|
On July 27 2013 19:27 cloneThorN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 17:34 Chocobo wrote: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.
QFT. There are forms of tradition which are part of culture and harm noone and there is highly degraded sickf*ck which goes against any form of reason. It has nothing to do with our western morals beeing the better ones because we are better and the west. It is solely based on reason and rationality. Something I highly miss in countries with such forms of "culture".
|
On July 27 2013 18:25 29 fps wrote:
I'm surprised that a lot of women in those red countries are also in favor of FGM....
I'm not.
It's often the case which such practices against women, that the women (or a good portions of them) are actually the ones pushing for it (especially those who already suffered from it).
|
On July 27 2013 19:01 Mothra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 18:17 Shival wrote: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.
True enough, rather than just empirical evidence a moral argument should go along side it. Though, I suppose that can also be used by proponents of FGM to detract from the facts, and hide behind their overused argument of "western civilization is pushing their ideals and not letting us have our culture!"
On July 27 2013 19:36 KwarK wrote:
Take up the white man's burden.
I'm not sure how to take this one, depending on how you look at the poem. Is it meant as satirical or not?
|
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.
That's rather a distinct question in there from the way you took it. Are we to gather that every cultural practice done on kids that they more or less have no choice in should be subject to similar international censure?
You may disagree with me, but we are lumping together a very scarring harmful type of mutilation with a rightly "symbolic circumcision" i.e. a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation. Oh yes, one is a shameful practice and I condemn it. Aside from the connection to Type#1-3 & parts of 4, is not that last bit just cultural?
(Yeah no warpaint, hunting, or dancing too before the age of majority. They're kids for gods sake!)
|
On July 27 2013 20:02 Danglars 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. That's rather a distinct question in there from the way you took it. Are we to gather that every cultural practice done on kids that they more or less have no choice in should be subject to similar international censure? You may disagree with me, but we are lumping together a very scarring harmful type of mutilation with a rightly "symbolic circumcision" i.e. a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation. Oh yes, one is a shameful practice and I condemn it. Aside from the connection to Type#1-3 & parts of 4, is not that last bit just cultural? (Yeah no warpaint, hunting, or dancing too before the age of majority. They're kids for gods sake!)
I don't see warpaint, hunting or dancing as being painful to the child. Pricking of genitalia to the point of blood, yes I do. It's unnecessarily painful.
Though as to your first question, you're trying to make it a slippery slope while it is not. There's a clear boundary.
Edit: Also, I don't really see why a couple of you are trying to detract from subject at hand. Nearly every FGM performed is much worse than the "a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation".
|
On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote:
While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever.
the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break
This isn't an "American" thing. America doesn't have a copyright on human rights (or freedom for that matter).
There should be no cultural boundaries when it comes to protecting basic human rights. They are an universal value that cannot be marginalized by moral relativism based rhetoric, and I can't see why anybody would even want to make that point. No matter what their ancestors, religion and custom may tell them, mutilation is not okay.
Nobody's going to invade a country over female genitals, but a strong pressure on governments to stop these things from happening is entirely justified.
On July 27 2013 20:02 Danglars wrote:
That's rather a distinct question in there from the way you took it. Are we to gather that every cultural practice done on kids that they more or less have no choice in should be subject to similar international censure?
It arguably should be, but it won't be because no country in the world has clean hands when it comes to dealing with parenting and childhood.
Children being indoctrinated with religious beliefs from a very early age when they have no means of resisting it is a serious issue that has long term implications and consequences. Same with using physical force to discipline children. Most western countries haven't dealt with these issues themselves, but that's a different topic already.
|
I don't think bringing up this topic here will change anything in Africa. There are many traditions throughout the world that "everyone" does not agree with/will not practice, much like tribes in South America/Africa that condone facial mutilation.
Just because some people despise it and think it is in-human, doesn't mean that these people who are getting this procedure done are forcefully getting it done, I would assume most are there because it is the "norm"
|
So much misery for culture and tradition. It's about time to burn the culture card and end this abhorrent practice.
|
United States41936 Posts
On July 27 2013 19:56 Shival wrote:I'm not sure how to take this one, depending on how you look at the poem. Is it meant as satirical or not?
