|
On July 27 2013 16:52 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 16:48 Artax wrote:On July 27 2013 16:05 Shival wrote:
Proper education is not about pushing western morals.
I'm guessing most of the middle east would disagree with you there... Education is never objective. The fact that you label it "proper" already implies a western bias. It doesn't imply anything at all other than that the education is based on facts. If you think education based on facts is western bias, then be my guest. Just know that you're utterly ridiculous. Same goes for 'most of the middle east', if they believe education based on facts is pushing western morals, they are also being utterly ridiculous.
Good lord I wish there were more people who could understand what you've said here. You should respect the differences in other cultures... WITHIN REASON. When a culture mutilates their children and murders their rape victims... that is evil. It is not "pushing our western viewpoints on them" to refuse to tolerate wrongheaded violence and killing. It is simply the morally correct thing to do.
|
On July 27 2013 17:30 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Assemble the army of democracy and freedom, there's some countries that need to be shown how to be civilised.
As much as it may suck, I think those cultures have to change their practices through themselves wanting to do it. External cultural pressure from the West is ok, but it should really stay at that. Forcing shit on others will only make it worse in the long run.
Just as forcing education on children resulted in a disaster? Putting pressure on the governments of african countries to put legislation in place that prohibits FGM is the way to go.
|
On July 27 2013 17:30 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Assemble the army of democracy and freedom, there's some countries that need to be shown how to be civilised.
As much as it may suck, I think those cultures have to change their practices through themselves wanting to do it. External cultural pressure from the West is ok, but it should really stay at that. Forcing shit on others will only make it worse in the long run.
Nobody said *bomb them till they surrender!* ~ it's all about persuading them to drop it themselves o_O
|
On July 27 2013 14:42 Millitron wrote:
Hold on, the chart in the OP says many women in these countries are cool with it? Why should UNICEF, or anyone really, go in and say they should stop, if many of these places disagree?
Many women are "cool with it" in the way that they are "cool with it" or they will be killed or excluded from the community. Other "women" are "cool with it" because they are too young to understand what happens and what it means to them.
UNICEF or other organizations and people should stop it because it is absolute madness. Sure, you should respect peoples opinions and way of living to a certain point, but FGM is a thing that should neither be respected nor accepted, no matter where you live or what you believe in.
|
It seems to me that the problem is not the FGM itself.
The biggest problem is the fact that FGM is performed by traditional practitioners, not by health personnels, in many places.
So, what if we proivde medical support / advice to them? It respects their culture/tradition while protecting women's health. Or, do people think of FGM as something so evil that helping carry out FGM in any way is not considered a solution?
|
On July 27 2013 17:46 Orek wrote:
It seems to me that the problem is not the FGM itself.
The biggest problem is the fact that FGM is performed by traditional practitioners, not by health personnels, in many places.
So, what if we proivde medical support / advice to them? It respects their culture/tradition while protecting women's health. Or, do people think of FGM as something so evil that helping carry out FGM in any way is not considered a solution?
It's a child for christ sake. Let him/her decide on their own when they're of age.
|
On July 27 2013 17:46 Orek wrote:
It seems to me that the problem is not the FGM itself.
The biggest problem is the fact that FGM is performed by traditional practitioners, not by health personnels, in many places.
So, what if we proivde medical support / advice to them? It respects their culture/tradition while protecting women's health. Or, do people think of FGM as something so evil that helping carry out FGM in any way is not considered a solution?
No, the problem is the FGM itself. Assisting them would be like helping them to give lethal injections to painlessly kill a rape victim rather than having her be stoned or beheaded. It would technically be an improvement but it's not solving any real problems.
|
On July 27 2013 17:48 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 17:46 Orek wrote:
It seems to me that the problem is not the FGM itself.
The biggest problem is the fact that FGM is performed by traditional practitioners, not by health personnels, in many places.
