**Circumcision, male and female, has primarily been a way of controlling and limiting sexuality. In the western world for example they have both been used (well into the 20th century) as a method for preventing masturbation. The female variety has the added effect of reducing the risk of premarital sex and infidelity.
They are both based on the same premise, so IMO they are comparable. Certainly at different sides of the scale, but comparable none the less.
If the procedure could be performed without “infection, pain and death”, to the same degree as male circumcision in the western world today, most people would still object to it. Sexuality may not be the primary reason for objection but it is still in itself sufficient reason to call for the abolishment of the practice.
The mildest form of female circumcision is “merely” a ritualized minor cut, not at all unlike the male equivalent.
Most debt is not held by the World Bank, so it’s not really the issue here. More debt is held by other sovereign nations, e.g. France, USA etc. Some debt is also held by private banks, others by IMF.
Unfortunately Daniel might be right, but on the other hand assertion is not proof. Debt relief so far has been ambiguous. Nonetheless, democratic governments with decent track records on public spending are saddled with ancient and unservicable debts. I say its better to give them a chance at spending the money now spent on wasted loans on current needs. Taking a chance is better than continuing to squeeze blood out of stones.
Hopefully not now that lending priorities have been reordered and better controls instituted, within the context of sovereignty. Of course not all will be able to obtain new loans under the circumstances of the past (i.e. the Cold War, which saw the USA closing its eyes to many such abuses because the programs were really competing with Soviet ones. That is the goals were as much ideological as practical. )
Of course now the World Bank takes a dim view of giant prestige projects which may have dubious uses, while most major donars and lenders have tightened the purse strings now that the old justifications for loose purse strings (generally the Cold War) has largely disappeared.
Those countries… Generalizations. Well, anyways, generally structural adjustment programs do require restructuring of the government and so forth. As we can see in the good old USA, people don’t like “outsiders” telling them what to do, so there is often a backlash. The IMF is now trying somewhat more flexible approaches in the hopes that more lasting results can be obtained.
As for debt relief raising our taxes and interest rates, I’m not sure what you mean by that. IMF and World Bank are self funding for most programs, for national loans, quite frankly many --I might hazard the opinion most-- were made as acts of political policy (doling out the presents to keep X out of the Soviet’s hands, or at least unstable…) Since these loans are generally clearly unrecoverable, they’ve already largely been written off in terms of actual collectability. There is little effect on your interest rates, although the borrowing rates for the heavily endebted nations may creep up.
All in all, the costs of debt relief are trivial, the potential gains large. Given that the developed nations have some complicity in the debt (extending loans to dictators who were clearly embezzling the money in order to buy their loyalty) it seems logical and even advantageous to take advantage of relatively cheap solutions like debt relief.
Pray tell did you read the OP? In fact the original poster DID suggest the same. And yes, to your follow up, it did seem like a serious suggestion that a violent resolution was an option. Even as an exageration it hardly suggests the sort of attitude which might help bring REAL change and REALLY help the women concerned. It seems at the very least like an easy, self-congratulatory emotional outburst from someone who will never lift a real finger to help. See comments below.
Here Daniel makes a good point. There is a large spectrum of what goes on, from real FGM to female circumcision. I don’t find anything in the spectrum to be really tolerable, but then I don’t think much of male circumcision. Despite one poster’s comparision, the mildest forms of female circumcision are comparable to male circumcision. What’s the predominate form? I don’t think anyone knows.
It should be noted for all the talk of the unclean circumstances under which much of this occurs (broken glass etc.) that the same goes for male circumcision. Sadly lots of folks are without access to basic health care. It’s a sad fact which makes the entire range of the practice(s) more terrible, but applies across society. Infection, pain and death can also result from bad circumsions for boys under similar circumstances. Clearly, of course, the extreme forms, which merit the name genital mutilation, carry higher risks of infection and clearly expose the woman to more serious health risks, but I get the sense that some posters here don’t understand that the ‘tools’ are not unique to the FGM or circumcision but unfortunately represent a portion of traditional medicine as it were.
Finally, I agree with Kimtsu and others: Easy western rage isn’t helping anyone here. You make yourself feel good. Fine. Doesn’t help the women concerned one bit. Not one bit. (How many folks can fly to the USA to take advantage of asylum laws, and do you have any idea how those laws are applied? Not a solution, unless you want to devote some of your rage to revoking the 1996 Immigration Reform Act’s procedure’s on asylum seeking.) Helping raise their status and standard of living through development and other assistance, that’ll do something --or in the least might help prevent even worse abuses, sometimes preventing things from getting worse is doing something.