I think our culture is objectively better than one which mutilates/kills (it's high risk surgery) women to avoid them enjoying sexual reproduction and that those with the power to change the world have an obligation to attempt to end such practices. Kipling was a massive racist of course and empire had little to do with moral imperative and a lot to do with exploitation but the example of Sati in India still stands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)#British_and_other_European_territories
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote:
While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever.
the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break
Exactly. What makes you think the women of Africa will thank you when America and Europe offers 5 Billion in Aid in exchange for a ban on FGM?
Are Native Americans happy that Europeans invaded America and civilized them? They complain that their culture is destroyed
Are the people of Iraq happy that America invaded Iraq, deposed their dictator, and instituted democracy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_opinion
|
On July 27 2013 20:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 19:56 Shival wrote:On July 27 2013 19:36 KwarK wrote:
Take up the white man's burden. I'm not sure how to take this one, depending on how you look at the poem. Is it meant as satirical or not? I think our culture is objectively better than one which mutilates/kills (it's high risk surgery) women to avoid them enjoying sexual reproduction and that those with the power to change the world have an obligation to attempt to end such practices. Kipling was a massive racist of course and empire had little to do with moral imperative and a lot to do with exploitation but the example of Sati in India still stands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)#British_and_other_European_territories
Ah right, we're like-minded then. I wasn't sure as some people use it to point to Eurocentric racism (rightly so, in some cases) instead of the way you used it.
|
On July 27 2013 20:10 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 20:02 Danglars wrote: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. That's rather a distinct question in there from the way you took it. Are we to gather that every cultural practice done on kids that they more or less have no choice in should be subject to similar international censure? You may disagree with me, but we are lumping together a very scarring harmful type of mutilation with a rightly "symbolic circumcision" i.e. a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation. Oh yes, one is a shameful practice and I condemn it. Aside from the connection to Type#1-3 & parts of 4, is not that last bit just cultural? (Yeah no warpaint, hunting, or dancing too before the age of majority. They're kids for gods sake!) I don't see warpaint, hunting or dancing as being painful to the child. Pricking of genitalia to the point of blood, yes I do. It's unnecessarily painful. Though as to your first question, you're trying to make it a slippery slope while it is not. There's a clear boundary. Edit: Also, I don't really see why a couple of you are trying to detract from subject at hand. Nearly every FGM performed is much worse than the "a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation".
I immediately want to commission a bunch of white busybodies to survey every tribe on earth for your big 2:
"Unnecessarily painful:" This as opposed to traditions which are necessarily painful. Because traditions are judged at how necessary the pain is to the tradition and not by other means!
I mean that continent had tribes with neck rings and with implanted objects of decorative fashion. Ritualistic cutting of both sexes is not unknown in traditions. Depending on how you define child (since this subject does cover teenagers), we must even consider the coming of age ceremonies to prove you're a man. But now the white man has laid down the ironclad term of unnecessary pain as the rubric of traditions. I question that as any sort of boundary. It is widely applicable and almost bastardizes the term tradition.
I am trying to get at people's real objections. If we achieved a sort of 99.999% Type 4 symbolic circumcision done in sanitary conditions, would people here still support the righteous crusaders with both the same vehemence and moral certitude?
|
United States41936 Posts
On July 27 2013 20:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 20:10 Shival wrote:On July 27 2013 20:02 Danglars wrote: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. That's rather a distinct question in there from the way you took it. Are we to gather that every cultural practice done on kids that they more or less have no choice in should be subject to similar international censure? You may disagree with me, but we are lumping together a very scarring harmful type of mutilation with a rightly "symbolic circumcision" i.e. a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation. Oh yes, one is a shameful practice and I condemn it. Aside from the connection to Type#1-3 & parts of 4, is not that last bit just cultural? (Yeah no warpaint, hunting, or dancing too before the age of majority. They're kids for gods sake!) I don't see warpaint, hunting or dancing as being painful to the child. Pricking of genitalia to the point of blood, yes I do. It's unnecessarily painful. Though as to your first question, you're trying to make it a slippery slope while it is not. There's a clear boundary. Edit: Also, I don't really see why a couple of you are trying to detract from subject at hand. Nearly every FGM performed is much worse than the "a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation". I immediately want to commission a bunch of white busybodies to survey every tribe on earth for your big 2: "Unnecessarily painful:" This as opposed to traditions which are necessarily painful. Because traditions are judged at how necessary the pain is to the tradition and not by other means! I mean that continent had tribes with neck rings and with implanted objects of decorative fashion. Ritualistic cutting of both sexes is not unknown in traditions. Depending on how you define child (since this subject does cover teenagers), we must even consider the coming of age ceremonies to prove you're a man. But now the white man has laid down the ironclad term of unnecessary pain as the rubric of traditions. I question that as any sort of boundary. It is widely applicable and almost bastardizes the term tradition. I am trying to get at people's real objections. If we achieved a sort of 99.999% Type 4 symbolic circumcision done in sanitary conditions, would people here still support the righteous crusaders with both the same vehemence and moral certitude?