So, what if we proivde medical support / advice to them? It respects their culture/tradition while protecting women's health. Or, do people think of FGM as something so evil that helping carry out FGM in any way is not considered a solution? It's a child for christ sake. Let him/her decide on their own when they're of age.
The idea behind FGM is that if you don't do it, the teenage girl will be unable to control her sexual desire and will become a slut (who, having lost "honor", will either never get married or will have to be killed or shunned or something like that). They want to protect their daughters from having that fate, so they can't wait and let her decide.
|
Can't believe people are even trying to defend FGM, it's an abhorrent practice derived from ignorance.
|
On July 27 2013 17:20 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 17:08 Mothra wrote:On July 27 2013 16:55 No_Roo wrote:On July 27 2013 14:42 Millitron wrote:
Hold on, the chart in the OP says many women in these countries are cool with it? Why should UNICEF, or anyone really, go in and say they should stop, if many of these places disagree? Because the practice of any form of genital mutilation should stand or fall on it's merit, not it's popularity. We have thoroughly studied and debunked the so called 'benefits' genital mutilation proponents advocate with. Additionally we have demonstrated significant harm from these practices. That's why. That's a hard stance to defend. When the perceived benefits are marriageability, social acceptance, and aesthetic preference... how do you "debunk" those things? Type 4 FGM, which includes "Pricking or nicking involves cutting to draw blood, but no removal of tissue and no permanent alteration of the external genitalia." would be hard to classify as "significantly harmful". So do we censure some forms of FGM and not others? If it becomes a risk vs benefit thing, it is very hard to draw the line past where the practice becomes unacceptable. If you read the links I posted, the victims of FGM often do not see themselves as harmed, and they are the ones who circumcise their daughters. Infections don't count as significantly harmful? Most of these FGMs are not done in sterile environments, nor with sterile equipment. Anyway, type 4 includes alot more than what you said: "Includes pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or the labia; stretching of the clitoris and or the labia; cauterisation or burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissues, scraping of the vaginal orifice or cutting (Gishiri cuts) of the vagina and introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina." If you believe that doesn't result in permanent alteration, you believe in wonders.
I'm not the one you have to convince. If you argue from "harm vs benefit", it favors those who defend the practice. Obviously the women who circumcise their daughters after undergoing it themselves believe that the "benefit" outweighs the harm. Why would they believe an outsider telling them they are harmed over their own friends and family?
Instead of playing the "you are harmed", "no I'm not" game, we should be focusing on why it is fundamentally wrong, regardless of degree of harm. The main transgression of rights here is that it's being done on girls who cannot refuse. Adults can be persuaded, not necessarily prohibited, from mutilating their own genitals, but the main thing is to stop it being forced on girls.
|
On July 27 2013 13:24 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 13:19 idonthinksobro wrote:
Now we just need to stop male genitale mutilation aka circumcision. Why it provides valuable STD protection. Edit: My penis was called inferior... I was obviously obligated to respond! 
How is it valuable. Just wear a condom rofl
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 27 2013 17:53 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 17:48 Shival wrote:On July 27 2013 17:46 Orek wrote:
It seems to me that the problem is not the FGM itself.
The biggest problem is the fact that FGM is performed by traditional practitioners, not by health personnels, in many places.
So, what if we proivde medical support / advice to them? It respects their culture/tradition while protecting women's health. Or, do people think of FGM as something so evil that helping carry out FGM in any way is not considered a solution? It's a child for christ sake. Let him/her decide on their own when they're of age. The idea behind FGM is that if you don't do it, the teenage girl will be unable to control her sexual desire and will become a slut (who, having lost "honor", will either never get married or will have to be killed or shunned or something like that). They want to protect their daughters from having that fate, so they can't wait and let her decide.
