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

[wmfellows]

@Magiver

It’s not a case of one old time cleric supporting it. This ]

is older than both Christianity and Islam but it has an added layer in Islam. .
As I’ve said before, this practice is older than both religions. But unlike the Christian religion, Islam is structured as all encompassing social/political entity and as such weighs in on all manner of society with Fatwas. It is only in the 21st century that they have reversed the earlier Fatwas encouraging the practice.

The bottom line is that Islam had added another layer of approval to this regional custom.

Uhuh The Great Islamic Hive Mind. Like Christian ministers are not constantly pronouncing on what’s good and bad.

So, when we find you an Eithopian Church declaration in this area, I presume you’ll find some wiggle out about real Christians or the like.

It takes some right warped religious bigotry to look right through the clear data showing this is practiced heavily by Christians in Africa, and for centuries, and pin it on Islam… Sad, really sad.

[wmfellows]

And to illustrate, in a mere few minutes of searching
Sehin Teferra Tackling tradition: examining successful strategies in the mitigation of female genital mutilation in Ethiopian communities

For instance,** in some parts of Ethiopia, Orthodox priests have been known to refuse to baptize girls who have not undergone some form of FGM **.

@Magiver

…
The bottom line is that Islam had added another layer of approval to this regional custom.

Bottom line, so did Christianity in Eithiopia (and in East Africa). Over literally thousands of years.

[Magiver]

@wmfellows

Uhuh The Great Islamic Hive Mind. Like Christian ministers are not constantly pronouncing on what’s good and bad.

So, when we find you an Eithopian Church declaration in this area, I presume you’ll find some wiggle out about real Christians or the like.

It takes some right warped religious bigotry to look right through the clear data showing this is practiced heavily by Christians in Africa, and for centuries, and pin it on Islam… Sad, really sad.

I didn’t pin it on Islam. That would be your bigotry. I clearly stated that this predates both religions. I also stated it was practiced in regions inhabited by both religions. It takes an astounding lack of reading comprehension to make the statements you’re making.

If you look for information discussing the history of FGM you’ll see the same summary statements I’ve made. I’ve clearly and repeatedly stated this was an additional layer of approval and not the underlying cause.

[wmfellows]

Actually you’ve been making the assinine assempt at pretending that

@Magiver

That’s incredibly bad logic. I cited direct evidence that Islam incorporated the practice into it’s belief system. …

Christinaity in Africa also incorporated the practice into the belief system, but you’re stuck on the Islamic connect (including a silly statement about origins in the Middle East.)

Clearly the practice has religious origins stemming from the middle east …

No lack of reading comprehension involved.

[3_20_59_or_bust]

[quote=“Stoid, post:16, topic:579283”]

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, it DOES interfere with males experiencing the full pleasure of sex as they were meant to, which I know from direct observation of cut and uncut men. Uncut men have far greater sensitivity, no question.

A small point, but I’ll call you on it anyway. I’d love to trust your “direct observation” but I think I’ll stick with scientific studies. And there is absolutely no unifying conclusion from the various studies. If you want to back a position either way, you can find a study to do it.

Check out a number of study results here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision

[Stoid]

Some additional sources.

From Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project:

Circumcision, and specifically infibulation, is believed to reduce the sexual drive (they do not), and to protect women not only from aggressive males (they also do not) but from her own rampant sexuality and irresistible inborn drive toward total promiscuity. It is believed in the Sudan that the clitoris will grow to the length of a goose’s neck until it dangles between the legs, in rivalry with the male’s penis, if it is not cut. This concept engenders so much revulsion and anxiety in men that they would not under any circumstances consider marrying an uncircumcised or “unclean” girl. Since marriage and childbearing are as yet virtually the only options open to most African women (aside from prostitution in the urban areas),** this leaves them little choice but to submit to the practice and to impose it on their daughters. **

For those pursuing the muslim/not muslim issue, there’s a lot of material on that site, including a whole book, really, “To Mutilate in the Name of Jehovah or Allah”.
From one chapter:

E) It prevents her falling into what is forbidden

     This is the most frequently cited reason. Professor Al-'Adawi from Al-Azhar          says that female circumcision is makrumah, that is helps (the woman) "to          remain shy and virtuous. In the Orient, where the climate is hot, a girl          gets easily aroused if she is not circumcised. It makes her shameless          and prey to her sexual instincts, except those to whom God shows compassion"          [117](http://www.fgmnetwork.org/articles/Mutilate/Chapter3.php#117).          

It also apparently prevents male drug use and improves her complexion! Who knew?

From the Somalian model Waris Dirie’s story, originally published in the Reader’s Digest (she’s retired to fight FGM full time):

By five I knew what it was to be an African woman, to live with terrible suffering in a passive, helpless manner. Women are the backbone of Africa; they do most of the work. Yet women are powerless to make decisions. They have no say, sometimes not even in whom they will marry.

