Actually, aren’t they pretty analogous? The clitoral hood pretty much is the equivalent of the foreskin. The problem is that FGM isn’t just the snipping off the hood–it involves way more removal and mutilation to the clitoris as well.
Female circumcision is the equivalent of cytting off the entire head of the penis, not just the foreskin. Equating the two practices is ridiculous.
I’m not. I’m saying that hypothetically just snipping the hood would be the equivalent of male circumcision.
As noted in the OP, FGM includes everything from scraping the clitoris to draw a little blood ( or even just ritually swabbing the clitoris with alcohol, as occasionally is practiced in Indonesia ) to full on pharaonic circumcision. So it depends on what type you are talking about.
that is not entirely true.
Various works of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) support the removal of the female prepuce. For example, the fourteenth-century text 'Umdat al-Salik wa-'Uddat al-Nasik, translated as The Reliance of the Traveller, writes, "Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women). For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert).
Clearly the practice has religious origins stemming from the middle east and it goes back in time to the region and various religions associated with the region.
Absolutely not, FGM is a massively African practice. And you’ll find it in Christian countries as well as Muslim ones there. Almost certain that it has African origins.
It may be practiced in Christian countries and the practice predates Christianity and Islam but it has been incorporated into Islamic teachings.
Eating food has been incorporated into both secular and Christian traditions, but Muslims do it too. Therefore eating is a Muslim practice.
One of the problems with the OP is that it equates a clitoral piercing with FGM, and thus a crime against humanity. I don’t want to be hauling sorority sisters over to the ICC.
That’s incredibly bad logic. I cited direct evidence that Islam incorporated the practice into it’s belief system. It adds another layer of subjugation. Deal with it.
Deal with it?
You’ve got a case of one old time cleric supporting it and this become an indictment of the religion, even though it’s not practiced or condoned by the majority of Muslims? That’s some strong religious bigotry there.
I’d bet if anyone were so inclined they could dig up some old Ethiopian and Coptic Church writing in approval of the practice.
As other threads have demonstrated, the practioners are women. You have argued men are behind the practice, but if you’re hauling someone in for a crime, it seems unlikely you could charge the individuals that had only indirect participation and not charge the individuals directly executing the crime.
You haven’t demonstrated that a government or de facto governmental authority practices or condones the practice. So far as I can tell, there is no government that permits the practice.
Of course, your legal acumen is legendary, but if you’re going to claim that this constitutes a crime against humanity under international law, you’re going to need to connect a few dots.
I’m glad I was circumcised. I don’t want a pig-in-a-blanket dong.
I hope your son will not have the option to mutilate his child, of whatever gender.
When I lived in Liberia, I knew a Peace Corps doctor who indeed said that the practice (which in Liberia was complete removal of the clitoris with two sharp rocks) was perpetuated and defended far more aggressively by the women than the men. This doctor I knew despised the practice, but couldn’t talk the women out of doing it.
In another thread, Stoid argued that while the women directly executed the practice, the underlying fault belonged to the men, because they indirectly encouraged it by tactics which were not made clear to me.
Well, the most obvious would be refusing to marry women who hadn’t undergone the procedure. Less obvious would be that nebulous “social pressure”, holding women in higher esteem, giving them more money or respect or a better living situation or position of power in the community if they’d had it done. Which seems to be done by both genders.
But I really don’t think this is a Men vs. Women thing. This is a Traditional vs. Modern thing, and an ignorant-of-medical-health thing vs. an unignorant thing. It’s people who think that a woman with a clitoris will go mad or never get pregnant thing vs. a people who know better thing.
I’ve worked in regions practicing FGM and I agree with the traditional vs. modern perspective. Especially in East Africa, many people have very difficult lives. Women’s are made additionally so, but I don’t even see FGM as a major contributor. I actually think that there are more effective ways of ending FGM, but if social marketers can pull off what they did with cigarettes in the US with FGM, then more power to them.
I think the point is that (1) yes, people agree that FGM should be reduced/eliminated but (2) declaring it a crime against humanity is a complete joke and not going to do anything. Why not focus on actually finding approaches that can work in dealing with FGM?
Watch the video, it will be perfectly clear.
As for everyone who pointed out that I included lesser practices, that was simply a matter of not editing the definitions, which were direct quotes from Wiki. I included everything for the benefit of those who might be hazy about it.
For MY argument, no, I do not include every instance of anything done to a female’s genitals. I am referring specifically to any forms of the practice which deliberately harm the clitoris specifically and/or otherwise impair normal functioning of female genitals for elimination, sexual activity and pleasure, and childbirth.
I’m not. As I said in the rest of the post you quote:
My problem is first and foremost with any acceptance of the damaging forms of this practice, whether as a “cultural difference” or anything else.