I know, probably shouldn't have added the last part, might've made you misunderstand my point. I was refering to the suggestion of providing medical support to forced mutilation of a child.
|
On July 27 2013 18:02 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 17:20 Shival wrote:On July 27 2013 17:08 Mothra wrote:On July 27 2013 16:55 No_Roo wrote:On July 27 2013 14:42 Millitron wrote:
Hold on, the chart in the OP says many women in these countries are cool with it? Why should UNICEF, or anyone really, go in and say they should stop, if many of these places disagree? Because the practice of any form of genital mutilation should stand or fall on it's merit, not it's popularity. We have thoroughly studied and debunked the so called 'benefits' genital mutilation proponents advocate with. Additionally we have demonstrated significant harm from these practices. That's why. That's a hard stance to defend. When the perceived benefits are marriageability, social acceptance, and aesthetic preference... how do you "debunk" those things? Type 4 FGM, which includes "Pricking or nicking involves cutting to draw blood, but no removal of tissue and no permanent alteration of the external genitalia." would be hard to classify as "significantly harmful". So do we censure some forms of FGM and not others? If it becomes a risk vs benefit thing, it is very hard to draw the line past where the practice becomes unacceptable. If you read the links I posted, the victims of FGM often do not see themselves as harmed, and they are the ones who circumcise their daughters. Infections don't count as significantly harmful? Most of these FGMs are not done in sterile environments, nor with sterile equipment. Anyway, type 4 includes alot more than what you said: "Includes pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or the labia; stretching of the clitoris and or the labia; cauterisation or burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissues, scraping of the vaginal orifice or cutting (Gishiri cuts) of the vagina and introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina." If you believe that doesn't result in permanent alteration, you believe in wonders. I'm not the one you have to convince. If you argue from "harm vs benefit", it favors those who defend the practice. Obviously the women who circumcise their daughters after undergoing it themselves believe that the "benefit" outweighs the harm. Why would they believe an outsider telling them they are harmed over their own friends and family? Instead of playing the "you are harmed", "no I'm not" game, we should be focusing on why it is fundamentally wrong, regardless of degree of harm. The main transgression of rights here is that it's being done on girls who cannot refuse. Adults can be persuaded, not necessarily prohibited, from mutilating their own genitals, but the main thing is to stop it being forced on girls.
I beg to differ. We should use every avenue to argue against FGM and I think the harms definately outweigh the so called benefits. Merely providing numbers on deaths or complications due to FGM should already be enough to convince people of its harm. We don't need to convince everyone, we need to convince the majority so the social pressure collapses.
Also, I don't think you're making the right attribute to why previously circumcised women circumcise their daughters. It's social pressure more so than that they believe it's the right thing to do. You've said it yourself with the perceived benefits: marriageability, social acceptance, and aesthetic preference.
|
I'm surprised that a lot of women in those red countries are also in favor of FGM....
|
I think parents worldwide should not be allowed to cut the genitals of their children, girl or boy.
|
Taking bets now if this will turn to bashing debating religion faster than the "is your mind just chemicals" thread.