…
In a nomadic culture like the one I was raised in, there is no place for an unmarried woman, so mothers feel it is their duty to ensure their daughters have the best possible opportunity to get a husband.
And since the prevailing wisdom in Somalia is that there are bad things between a girl’s legs, a woman is considered dirty, oversexed and unmarriageable unless those parts–the clitoris, the labia minora, and most of the labia majora-are removed. Then the wound is stitched shut, leaving only a small opening and a scar where the genitals had been-a practice called infibulation.
Paying the gypsy woman for this circumcision is one of the greatest expenses a household will undergo, but is considered a good investment. Without it the daughters will not make it onto the marriage market.

A really good, simple examination of the dynamic at work in perpetuating it, which is also the dynamic that works to end it (as demonstrated in the video):

Why do I say that FGC must either persist indefinitely or end rapidly?

Before proceeding with an explanation, first we have to listen to what the people who do FGC say about it. They say that FGC is required for a proper marriage, for the virtue of the woman, for the honor of her family. Moreover, most, until recently, would be unaware that other peoples do not do FGC, and would think that the only people who do not do FGC are unfaithful women or indecent people. Like other outsiders I find FGC horrifying to imagine, but for an insider FGC is more like dentistry than it is like violence. Americans subject their children to painful and frankly exotic dentistry practices, and not to provide dental care to one’s child is to damage his or her chances in life and marriage. Imagine that some foreigners come along who claim that dentistry is dangerous and leads to fatal diseases in middle life. We would find it very difficult to believe that there is a danger, and after we independently confirmed the information we would find it difficult to give up pretty teeth for our children if other parents didn’t give them up too.

     FGC is a matter of proper marriage and family honor. An individual            in an intramarrying group that practices FGC can’t give it up            unless enough other people do too. FGC is a certain kind of convention..            To understand, imagine that there is a group that has a convention whereby            audiences (at the cinema, at plays, at recitals) stand up rather than            sit down. Sitting has been forgotten. Standing is both universal and            persistent. An outsider comes along and explains that elsewhere audiences            sit. After the shock of surprise wears off, some people begin to think            that sitting might be better, but it would be better only if enough            other people sit at the same time. If only one person sits, she doesn’t            get to see anything on the stage. If only one family abandons FGC, their            daughter doesn’t get married, because only unfaithful women lack            FGC. However, if a critical mass of people in the audience can be organized            to sit, they realize that they can attain both the ease of sitting and            a clear enough view of the stage. This critical mass then has incentives            to recruit the rest of the audience to sitting. Similarly, if a critical            mass of people in an intramarrying group pledge to refrain from FGC,            then the knowledge that they are a critical mass makes it immediately            in their interest to keep their pledges, and suddenly makes it in everyone            else’s interests to join them. Without an understanding of the            underlying mechanism, the abrupt end of such an entrenched practice            by means of a mere public pledge would seem to be nearly miraculous.          

     A peculiar characteristic of a convention like this is that even if            each individual in the relevant group comes to think that it would be            better to abandon the practice, no one individual acting on her own            can succeed. Each person could come to think that sitting is better            than standing, but any individual sitting on her own would only make            herself worse off. Enough people have to sit at the same time. The way            to do this is to declare a public pledge that marks a convention shift.            Every family could come to think that FGC is wrong, but that is not            enough, FGC would continue because any family abandoning it on its own            would ruin the futures of its daughters. It must be abandoned by enough            families at once so that their daughters’ futures are secured.          

For a sort of “official” designation of FGM as a sexist issue (seriously, it amazes me that anyone could deny that…really remarkable), the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women says:

Article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), 1979 defines discrimination against women broadly as:
“any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”
The practice of FGM fits within the definition of discrimination against women as set forth in various human rights instruments as a practice exclusively directed towards women and girls with the effect of interfering with their enjoyment of their fundamental rights. Furthermore, FGM causes great short-term and long-term physical and mental harm to its victims and perpetuates the fundamental discriminatory belief of the subordinate role of women and girls.

The practice of FGM is often a deeply rooted custom and in areas where the practice is required or prevalent, there is substantial pressure to undergo FGM. Often it is a prerequisite to marriage and required for acceptance within the community. Governments enacting legislation to prohibit the practice must acknowledge that not undergoing FGM may also subject women to further discrimination as they are ostracized or not able to marry. As such, governments must address the larger issues of women’s status in the family and economy, their access to education and health services, and the overall social norms and customs that support the practice of FGM.

In addition, state parties to CEDAW are required to: “modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct … with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women**.”**

Further support for the principle that FGM is a form of gender discrimination pursuant to CEDAW can be found in the General Recommendation Nos. 14, 19 and 24 from the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). These recommendations note the severe health and other consequences for women and girls subjected to FGM, identify FGM as a form of violence against women, and recommend that state parties take measures to eliminate the practice of FGM. (See below: UN Treaty Monitoring Committees)

Article 1 of the UN General Assembly Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, defines violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.” (Article 1) Article 2 explicitly identifies FGM as such a form of violence against women. Article 2(a).