No, if it wasn't torturing and killing women and if it wasn't expressly designed to deny women a sexual identity then I wouldn't have the same problem with it. But it is.
|
I absolutely agree, femal genital mutilation is a horrible thing, and sth. should be done about it.
The discussion, that emerges here ("cultural respect" vs. "universal human rights") is a very old one a very interesting one.
I definitvely am at the "universalist side" but think, you have to be cultural sensitive, when trying to make a change (which means exactly not acting like "I am Western, I have the truth, and you need to do it the same way" aka "the American/Western freedom missile).
A nice saying on this topic: "All humans are equal because they are humans, and they are different because they have different cultures".
Human rights aim at that core - to hurt a girl badly with a lot of physical / medical consequences involved and psychological trauma involved, hurts every girl, be it African or European. So that is no excuse for toleration IMO. As pointed out, most countries acutally banned it themselves, and nearly every country (more than 130) have signed the Declaration for Human Rights, so they accepted the principles.
"Free choice of women/girls": That argument ignores the power structures behind a tradition like female mutilation. How free is a girl to decide, when the whole family eagerly wants this? (And would be considered "not clean" or sth. like this by the ones, she depende on / loves)? With a whole system of male dominance behind it, that is strongly enforced? No access to information about the physical and psychological consequences? Free choice needs a base - an absence of severe pressure and information, if that is missing, it is not a choice but a farce. Nearly everyone, when given a "real" choice, do not want to hurt themselves and their children in such a bad way.
Another problem with "cultural relativism" imo is, that it is illogical: Many of those, who argue like that, point out the bad "Western domination" ("American freedom missile") when making their point. But following their own logic - how can they do that? It's just the American culture of telling others, what is right, by interfering you would deny them their right of expressing their culture. (Do not want to offend anybody here, I am exaggerating a bit - just want to contribute to the discussion).
I agree, that dominating other cultures ("We have the truth, and other countries shall live the same way") is a bad thing, but from a standpoint of universal rights. Human rights do explicitly include the right of cultural self-determination.
And where does it stop? In a country, that has a longer recent history of civil war, in a cycle of revenge people keep killing each other. Do you just say, that is their culture, or do you try somehow to stop it? When you see a father on the street, who badly beats up his child, well, that's just their culture, too bad? I think, it is important, when you consider human rights to be essenteil, that you somehow need to make an effort, that they are realized - otherwise they have no real value. That can lead to conflict and is not as comfortable. And never forget, that in most circumstances, where abuse of human rights happens, it is usually more a question of power (which group wants to dominate another), than of culture.
But there still is an important point in the "cultural perspective" - once you decide to help realize human rights (in this case, stop female mutilation), it is important, how you do it. Those processes often need time and by just going in there, sending everyone who practises it to prison - that would be the "Freedom Missile" that neither solves the problem (but causes hidden or fierce resistance) and inflicts cultural abuse on its own. Being cultural sensitive, enabling a lot of education, opening up the discussion, as a first step prevent the worst consequences (clean medical tools f.e.), trying to support the emergence of alternative rites that go along with the culture, preventing / punishing the worst pratises - a mixed approach is needed, not easy, surely with drawbacks. I have high respect for all the organizations, that do this work, often being caught between two stools. Working together with the people of that very culture, that want a change themselves - they do exist!
Hope, that contributes to the discussion! 
EDIT:
On July 27 2013 20:26 KwarK wrote:
I think our culture is objectively better than one which mutilates/kills (it's high risk surgery) women to avoid them enjoying sexual reproduction and that those with the power to change the world have an obligation to attempt to end such practices.
Totally agree with your intention - we, who are privileged should use that, to do something. I have a bit of a problem, with stating that "our culture" is objectively better. If you make some sort of human rights ranking, that might be the result. And I personally agree (even though male / not directly personally affected), that I am very happy not to live in a country that practises female mutilation.
