely to be a slut and who's childrens parentage is likely to be called into question on the basis of how barbaric the cutting on her young body has been.

The female relatives who usually cut the child up so brutally have also been sliced to pieces themselves, in the name of respectability. In order for those women to protect the future life of the child, who in a society of extreme inequality is very vulnerable without the framework of a husband and children, feel they have no option but to perform the same kind of barbarity on the child as they've been subjected to themselves.

Of course they see it differently, as a necessary rite of passage that all 'good' women go through, but calling it a free choice when it's basically a choice between a life of poverty and abuse or marriage, security and respectability with the status and security of having a husband, is a misnomer.

FWIW, I think circumcision is barbaric, but the reason it's performed is primarily religious and while it may certainly affect a boys life, it is not primarily performed to keep him utterly and completely subjugated and dependent. The entire society is to blame, holding women up as responsible for the continuation of the tradition is blatantly unfair since it's situation with no winners either way, and the process has become so culturally entrenched that both genders buy into it.

Circumcision is completely unacceptable also, cutting off parts of a childs body of either gender is savage and indefensible, but comparing FGM with MGM is like comparing a broken finger with a severed arm.

Personally, I wouldn't even conflate MGM with FGM, they're two completely different circumstances as far as I'm concerned, and that's why I don't view the practice of genital mutilation of either sex through the lens of gender equality. That's why I didn't mention MGM in my post in a thread concerned with FGM.

I know what you're saying about FGM being culturally entrenched in those societies, but I don't think it's unfair to suggest that women themselves are responsible for it's continuation (and by extension it's discontinuation), and that's why I suggested that education rather than prohibition would be a better approach in the long term, as IMO it would influence future generations of women to see the practice as unnecessary. That's why I also suggested socioeconomic factors had far more of an influence on the prevalence of the practice in those societies than religion, because these cultural norms have become more based upon cultural and traditional values than any religious basis.

There are surely numerous examples we could point to where education programmes developed with the idea of educating women with regard to their health and welfare has been shown to produce better results than banning the practice outright because we believe it's wrong, rather than showing first of all why it's wrong, and then offering alternatives, with the idea being that the alternative would be a better choice in the long term.

This is why I said that people in those societies won't take a blind bit of notice of our Western values, because they simply can't relate to them, whereas if we try and show that we understand their perspective first, then they might be more amenable to listening to the alternatives, and that would influence future generations of women, rather than what I would see as the idea of barging in and imposing our will on those people because we don't like what they've been doing for centuries and is effectively all they know, even to the point where they're willing to risk prosecution to continue the practice, because the alternatives you pointed out like social ostracisation from their communities presents in their mind far greater implications for their daughters futures.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't even conflate MGM with FGM, they're two completely different circumstances as far as I'm concerned, and that's why I don't view the practice of genital mutilation of either sex through the lens of gender equality. That's why I didn't mention MGM in my post in a thread concerned with FGM.

I know what you're saying about FGM being culturally entrenched in those societies, but I don't think it's unfair to suggest that women themselves are responsible for it's continuation (and by extension it's discontinuation), and that's why I suggested that education rather than prohibition would be a better approach in the long term, as IMO it would influence future generations of women to see the practice as unnecessary. That's why I also suggested socioeconomic factors had far more of an influence on the prevalence of the practice in those societies than religion, because these cultural norms have become more based upon cultural and traditional values than any religious basis.

There are surely numerous examples we could point to where education programmes developed with the idea of educating women with regard to their health and welfare has been shown to produce better results than banning the practice outright because we believe it's wrong, rather than showing first of all why it's wrong, and then offering alternatives, with the idea being that the alternative would be a better choice in the long term.

This is why I said that people in those societies won't take a blind bit of notice of our Western values, because they simply can't relate to them, whereas if we try and show that we understand their perspective first, then they might be more amenable to listening to the alternatives, and that would influence future generations of women, rather than what I would see as the idea of barging in and imposing our will on those people because we don't like what they've been doing for centuries and is effectively all they know, even to the point where they're willing to risk prosecution to continue the practice, because the alternatives you pointed out like social ostracisation from their communities presents in their mind far greater implications for their daughters futures.

Education and in particular, female education, is always key to ending barbaric practices, but even in more progressive societies like Egypt there are still very high rates of FGM - though in a less extreme form.

