Resolved: FGM is a crime against humanity and the pinnacle of sexism in practice.

[straight_man]

YMMV, but I doubt there will be any objection to the basic premise that FGM is very, very wrong.

That said, if I may make a couple objections:

First, this one has already come up, but crimes against humanity specifically refer to actions/inactions by de facto or de jure governments. You need to show at least one government that actually is okay with FGM — and even if you do, you called FGM itself a crime against humanity.

Second, the earlier thread to which you refer had people arguing that FGM was a bad example of men oppressing women, not just “discrimination and oppression of females” in general. The specific ground for the objection was that the norms were perpetuated just as much by women as by men. You’ve started making a decent argument in this thread, but I’m not entirely convinced. Even if the original rationale has to do with devaluing women, I suspect that in operation, it has more to do with a norm being nearly universally accepted and perpetuated by men and women alike, though I’m open to being convinced otherwise. It seems to me that there would be change if large numbers of either gender demanded so. (The objection also had to do with treating “men” as a single actor capable of doing things, as opposed to a mere category of humanity, but that’s a different conversation.)

[WhyNot]

@Stoid

Male circumcision is innocently ignorant and pointless. Female circumcision is nefariously ignorant and very pointed. Nor does the fact that mothers don’t have nefarious intent when they do it make any difference; the goal of denying a girl’s humanity by destroying her sexuality is inherently nefarious. And yes, destroyng her humanity is the goal, because the goal is to control her as a possession of the male. Just like you neuter an animal to keep it from wandering off. Possessions are not humans, and if you doubt it, research slavery.

I don’t understand how you can say that it’s nefarious and yet not nefariously intended. It’s either nefarious or it isn’t - one can’t be accidentally nefarious. And I know - because I’ve read it and because I’ve talked to women from these cultures - that many of them don’t see it as destroying their sexuality, or “like you neuter an animal to keep it from wandering off”. As you say, they become “better girls”. They see it as a rite of passage, a sign of womanhood, and something to be celebrated, just exactly the same as religious (male) circumcision is a rite of passage, a sign of a new life for the congregation, something to be celebrated. Until that changes, FGM won’t go away.

Look, if you want me to decry FGM, I absolutely will, no question about it. I don’t think it’s okay, ever, before the age of majority. But I agree with **Skald **that it’s not the pinnacle of sexism in practice, and I further believe that just because we’re more familiar with and may ourselves have practiced male circumcision, that doesn’t make it any less heinous than some forms of FGM…except maybe that we’re not quite so fucked up as to create a society in which girls beg us to cut their genitals. (Instead they beg us to poke holes in their ears and bellybuttons, tattoo their asses, suck out their body fat, irradiate their skin, etc. etc. etc.)

What I see all too often in articles, blogs, message boards, etc. when FGM comes up is a lot of disgust because it’s something so foreign, when in reality, we do some pretty disgusting things to our own children, too.

Again, I grant that total infibulation is the very worst, nastiest, most disgusting and horrific thing we as human beings have thought up to systematically do to children since slavery. I’m completely, 100% against it.

And, other than that, I’m not sure what you were expecting from this thread. Do you expect that anyone here will actually defend the practice?

[Amasia]

@Stoid

Anyone that practices it, promotes it, protects it or tolerates it, if you need to pick somebody.

Interesting. You’re totally redefining the purpose of the ICC, as well as its jurisdiction. So this thread is pure fantasy then?

@Stoid

I gave the definition above. Here’s the parts that apply:

Thanks Sweetie, but I’m quite a good reader, actually. Repeating a definition does not demonstrate anything.

@Stoid

If you don’t see how the widespread condoned and accepted practice of torturing and mutilating young women, girls and babies constitutes crimes against humanity, I’m not sure what I can say that will help you see it, but perhaps this from the UN helps:

Correct, I don’t see it. More importantly, what you’re describing is based on a misunderstanding of what crimes against humanity are. Is FGM a violation of international human rights law? Quite possibly. But a crime against humanity under the ICC. No way.

Revise your resolution to reflect a violation of international human rights law and you’ll have a much more concrete starting point.

[Captain_Amazing]

@WhyNot

. . .tooth filing,..it can *all *wait until they’re old enough for informed consent.