So while it may be true, that our culture has a lot of HR achievements, what does that help? First of all, looking at your own culture is always biased, you take it for granted. As a European/German, for example, I am horrified about how human rights are treated in the "War on Terror" of the U.S., both internally (civil rights) and externally (excution by drones without real control and the "collateral damage"). And shocked by the NSA scandal. (But there are also a lot of things, I admire the U.S. for, spent there a year as an exchange student). Probably, someone from the U.S. can point out a lot of things, that disrespect human rights in Europe/Germany. An African probably would be shocked by the way, a lot of older people are treated here - being sent into old-age-home, and not living amongst the family.
Do not want to compare this to FM, which I really think is a horrible thing. I just think, in order to change that (and we do share this goal), it is not so helpful to say "we are objectively better", because if you want people to change, they do not like it, when you say, we are so much better. Human rights are for everyone, they are universal and do not "belong" to one culture. Think, it is better to say "hey, we both (the African and me) are fighting for the same goal - stop FM, not because I am better, but because we believe in the same values (human rights)." And at the same time being open, from what I can learn myself from the other one. Can say that personally - it was a big finding for me. Did an internship for 3 months for a development organization in Senegal/Africa, and I was astonished of the complexity of the culture there and how it made me reflect my own culture and seeing things in there, I do want to see changed (in that case - egoistic behavior as a "culture", weak tradition of sharing and valuing relationships/friendship less than carreer). We need someone else to point that out for us, as everyone always has blind spots.
|
On July 27 2013 20:31 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote:
While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever.
the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break Exactly. What makes you think the women of Africa will thank you when America and Europe offers 5 Billion in Aid in exchange for a ban on FGM? Are Native Americans happy that Europeans invaded America and civilized them? They complain that their culture is destroyed Are the people of Iraq happy that America invaded Iraq, deposed their dictator, and instituted democracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_opinion
Since when are we invading Africa to change their point of view on FGM? Instead you should ask yourself how homogeneous a culture really is. Culture is constantly evolving, often times by outside influence. It's perfectly normal, not doing so is in fact saying you want to stop all cultural progress and live in times of old.
On July 27 2013 20:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 20:10 Shival wrote:On July 27 2013 20:02 Danglars wrote: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. That's rather a distinct question in there from the way you took it. Are we to gather that every cultural practice done on kids that they more or less have no choice in should be subject to similar international censure? You may disagree with me, but we are lumping together a very scarring harmful type of mutilation with a rightly "symbolic circumcision" i.e. a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation. Oh yes, one is a shameful practice and I condemn it. Aside from the connection to Type#1-3 & parts of 4, is not that last bit just cultural? (Yeah no warpaint, hunting, or dancing too before the age of majority. They're kids for gods sake!) I don't see warpaint, hunting or dancing as being painful to the child. Pricking of genitalia to the point of blood, yes I do. It's unnecessarily painful. Though as to your first question, you're trying to make it a slippery slope while it is not. There's a clear boundary. Edit: Also, I don't really see why a couple of you are trying to detract from subject at hand. Nearly every FGM performed is much worse than the "a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation". I immediately want to commission a bunch of white busybodies to survey every tribe on earth for your big 2: "Unnecessarily painful:" This as opposed to traditions which are necessarily painful. Because traditions are judged at how necessary the pain is to the tradition and not by other means! I mean that continent had tribes with neck rings and with implanted objects of decorative fashion. Ritualistic cutting of both sexes is not unknown in traditions. Depending on how you define child (since this subject does cover teenagers), we must even consider the coming of age ceremonies to prove you're a man. But now the white man has laid down the ironclad term of unnecessary pain as the rubric of traditions. I question that as any sort of boundary. It is widely applicable and almost bastardizes the term tradition. I am trying to get at people's real objections. If we achieved a sort of 99.999% Type 4 symbolic circumcision done in sanitary conditions, would people here still support the righteous crusaders with both the same vehemence and moral certitude?
Bolded: Was that really necessary? That was actually pretty racist, in fact you don't even know if I'm white, what if I'm black? That pretty much shows how narrowminded you are and how quickly you hide behind a mist of accusements of cultural annihilism.