Generations of education and awareness is the answer but unfortunately when you have religious influence on government policy and couple that with resource poor situations, change happens very, very, slowly.

Wibbs

Simi wrote: »

Female genital mutilation has absolutely no benefits & results in thousands of deaths every year, most of which are recorded as allergic reactions to penicillin or other drugs, to protect the parents & doctors from prosecution.

Actually female circumcision does show some protection from HIV infection in a couple of studies on the matter. Here's one from Kenya. Here's one from Tanzania. Of course the "link" is dubious, just like the one for male circumcision. They say they adjust for co factors, but it's pretty clear they don't on both scores. EG women who have been circumcised are much more likely to be religious and conservatives by default, so are far less likely to have multiple partners. Ditto for religious men who have been circumcised. As noted it has no effect for men who have sex with other men, people who are going against their local culture and religion out of the gate.

Never mind the obvious that when we compare American men who are majority circumcised with Swedish(or any other European men) who are majority not, the US has much higher rates of HIV infection.

So if it was shown that FGM had a similar positive with regard to HIV would you be OK with it then? If not why not? Especially if the procedure incorporated only removing the same tissue as men? If not why not?

dotsman wrote: »

But we don't look at it that way because, for us, it is an ignorant, sexist, racist view. That, because MGM has traditionally been done in the west, it is OK - it's just FGM is a foreign, strange, third world custom, so is bad. Likewise, because MGM is only applied to boys, it is fine, but because FGM is done to girls, it is wrong.

Bingo. It is most certainl cultural blindness and remarkable that so many can't even begin to see, never mind acknowledge it. Girls are more protected in western society. Just as in other societies girls are less protected. This is indisputable. Though every single society and culture that practices FGM also practises MGM, so it's not one way. .

You will notice that some of the most vocal people against FGM are Feminists. That somehow, it is a woman's issue. They are perfectly happy to mutilate their own boys here in the west, but don't you dare let a girl half-way around the world be mutilated as part of her tradition/custom. Likewise, Feminists will often try to twist it to look like FGM is males oppressing Females when FGM is always carried out by women, on women, for women, supported by women. In the countries that practice it, far more men are against the barbaric custom than females.

Well of course. "Feminists" are hardly the most logical of thinkers as evidenced by much of that political philosophy and myopic and subjective is a near given.

Even with all the intersectional nonsense so many twitter on about, they have zero issue with judgement of other cultures in an odd imperial Whitey knows best way. The practice of FGM is seen by women and men in those cultures as an improvement not a mutilation. Daft yes. However look to a majority of Americans who say the same of MGM. They're both screaming the same nonsense in different directions.

There is the pin prick form of FGM, a ceremony where the clitoral hood is pierced to let a drop of blood to satisfy their sky fairy blood lust(there is evidence the Jewish tradition for boys was the same). No tissue removed. I guarantee that this would be still seen as an abomination of a crime against women, yet the removal of 40 square cms in the adult male foreskin would be still lesser. Funny how that works.

Oh and on that note. The removal of a healthy foreskin is most certainly a loss. It is not just a piece of skin(NB FGM types claim similar of their barbarity) The foreskin which is a large structure is heavily enervated and sensitive and keeps the inner structures sensitive too. QV this studyOne of the points noted is: Figure 1. Tactile (top) and thermal (bottom) sensitivity thresholds across various parts of the penis and the forearm (used as baseline). A lower bar means more sensitive. The foreskin is the most touch-sensitive of the sites tested. Emphasis mine.

But again because the practice is either encouraged or seen as nothing too drastic in Western culture this cultural blindness to such losses of healthy tissue are largely poo poo'd.

I notice that nobody being(rightfully) speaking out about FGM, while dismissing MGM as clearly lesser, has answered my pretty simple question of; would they be OK with it if it removed exactly the same(though much lesser) tissue as the male form?

Candie wrote:

Education and in particular, female education, is always key to ending barbaric practices, but even in more progressive societies like Egypt there are still very high rates of FGM - though in a less extreme form.

Generations of education and awareness is the answer but unfortunately when you have religious influence on government policy and couple that with resource poor situations, change happens very, very, slowly.

OK C, sounds great on the surface, but consider that American women(and men) are highly educated, with a very good health service to those who can afford it, yet they practice the male form. In the US girl's genitals are legally protected, boys are not. If that isn't daft I dunno what is. South Korea is an interesting case. MGM was almost unknown before WW2, now it's a majority. It seems the American influence was to blame for this and again Korea is a very educated population with another wolrd class health service.