Really? If a kid has a cavity, I say you better fill that right away. So that position of yours doesn’t make sense to me.

[WhyNot]

@Captain_Amazing

Really? If a kid has a cavity, I say you better fill that right away. So that position of yours doesn’t make sense to me.

Filing, not filling.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@WhyNot

I don’t understand how you can say that it’s nefarious and yet not nefariously intended. It’s either nefarious or it isn’t - one can’t be accidentally nefarious.

Actually that’s not true. Here’s a very personal example.

I was a bedwetter until an embarrassingly late age. Now my father, whom I do not get along with well at all, was, frankly, an idiot about that; he thought I was doing it intentionally, that I was sinning, and the way to deal with it was by whipping me each time it happened. This didn’t work, of course, as it wasn’t a volitional activity in any way, and the effects of that abuse have lingered a long time; it is A factor (but not the ONLY factor) in our utterly craptastic relationship now, which is unique between him and his many children. His intent was not evil, but the effect certainly was.

Similarly, persons from a culture that allows FGM, particularly in its most heinous forms, may honestly believe that what they are doing is for the betterment of the girls they are doing it to, whom they do not generally think of as women.

The effect of what a person does can be malign without any malign intent.

[WhyNot]

I agree that wrong can be done without any wrong intent. I believe, inherent in the definition of nefarious, however, is that the wrong being done is *willfully *wrong.

[QUOTE=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nefarious]
adjective
extremely wicked or villainous; iniquitous: a nefarious plot.
[/QUOTE]

If you’re plotting a nefarious plot, you are planning an extremely wicked plot. If you’re just the driver who didn’t know the plot was extremely wicked, you might be doing something bad, but not nefariously so.

[j666]

@Stoid

Actually, if you wanted to pick some nits about definitions, what could be more sexist than to perpetuate the idea that female sexuality is so wrong, so objectionable, so out of control, so fundmentlly bad and unacceptable, that it becomes a culturally accepted practice to literally slice it away?

That’s it.

Crimes against women, as women, are generally rooted in fear and resulting hatred of female sexuality.

Rape and murder may be worse, but they are not so … fundamental.

So, if we are going to pick nits, I will argue the FGM is the nadir, rather than the pinnacle, of anti-female sexism.

[levdrakon]

I don’t see how FGM can be a crime against humanity when MGM is not. For one thing, FGM is only practiced in areas where MGM has already been practiced on boys even longer. Annually, around 13 million boys experience MGM vs. only about 2 million girls, and the severer forms of FGM are rarer still.

The justifications for both are pretty much identical, being an initiation into a religion or culture, and a variety of nebulous health concerns. Some of the health justifications probably have some validity in the poor, unhygienic regions where they’re practiced, but a little soap and water once in awhile abrogates those justifications entirely.

I see no nefarious plot to dehumanize women. I think in areas where it’s performed, it’s pretty clearly intended for the overall health and well being of the woman, however ignorant and misguided the justifications for it are.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Stoid

I think male circumcision is barbaric and sad, as well. In spite of the fact that it is not anywhere near as destructive as FGM …

You can’t include all of these,

Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

as crimes against humanity and say male circumcision is not anywhere near as destructive.

I’m reasonably certain I know what pricking is, but you’re going to need to explain exactly what’s involved in piercing, incising, and scraping and why it’s worse than cutting off part of someone’s penis.

CMC fnord!
I would have preferred a meaningful ritual circumcision in my teens to a meaningless circumcision as a baby, ‘cept for the whole gettin’ part of my dick cut off.
And I’m not entirely convinced that non-religious male circumcision isn’t common simply because boys are icky enough without foreskins and smegma.

[j666]

@levdrakon

I see no nefarious plot to dehumanize women. I think in areas where it’s performed, it’s pretty clearly intended for the overall health and well being of the woman, however ignorant and misguided the justifications for it are.

I would be interested in cites to support the bolded section.

[WhyNot]

@crowmanyclouds

You can’t include all of these,as crimes against humanity and say male circumcision is not anywhere near as destructive.

I’m reasonably certain I know what pricking is, but you’re going to need to explain exactly what’s involved in piercing, incising, and scraping and why it’s worse than cutting off part of someone’s penis.