Anyway, I think you're completely misunderstanding what I meant. I think every tradition that is painful to a child (or teenager), mentally or physical is abhorrent. There is no necessarily painful tradition, it's all unnecessary. That includes western traditions.
Please stick to reality, as your hypothetical situation is far from it. It detracts and tries to undermine facts by trying to cast doubts on supposed underlying motivations.
|
Do you have a source on these opinions? If this is true, it is really scary. Women actually wanting the mutilation for their daughters is just horrible.
+ Show Spoiler +Respondents' (female) opinion on FGM![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XxghSoM.jpg)
|
On July 27 2013 20:31 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote:
While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever.
the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break Exactly. What makes you think the women of Africa will thank you when America and Europe offers 5 Billion in Aid in exchange for a ban on FGM? Are Native Americans happy that Europeans invaded America and civilized them? They complain that their culture is destroyed Are the people of Iraq happy that America invaded Iraq, deposed their dictator, and instituted democracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_opinion
The europeans didn't try to civilize the natives, they outright killed them and took their territory.
War of Iraq was a retard manuvre done by the bush administration. He and all the leaders invloved, should be jaiiled for warcrimes, but i can't decide that, as the USA politics is a corrupt circle jerk.
_________
But in your mind, it should be allowed to mutilate children, because other people made mistakes in the past, or is it because it's part of their culture?
A culture does not give people the right to harm anyone, otherwise we in EU sahould have led the Nazis kill off all the jews, because it was part of their "culture"....
|
On July 27 2013 20:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 20:10 Shival wrote:On July 27 2013 20:02 Danglars wrote: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. That's rather a distinct question in there from the way you took it. Are we to gather that every cultural practice done on kids that they more or less have no choice in should be subject to similar international censure? You may disagree with me, but we are lumping together a very scarring harmful type of mutilation with a rightly "symbolic circumcision" i.e. a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation. Oh yes, one is a shameful practice and I condemn it. Aside from the connection to Type#1-3 & parts of 4, is not that last bit just cultural? (Yeah no warpaint, hunting, or dancing too before the age of majority. They're kids for gods sake!) I don't see warpaint, hunting or dancing as being painful to the child. Pricking of genitalia to the point of blood, yes I do. It's unnecessarily painful. Though as to your first question, you're trying to make it a slippery slope while it is not. There's a clear boundary. Edit: Also, I don't really see why a couple of you are trying to detract from subject at hand. Nearly every FGM performed is much worse than the "a pricking where there is blood but no lasting deformation". I immediately want to commission a bunch of white busybodies to survey every tribe on earth for your big 2: "Unnecessarily painful:" This as opposed to traditions which are necessarily painful. Because traditions are judged at how necessary the pain is to the tradition and not by other means! I mean that continent had tribes with neck rings and with implanted objects of decorative fashion. Ritualistic cutting of both sexes is not unknown in traditions. Depending on how you define child (since this subject does cover teenagers), we must even consider the coming of age ceremonies to prove you're a man. But now the white man has laid down the ironclad term of unnecessary pain as the rubric of traditions. I question that as any sort of boundary. It is widely applicable and almost bastardizes the term tradition. I am trying to get at people's real objections. If we achieved a sort of 99.999% Type 4 symbolic circumcision done in sanitary conditions, would people here still support the righteous crusaders with both the same vehemence and moral certitude?
Quit the racism. Do you seriously think only white people agrees/disagrees with FGM?
Also, yes, personally i would still condmen circumcision. In my view, people defending ancient superstition are a hindrance for our species.
|
On July 27 2013 20:31 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 13:53 JP Dayne wrote:
While I don't agree with either female or male genital mutilation, I don't think anyone is in the place to use their own morals to judge or, even worse, intervene with those african cultures/practices/whatever.
the "american freedom missile is coming for your rescue!" needs to take a break Exactly. What makes you think the women of Africa will thank you when America and Europe offers 5 Billion in Aid in exchange for a ban on FGM? Are Native Americans happy that Europeans invaded America and civilized them? They complain that their culture is destroyed Are the people of Iraq happy that America invaded Iraq, deposed their dictator, and instituted democracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_opinion
Those are such bullshit analogies.
Europeans didn't exactly come to the Native Americans professing human rights and peaceful coexistence.
Forcing democracy onto a country isn't nearly the same thing as forcing countries to uphold human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