Education is certainly required and for both genders. Where women are uneducated it's a near given so are the men, but again it's the women who always seem to get more western attention(QV Boko Haram). That will help C, but as can be demonstrated education alone will be of little worth in the face of culturally acceptable practices and those who cling to those practices will fight tooth and nail to keep them. Look at the Jews. One of the single most educated and erudite populations on the planet and they are almost guaranteed to remove their newborn boy's foreskins and will take great umbrage at suggesting it's a barbaric practice. So how does one reach a hill farmer in Tanzania who sees their practices, male and female as equally a deeply cultural part of who they are? Not so easy. We think its easy because it's "clearly" barbaric to us. For one gender anyway.

JiminyRickets

Never Say Never Again wrote: »

A small minority of muslim parents believe that female circumcision is a vital part of their culture, some of them are putting their daughters lives in danger with botched home circumcisions, how should we as an nation address this ?

The same thing the Saudi Arabians are doing about the drink problem with some irish people, parading around their streets out of their bins.

Oh right, its pretty much the exact opposite. One nation tolerates while it adds yet another problem to the growing list, and the other nation just laughs at the idea of even allowing it to happen.

Seems balanced!

ToddyDoody

You know those inserts you put into plug sockets so kids and idiots won't stick things into them? Is female circumcision a bit like that?

In many MENA countries there's a big difference between male and female literacy. It's simply not true that men are as likely to be uneducated as women.

In Pakistan for an example, every !% increase in female education results in a .3% increase in economic growth. For every year over a three year basic that girls are educated, the adult family can expect an extra 10% in income. In federally administered tribal areas, the female literacy rate is 3% (32% nationally) and the male is over 30% (54% nationally). The figures are particularly grim in this area as a result of conflict and displacement, but the male vs female figures speak for themselves.

Female education reduces the risk of trafficking by up to 80%, early marriage by 60%, extreme poverty by the same, infection with HIV by as much, and even reduces the risk of infant mortality substantially. Educating girls results in smaller families, smarter hygiene, nutrition and health decisions, as well as promoting the sort of critical thinking and confidence that eventually leads to the sort of cultural shift that shuns the likes of FGM, and contributes to the social and economic growth of a country.

And FGM is primarily a developing world problem, so the Jewish population of the West have little to do with it, though I assume the relative safety and religious endorsement of that practice are the drivers behind the general acceptability of the mutilation of male babies. Gender inequality and subjugation, lack of education and cultural impetus are the drivers behind FGM.

I think the world at large is more repulsed by FGM because of not only the conditions it represents, but because it is substantially more savage, more barbaric and life threatening than MGM - which is, just to underline it, also completely repugnant. As I said, it's like comparing a broken finger to a severed arm. Neither is right.

I find it odd that FGM is being used to underline an impression that it matters more when girls are maimed, when the very reason they're being maimed is because they are girls.

JiminyRickets

A lot of statistics from "reputable" sources regarding the effect of education on potential outcomes is complete and utter horse****e. You learn pretty quickly that its a self-rewarding scheme in search of funding.

That being said, its common sense, qualitatively, that more education equals better outcomes. But not necessarily, especially in subcategorization. After that....literally nobody knows.

How Ireland figures into such practices in other far-flung countries is now lost on me. Let them evolve on their own terms, the way we did as a society.

s4uv3

ToddyDoody wrote: »

You know those inserts you put into plug sockets so kids and idiots won't stick things into them? Is female circumcision a bit like that?

No.
Its more like hacking the socket off the wall altogether.

s4uv3

s4uv3 wrote: »

No.
Its more like hacking the socket off the wall altogether.

It's dismissive stuff like that post you quoted that makes me sorry for reading threads like these. I should have learned by now.

JiminyRickets

ToddyDoody wrote: »

You know those inserts you put into plug sockets so kids and idiots won't stick things into them? Is female circumcision a bit like that?

Its more like a multi level toolbox, made of chocolate, that a dog proceeds to eat, leaving no lid, allowing your tools to rust. You know?