“Incising” means cutting into something. “Excision” means to cut something out. Some forms of FGM include cutting out the clitoral hood (the closest analogue to a male circumcision), the clitoris, the labia minora, the inside of the labia majora or all four. Scraping means that instead of using a scalpel or blade to make incisions, one or more of these are scraped off with a flat object, like a turtle shell or stone.

The least invasive form of FGM is pricking or piercing the clitoral hood, allowing a drop or a few drops of blood to fall.

[even_sven]

@Stoid

I consider FGM the pinnacle because in spite of the heinous and barbaric and life-altering consequences (not to mention life threatening!) it’s considered a “good” by the whole society in which it is practiced. A positive. A benefit. The girls who undergo it are considered “better” girls.

This is not entirely true. No society is homogeneous or unchanging. It’s important not to paint everyone with the same brush- you will find a variety of opinions on it even in areas where it is widely accepted. Anyway, the people who are working the hardest and the most effectively against FGM are people from the communities themselves. I was surprised in Mali (a place with high FGM rates) to see anti-FGM posters up in restaurants, and men walking around in anti-FGM tee-shirts. These are big, diverse places that you are talking about.

[Farmer_Jane]

@WhyNot

Some forms of FGM include cutting out the clitoral hood (the closest analogue to a male circumcision),

…no.
Whether this is true or not, there’s no way you can equate that with traditional FGM.

[Lochdale]

As a NC male (who has a five day year old son who is also NC) I will say that it takes a mere moment several times a week to clean. Any suggestions otherwise is based in ignorance or fear mongering.

[levdrakon]

@j66

I would be interested in cites to support the bolded section.

Read the OP’s cite. That’s my cite. Of note:

FGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, which include the notion that girls are “clean” and “beautiful” after removal of body parts that are considered “male” or “unclean”

Sure sounds like it’s intended for the woman’s health and well being to me. Interesting too, that to make a woman clean and beautiful it is necessary to remove the unclean male parts. That’s actually more penis and male sexuality hate.

[WhyNot]

@CitizenPained

…no.
Whether this is true or not, there’s no way you can equate that with traditional FGM.

I don’t understand. I read the site you linked to, which was a positive review by an adult woman who underwent a clitoridotomy, or removal of the clitoral hood (which I’m not opposed to, as I already said). The procedure for this, of the forms of FGM recognized by the World Health Organization, is the closest thing (analogous) to a male circumcision. It’s also occasionally a legitimate medical treatmentfor women who have scar tissue, tight tissue, or a flap of tissue sealing the clitoral hood shut, not allowing expansion of the clitoris during arousal.

The cover of the glans is removed in a male circumcision, and the cover of the clitoris in a clitoridotomy. These are analogous body parts, made from the same embryonic tissue, and serving, in both cases, to cover the area of the genitalia with the most nerve endings.

I don’t know what you mean when you say there’s no way you can equate that with traditional FGM. Clitoridotomy is one form of FGM, of two (the other being removal of the clitoris itself) called Type I by the WHO.

There’s lots about this at wikipedia, including some pretty graphic information, for anyone who is interested in the actual procedures.

[Farmer_Jane]

Yeh, I saw the graphics. Ow. I’m sorry. I guess I thought you were making a case against male circumcision? Anyway. Doing this for a female baby is a lot different than circumcision on a boy. That’s my stance. And to label what you’re talking about “FGM” could lead to my son maybe not having the option of circumcising his child.

[WhyNot]

@CitizenPained

I’m sorry. I guess I thought you were making a case against male circumcision?

I think both male and female circumcision are wrong. I think the pricking or piercing of the clitoral hood are the least invasive, safest, and least potentially harmful (in terms of acute patient stability, infection potential and long term sexual disabilities) of the various FGM methods, but that still doesn’t mean I think it’s ethically okay.

[Lemur866]

@WhyNot

I think both male and female circumcision are wrong. I think the pricking or piercing of the clitoral hood are the least invasive, safest, and least potentially harmful (in terms of acute patient stability, infection potential and long term sexual disabilities) of the various FGM methods, but that still doesn’t mean I think it’s ethically okay.

Exactly.

In the same way it’s not as bad to have your ear cut or pricked with a razor as it is to have half your ear cut off, and it’s not as bad to have half your ear cut off as it is to have your whole ear cut off.