I have been led to understand that the word ‘hijab’ or ‘higab’ refers to covering one’s hair and often shoulders. Apparently what qualifies as hijab is contested from what friends tell me.
Eggs a la Ted, where did you get the idea that male circumcision was performed as a “method of preventing masturbation?” Or of “controlling or limiting sexuality?”
I can assure you that if those were the objectives, the process failed miserably. I believe that other circumcised males will concur.
I also believe there is some medical justification for male circumcision in that circumcised males are less likely to develop penile cancer. I cannot cite a study on this, though.
I have read various original materials from the late 19th century advocating circumcision as a way of preventing masturbation. Some of the studies showing the other benefits were made to further justify its practice.
Not sure if eyewitness testimony counts for anything in GD, and it’s not as impressive as lee’s list of sites, but I wrote to a friend who was a Peace Corps volunteer in the Gambia and is now working as an international health specialist all over Africa. As a volunteer, she dealt directly with sexual & reproductive health, AIDS, infant mortality, educating midwives in a rural area for two years.
Collounsbury, you’ve got a point about higab - it’s open to interpretation, I mostly wanted to contrast it with chador and the version I describe is the one I’ve seen most often.
Plus, I agree with you here 100%:
People are bringing up good questions that go far beyond the OP. Since it seems that we are going to go there anyway, and we’ve attracted a group interested in the subject, maybe we should start a NEW GD thread on international lending & development practices, along the lines of
**Do the World Bank and IMF do more harm than good?
Does “international development” work?
What should the goals of foreign aid be? (ie: raise living standards, promote trade, end undesirable human rights practices, promote the diplomatic agendas of the lending countries - where do these goals get confused?)
How far should we (the U.S., the U.N., donor countries) go to protect oppressed groups within other nations?**
I haven’t been on the SDMB very long, don’t know how much this has already been covered.
Looks like there is actually a way that FGM is worse than male circumcision - those that practice FGM are at least honest about what it’s for, reduction of sexual pleasure. They don’t make up lies saying it’s necessary for hygiene.
Because in fact it was. If one reads a history of sexuality one finds doctors promoted the idea since the late 19th century through I think the mid-20th century with exactely this goal.
Well, dumb ideas don’t have to be successful!
We do need a cite after all. Any surgical operation carries a risk. There are some tradeoffs, I believe I recall some literature on uncircumcised males who do not clean themselves properly have higher risk of penile canser. However, to my recollection, proper care eliminates this risk.
The folks I have talked with say that they’re trying to get relgious leaders on board to denounce the practice as ‘bida’ (spelling?) or a bad innovative practice.
First one needs to seperate the two. They do very different things. World Bank makes loans to sovereign nations for development projects – that’s how the charter is set up and legally they can’t do it any other way as of yet. IMF makes largely loans to cover balance of payments problems – i.e. international trade imbalences which as often as not come from poor local governance as anything else. IMF certainly could have been more flexible in hte past in their restructuring programs recognizing the positive externatilities of social investments (spending) by governments. On the other hand, governments have often had a choice about where to cut spending, and what’s been cut, military or social spending. Wanna guess? So there’s two sides to the coin. Hopefully the new policies in place will help.
That’s a hard question. I work in the private sector so I can’t say I have first hand experience, but my work takes me to place which put me in contact with development folks and I get to see a lot. Plus I got really interested in the subject. I’ll hazard a few opinions:
(1) It’s easy to make snap judgements, such as nothing is getting better, but once one looks closer sometimes one thinks, well couldn’t it have been a lot worse. As I said, does preventing even worse situations merit aid?
(2) I do think in the past a lot of development work was really top down, Bwana knows best. That was wrong-headed not for culturally sensitive reasons, PC pablum but for the same reasons that corporations (at least mine) try to go to the production workers themselves to find out issues which need to be solved. Often those closest to the issue know a lot which can be used to solve a problem, or at least their perspectives have to be dealt with to achieve an optimal solution. If one steps back from the rhetoric one can see that a lot of business practice is going in the same direction. There are limits of course, but its there.
Depends on the situation. I have great doubts that any but the grosses political human rights violations can be changed. When we’re talking cultural practices we’re talking things close to people’s hearts. Political prisoners? I’ll wager most folks even in country will agree with the West in a second. Cultural practice? ha. Think about how hard it is for the American Federal government to effect changes as simple as eliminating discrimination against minorities and all the whinging that engenders on the part of my fellow white males. If we put ourselves in the shoes of the other guy then maybe we understand their reaction.
I certainly hope that some of the gross political uses of ‘development’ aide which occured in the Cold War won’t return though.
Well, if intervene in such affaires, we have to ask ourselves how much we’re willing to accept the same intervention in ours. It’s a two way street.