Kidchameleon

Can I ask the female supremesists on here who think MGM is trivial to watch this video and let me know how far in you get. Warning its graphic (and its just a guy talking, describing a procedure)

https://youtu.be/NLmU6xTdeTI

One eyed Jack

JiminyRickets wrote: »

A lot of statistics from "reputable" sources regarding the effect of education on potential outcomes is complete and utter horse****e. You learn pretty quickly that its a self-rewarding scheme in search of funding.

That being said, its common sense, qualitatively, that more education equals better outcomes. But not necessarily, especially in subcategorization. After that....literally nobody knows.

I'm trying to get my head around the blatant contradiction there. Surely if it has been demonstrated that more education leads to better outcomes, then statistics from reputable sources which support this belief, aren't complete and utter horseshìte?

The gathering, understanding, and interpretation of statistics is exactly how we form the basis of the argument that more education leads to better outcomes, and in terms of the education of girls and women, better education empowers them to be able to have more choices which leads to greater socioeconomic mobility which leads to them discarding cultural traditions and values which are no longer of any value to them.

In the case of FGM, it becomes seen as an unnecessary practice because women no longer see it as necessary to mutilate their daughters in order that their daughters conform to cultural traditions and values for what they feel is better than the alternative of social oatracisation.

How Ireland figures into such practices in other far-flung countries is now lost on me. Let them evolve on their own terms, the way we did as a society.

No society actually evolves 'on it's own terms' without the influence of external factors, and that's why many societies in the countries where FGM is illegal but still practiced, such as Uganda, have not evolved -

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/21/uganda-jails-five-female-genital-mutilation

The only reason Uganda springs to mind for me is because I have a friend from there who is Catholic like myself, but we would have very different perspectives on many issues due to our different influences in cultures and traditions. In Ireland we're a bit more relaxed about the whole idea, whereas my friend would warn me not to allow my child to mix with Muslims as they would try to convert him. It's not a point of view I share, but I can understand why she might think that way.

JiminyRickets

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm trying to get my head around the blatant contradiction there. Surely if it has been demonstrated that more education leads to better outcomes, then statistics from reputable sources which support this belief, aren't complete and utter horseshìte?

The gathering, understanding, and interpretation of statistics is exactly how we form the basis of the argument that more education leads to better outcomes, and in terms of the education of girls and women, better education empowers them to be able to have more choices which leads to greater socioeconomic mobility which leads to them discarding cultural traditions and values which are no longer of any value to them.

In the case of FGM, it becomes seen as an unnecessary practice because women no longer see it as necessary to mutilate their daughters in order that their daughters conform to cultural traditions and values for what they feel is better than the alternative of social oatracisation.





No society actually evolves 'on it's own terms' without the influence of external factors, and that's why many societies in the countries where FGM is illegal but still practiced, such as Uganda, have not evolved -



The only reason Uganda springs to mind for me is because I have a friend from there who is Catholic like myself, but we would have very different perspectives on many issues due to our different influences in cultures and traditions. In Ireland we're a bit more relaxed about the whole idea, whereas my friend would warn me not to allow my child to mix with Muslims as they would try to convert him. It's not a point of view I share, but I can understand why she might think that way.

Let me put it this way. Grab a statistic from the UN or worldbank etc. And then tell me where it comes from...its actual, factual origin.

A lot of it is horse sh*t, people fumbling in the dark simply trying to fulfil the need for numbers, and then thousands of other fumblers basing their numbers on those numbers and so on.

I used to be all over the whole thing, and when it was all said and done, I came to the only sensible conclusion.....let them all do whatever the hell they want, and I'll look after myself and my surroundings.

Had an interesting debate once between some swollen egg-heads based on equal distribution. If one country has a huge supply of everything, and another country is 50% desert......how do you equalise that? Its very quickly assumed that it should all be shared, but that's impractical and doesn't work. Very long story short......people should look after themselves and what they have, and that in itself leads to the best form possible of equalisation. Hence my overall stance on it.

As for societies forming/evolving on their own, one of the main reasons the continent of Africa is still a sh*t-show is because others don't keep their noses out of it (for good and bad reasons). Let them kill themselves, let them flourish themselves. They will, if left alone, come to an equalisation and stabilisation of their own societies.

_Dara_

Wibbs wrote: »

Would you be OK with the removal of the same tissue in girls as in boys?* Would you consider it "just a piece of skin"? Would you see it as any different?

I’d be as okay with it as I would be with MGM as in not at all. I’m against any genital mutilation except for medical reasons. However, any FGM that is more invasive than the FGM that is analogous to MGM is objectively worse. I don’t see why one has to pretend otherwise in order to oppose ALL of it.