|
On July 27 2013 18:17 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 18:02 Mothra wrote:On July 27 2013 17:20 Shival wrote:On July 27 2013 17:08 Mothra wrote:On July 27 2013 16:55 No_Roo wrote:On July 27 2013 14:42 Millitron wrote:
Hold on, the chart in the OP says many women in these countries are cool with it? Why should UNICEF, or anyone really, go in and say they should stop, if many of these places disagree? Because the practice of any form of genital mutilation should stand or fall on it's merit, not it's popularity. We have thoroughly studied and debunked the so called 'benefits' genital mutilation proponents advocate with. Additionally we have demonstrated significant harm from these practices. That's why. That's a hard stance to defend. When the perceived benefits are marriageability, social acceptance, and aesthetic preference... how do you "debunk" those things? Type 4 FGM, which includes "Pricking or nicking involves cutting to draw blood, but no removal of tissue and no permanent alteration of the external genitalia." would be hard to classify as "significantly harmful". So do we censure some forms of FGM and not others? If it becomes a risk vs benefit thing, it is very hard to draw the line past where the practice becomes unacceptable. If you read the links I posted, the victims of FGM often do not see themselves as harmed, and they are the ones who circumcise their daughters. Infections don't count as significantly harmful? Most of these FGMs are not done in sterile environments, nor with sterile equipment. Anyway, type 4 includes alot more than what you said: "Includes pricking, piercing or incision of the clitoris and/or the labia; stretching of the clitoris and or the labia; cauterisation or burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissues, scraping of the vaginal orifice or cutting (Gishiri cuts) of the vagina and introduction of corrosive substances or herbs into the vagina." If you believe that doesn't result in permanent alteration, you believe in wonders. I'm not the one you have to convince. If you argue from "harm vs benefit", it favors those who defend the practice. Obviously the women who circumcise their daughters after undergoing it themselves believe that the "benefit" outweighs the harm. Why would they believe an outsider telling them they are harmed over their own friends and family? Instead of playing the "you are harmed", "no I'm not" game, we should be focusing on why it is fundamentally wrong, regardless of degree of harm. The main transgression of rights here is that it's being done on girls who cannot refuse. Adults can be persuaded, not necessarily prohibited, from mutilating their own genitals, but the main thing is to stop it being forced on girls. I beg to differ. We should use every avenue to argue against FGM and I think the harms definately outweigh the so called benefits. Merely providing numbers on deaths or complications due to FGM should already be enough to convince people of its harm. We don't need to convince everyone, we need to convince the majority so the social pressure collapses. Also, I don't think you're making the right attribute to why previously circumcised women circumcise their daughters. It's social pressure more so than that they believe it's the right thing to do. You've said it yourself with the perceived benefits: marriageability, social acceptance, and aesthetic preference.
I suppose you're right. It's just amazing though how quickly numbers and statistics can be dismissed when they support an unpopular conclusion. I suspect there will be a lot of resentment and resistance when presenting data that implies harmful intent, backwardness and ignorance. I feel like more than empirical evidence is needed, when the same thing can look so self evident to one group yet not at all to another.
|
I learned about this sort of FGM in high school during history classes, but never knew about all the ways in which it can be done. The symbolic version is quite frightening, as "circumcising" because of tradition is ancient and shouldn't be practices in the modern world. It is disgusting and horrifying to read how many women still have to undergo this procedure in many African countries.
Be it willingly or not, if women undergo these procedures they put their health at risk and compromise their self-worth. I don't think most of the women who actually agree to this do so with a smile, and even so I don't believe that they are given a good explanation of what the procedure will entail. Indoctrination also plays a big role in persuading these women (or girls, if you will) to agree to FGM.
|
Denmark302 Posts
On July 27 2013 17:34 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 16:52 Shival wrote:On July 27 2013 16:48 Artax wrote:On July 27 2013 16:05 Shival wrote:
Proper education is not about pushing western morals.
I'm guessing most of the middle east would disagree with you there... Education is never objective. The fact that you label it "proper" already implies a western bias. It doesn't imply anything at all other than that the education is based on facts. If you think education based on facts is western bias, then be my guest. Just know that you're utterly ridiculous. Same goes for 'most of the middle east', if they believe education based on facts is pushing western morals, they are also being utterly ridiculous. Good lord I wish there were more people who could understand what you've said here. You should respect the differences in other cultures... WITHIN REASON. When a culture mutilates their children and murders their rape victims... that is evil. It is not "pushing our western viewpoints on them" to refuse to tolerate wrongheaded violence and killing. It is simply the morally correct thing to do.
Indeed, defending atrocities with the "But it's their culture" argument, is worthless. You could defend Nazi Germany and what it did with the exact same "logic".
Ontopic: Underaged mutilation of both females and males should be banned, just for the sheer fact that people sometimes actually dies as a result, let alone the huge number of complications/permanent damagdes/infections that can ome as a result.
I can by no means understand, how intelligent humans can accept such despicable sh!t. Not even animals would be stupid enough to do something as self harming for their species, as genital mutilation.
|
United States43897 Posts
Take up the white man's burden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
