Nearly 6,000 women in Ireland have suffered Female Genital Mutilation

Hotblack Desiato

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Nope

No surprises there then.

Hotblack Desiato

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Why does the Irish Tax payer have to pay it?

What is the Irish taxpayer paying for, exactly?

Geuze

bigpink wrote: »

Why are we allowing these people in?

Indeed.

There should be severe restrictions on non-EU migrants.

There is a labour market test, but it should be stricter.

The student visas are being abused.

Now that we have massive unemployment, there are no labour shortages, and so there is no need for non-EU workers.

Annasopra

Geuze wrote: »

Indeed.

There should be severe restrictions on non-EU migrants.

There is a labour market test, but it should be stricter.

The student visas are being abused.

Now that we have massive unemployment, there are no labour shortages, and so there is no need for non-EU workers.

Who knew that Muslims could only ever be born outside the EU or be non EU Citizens.

Wibbs

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Who knew that Muslims could only ever be born outside the EU or be non EU Citizens.

1) it's not an exclusively Muslim practice and within Islamic culture it would be very much a minority thing. 2) Among long standing Muslim cultures within the West it would be rarer again. This primitive bollocks is almost entirely imported into the West, in this case Ireland and the EU.

Wibbs

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Well as my partner said it's a man thing, women are just expendible and controlled by men, Agreed.

Nope, I'm afraid not. That's an all too common, if incredibly simplistic view. FGM is almost entirely propagated in cultures that practice it via the women in those cultures. One Islamic imam in Chad IIRC who was trying to stamp it out noted this. It was almost pointless convincing the men in an area to stop the practice, because it was the women who were in control of it and wanted to continue the practice. In the US it's just as many women as men in that culture that are in favour of putting their newborn boys to the knife.

And no women aren't expendable in those cultures, men are much more so. One good example was when Boko haram kidnapped the schoolgirls that grabbed the world's attention a few years back. Thing is that wasn't their first attack on schools in the area. It was one of many. Many that didn't hit the headlines. Why? Because in previous attacks they rounded up the men and boys and killed most of them and told the girls to be good Muslims and go home. The poo only hit the propeller when the girls were kidnapped and held. Boko Haram realised that they got far more attention threatening and kidnapping girls and women than they got by killing boys and men. In societies worldwide it almost always goes this way as far as order of expendability goes: children, women, then men. No hostage negotiator has ever asked kidnappers or hijackers to "let the men go first". Indeed if I were a hijacker the first thing I'd do is let the men go free. Authorities would be far more reticent to send in special forces in that case.

But cutting in order that the women will not experience sexual pleasure is just WTAF. Bet there is no man subjected to the same thing.

Male circumcision while of course less brutal has a similar angle on sexual pleasure. It became fashionable in the West in the 19th century as a way to reduce masturbation and sexual excesses and was recommended for that reason. As was surgical removal of the clitoris in "hysterical" women. Both practices were also seen as "cleaner" and more aesthetically pleasing. Most western cultures dropped both by the mid 20th century, but it stayed popular in the US. One reason was because free healthcare became a thing in many western nations and procedures were reviewed and useless or bad ones were removed from the freebie list, whereas in the US that didn't happen and procedures that padded the bill were kept in play.