Wibbs

Candie wrote: »

In many MENA countries there's a big difference between male and female literacy. It's simply not true that men are as likely to be uneducated as women.

Actually it is, or the gap is not nearly as big as is often promoted, or focus is aimed at the highest disparites to make a point. But since we're looking at FGM, a practice that is more African than ME, let's look at those countries shall we?

Tanzania(PDF). The male literacy rate is just under 80%, the female just under 70%. A difference of ten percentage points. Yet when one looks at the stats from our western viewpoint and current slant(which almost always ignores third world men), the PDF states: at secondary level only 31% of boys and 24% of girls are enrolled in school, with signifcant gender disparities. This means that 76% of girls are missing out on secondary education, compared to just 3% at primary educa on level.
Which is fine on the surface, however while 76% of girls miss out, 69% of boys also miss out. Not such a gap. 7%.

Kenya. the literacy gap goes 75% women, 81% men. Again not nearly so huge a gap as is promoted.

Ethiopia. 57% men, 41% women. A little larger a gap but still not a "big difference".

Eritrea82% men, 65% women.

Chad Bigger gap at around 50% male, 30% female.

SomaliaBigger again at around 50% for men, 26% for women.

Guinea35% for women, 60% for men.

Sudan(where FGM is a big trend) the literacy rate for Bothe men and women is about equal at a laudable 80%.

What can we take from this? 1) the gaps vary but aren't nearly so wide as some suggest. You'd think it was like 90% of the men are educated while 10% of the women are and this is a nonsense. 2) in the above countries with two exceptions overall literacy is an issue. 3) the rate of FGM doesn't correlate particularly well with the level of education. Which is obvious as many highly educated women in such cultures and especially those who travel overseas for work(who tend to be more educated than background) are gangbusters for this cultural practice.

Female education reduces the risk of trafficking by up to 80%, early marriage by 60%, extreme poverty by the same, infection with HIV by as much, and even reduces the risk of infant mortality substantially. Educating girls results in smaller families, smarter hygiene, nutrition and health decisions, as well as promoting the sort of critical thinking and confidence that eventually leads to the sort of cultural shift that shuns the likes of FGM, and contributes to the social and economic growth of a country.

One could also suggest that overall education does the same thing. Educated populations tend to be more likely to have more liberal less conservative attitudes and are also richer, so have more access to information, new ideas and medical attention. You'd swear you believe that it's just women that make these massive changes on their own, completely ignoring the plain fact that it's nearly always men who develop, build and bring in these changes. Common among modern "feminist" thinking mind you. Put it another way, if the majority of pro FGM decided to end the practice tomorrow, but the majority of pro FGM men decided that this was not what they wanted, how do you think that might play out? Consider again the US where it's more women than men who are in favour of male circumcision because they culturally prefer it.

And FGM is primarily a developing world problem, so the Jewish population of the West have little to do with it, though I assume the relative safety and religious endorsement of that practice are the drivers behind the general acceptability of the mutilation of male babies.

It doesn't suit your position to compare the two. It would weaken your basic argument that it's the lack of agency and education for women alone that drives such practices. The Jewish example, a population of highly educated men and women who continue to perpetuate a cultural practice for the same reasons as those who practice FGM blows that simple answer out of the water.

Gender inequality and subjugation, lack of education and cultural impetus are the drivers behind FGM.

Cos that's your "feminist" lens and you filter all through it. I prefer to work the egalitarian lens myself.

I think the world at large is more repulsed by FGM because of not only the conditions it represents, but because it is substantially more savage, more barbaric and life threatening than MGM - which is, just to underline it, also completely repugnant. As I said, it's like comparing a broken finger to a severed arm. Neither is right.

Again neither you nor anyone else has answered my repeated and basic question: would they be OK with FGM in a form that removed exactly the same tissue as the male version? And if not, why not?

*EDIT* _Dara_ just did. My point D was that clearly infibulation is way more damaging than male circumcision, only an idiot would contend otherwise. My point was that in the west we'd tend to have far more sympathy for the victims and disgust for the perpetrators of any damage caused to girls than to boys.

I find it odd that FGM is being used to underline an impression that it matters more when girls are maimed, when the very reason they're being maimed is because they are girls

Because it clearly does matter from a western standpoint. See my question above. But let's have an old Gedankenexperiment. In the West girl's genitals are specifically protected by law, boy's genitals are not. This is a fact(when Germany who has strong anti-FGM laws on the books, tried to bring in similar for boys there was ructions over it, ditto in France). If say men's fingers were specifically protected by law, but women's were not, would you not naturally conclude that men's fingers were seen as more valuable and worthy of legal and cultural protection?

I'm am constantly fascinated by how one's particular culture or cultural politic influences how one sees the world and how one sees problems and how one sees potential solutions.

s4uv3

Candie wrote: »

It's dismissive stuff like that post you quoted that makes me sorry for reading threads like these. I should have learned by now.

I hope my reply didn't come across as flippant, the very opposite was the intention

Beechwoodspark

Most read article on the Irish times website this morning is about Ali Selim’s views on FGM- headline says he “backs” it although from what I can glean from the piece, his position seems to be it should be allowed for medical reasons.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/leading-muslim-figure-ali-selim-backs-female-circumcision-1.3385891

Hector Savage

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Condemn It, kick them out of the country and jail anyone who did it.

As far as I know this has been going on in Britain for decades and there has been ZERO convictions over it.

The police virtue signal about how bad it is, and then are arresting people for criticizing the ideology behind it (Islam) for "Islamaphobia"

Hector Savage

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Most read article on the Irish times website this morning is about Ali Selim’s views on FGM- headline says he “backs” it although from what I can glean from the piece, his position seems to be it should be allowed for medical reasons.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/leading-muslim-figure-ali-selim-backs-female-circumcision-1.3385891

I wonder will the likes of Louise O Neil be up in arms over this ???

WILL SHE F*CK !!!

take everything

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Most read article on the Irish times website this morning is about Ali Selim’s views on FGM- headline says he “backs” it although from what I can glean from the piece, his position seems to be it should be allowed for medical reasons.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/leading-muslim-figure-ali-selim-backs-female-circumcision-1.3385891

Why on earth is this not being discussed. This guy is a dangerous creep. Can't believe his rubbish isn't being vehemently condemned.

But then again himself and the right-on feminists-there's a pair of them in it.

the14thwarrior

cannot believe that anyone can compare male to female circumcision. and to think an "educated" persons thinks it might be done for medical reasons. medical reasons! cut off the labia cut off the clitoris and sew it up. leave a little hole for pee and blood. wait 15 years. then cut it open so we can have a child pushed through this little hole. medical reasons........... hmm what a load of b**sh*T

this is wrong. plain wrong.

s7ryf3925pivug

They should say it's allowed for medical reasons, then secretly kill any doctors who ok it. This would be a good way of eliminating dangerous doctors. The parents should likewise disappear. Any resulting shortfall in doctors could be fixed by making it easier for (non psycho) foreign doctors to work here. There are loads of doctors earning the Irish minimum wage or something in Romania, for example.

s7ryf3925pivug

Addison Numerous Slope wrote: »

They should say it's allowed for medical reasons, then secretly kill any doctors who ok it. This would be a good way of eliminating dangerous doctors. The parents should likewise disappear. Any resulting shortfall in doctors could be fixed by making it easier for (non psycho) foreign doctors to work here. There are loads of doctors earning the Irish minimum wage or something in Romania, for example.

The procedure shouldn't actually be carried out in this scenario, in case that wasn't clear.

end of the road

Addison Numerous Slope wrote: »

They should say it's allowed for medical reasons, then secretly kill any doctors who ok it. This would be a good way of eliminating dangerous doctors.

can't be done, it would breach human rights law thankfully.

s7ryf3925pivug

end of the road wrote: »

can't be done, it would breach human rights law thankfully.

Bring the international court of human rights in on the sting.

Disgraceful what Dr Selim was saying on prime time last night. He kept trying to compare it to male circumcision for medical reasons, it’s not comparable at all.

He should go back to the Stone Age where he belongs.

s7ryf3925pivug

Is it a double standard that gender reassignment surgery is legal while female genital mutilation is not? - for adult women who actively want to be mutilated, hypothetically.

s7ryf3925pivug

Apparently the UK and France have already bled Romania of its previous adundance of doctors, so we missed the boat on that one. They were earning £500 sterling a month in Romania as of 2016.

Hotblack Desiato

Why can't we just deport this pr!ck?