The Council of Europe Resolution 1247 on Female Genital Mutilation (2001) calls on member states to enact “specific legislation prohibiting genital mutilation and declaring genital mutilation to be a violation of human rights and bodily integrity” and to prosecute the perpetrators “including family members and health personnel, on criminal charges of violence leading to mutilation, including cases where such mutilation is committed abroad.” The Resolution also calls for member states to be more flexible in granting asylum to mothers and children who fear being subjected to FGM, and to allow victims to prosecute perpetrators of the practice upon reaching the age of majority.

The European Parliament Resolution of 24 March 2009 on combating female genital mutilation in the EU (2008/2071(INI)) condems any form or degree of FGM as “an act of violence against women which constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal integrity and physical and mental health, and their sexual and reproductive health” and states that “such violations can under no circumstances be justified by respect for cultural traditions of various kinds or initiation ceremonies.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Stoid

For a sort of “official” designation of FGM as a sexist issue (seriously, it amazes me that anyone could deny that…really remarkable),

Who, specifically, do you think is denying it’s a sexist issue? It looks to me like you deny women can be sexist against girls, so when folks claim women have significant responsibility in this atrocity, you read it as denying it’s a sexist issue.

To be TOTALLY clear:
-It’s sexist.
-Many men are complicit in it.
-The practice is directly controlled by certain women.
-Many men and many women are not complicit in it.
-Only those people complicit in it bear any responsibility for it.
-The main power dynamic at work is not men vs. women, but rather parents vs. children.
-In many households, husbands would coerce their wives into continuing the practice if the wives try to object.
-Many women continue the practice because they believe it is socially required by both men and other women.
-Many men who support it for their daughters do so because they also believe it is socially required by both men and other women.
-Many women continue the practice because they believe it will improve their daughters’ character.
-Many men who support it for their daughters do so because they also believe it will improve their daughters’ character.
-Whatever the reason, whoever the perpetrator or supporter, doing so is sexist. This means that yes, it’s directly controlled by sexist women.
-It’s far worse than male circumcision, and it’s really annoying when folks try to link them.
-It’s also annoying when people get up on their anti-Muslim hobby-horse using genital mutilation as a stirrup.

[Stoid]

@3_20_59_or_bust

[
A small point, but I’ll call you on it anyway. I’d love to trust your “direct observation” but I think I’ll stick with scientific studies. And there is absolutely no unifying conclusion from the various studies. If you want to back a position either way, you can find a study to do it.

Check out a number of study results here:
Circumcision - Wikipedia

I wasn’t looking for it, and there’s no way that my sex life constitutes any kind of controlled study, but it’s been absolutely consistent in my experience, and your link doesn’t really undermine that:

Those reviewing the literature have reached differing conclusions. The American Academy of Pediatrics points to a survey (self-report) finding circumcised adult men had less sexual dysfunction and more varied sexual practices, but also noted anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males.[1] In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated “The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. […] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction.”[2] Conversely, a 2002 review by Boyle et al. stated that “the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males.” They concluded, “intercourse is less satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised”.[3]

The British study of men circumcised as adults has a little problem as far as using it for a simple assessment of sensitivity: “In a British study of 150 men circumcised as adults for penile problems” The other two studies noted in that section dont’ specify why the adults were circumcised, but I think it’s fairly safe to assume that most of the adult men voluntarily seeking circumcision do so because of something other than aesthetics, which skews their experience as a reference.

There was nothing conclusive.

Not that it’s helpful to men who’ve already been robbed of their natural configuration to dwell on the possibility that their sexual response has been dulled, mind you. If I were a man it would just piss me off.

But for all the fellas sakes, I genuinely hope it’s not true.

[Marley23]

@Freudian_Slit

Same reason she thought she knew about polygamy from watching part of an Oprah special on it and the same reason she thought she was all up on diet and nutrition from reading half a book?

@Amasia

Interesting that you bring this up. I received a personal message last night from Stoid indicating my problems with her stance are based on her having schooled me in the Taubes thread. Perhaps the relationship is not so tenuous. :rolleyes:

@Stoid

But your confusion isn’t such a surprise since the real thrust of the message was your reading ability which you touted in this thread and which Taubes found depressingly less than stellar.

But this thread is about FGM, not you, or me, or Taubes, or any other threads.

That’s enough of this tangential personal nonsense. Stay on topic or have it out in the Pit.

[wmfellows]

@Stoid

…
Not that it’s helpful to men who’ve already been robbed of their natural configuration to dwell on the possibility that their sexual response has been dulled, mind you. If I were a man it would just piss me off.

I can assure you that I have not in any way shape or form been in any way bothered by this, nor dwelt on it. Indeed, except for some silly wankers here, in all my life I haven’t heard of any men dwelling on the fact.

Else, I second Left Hand on this and add it’s also something that doubtless has great geographic variation, so making sweeping statements is fiarly silly.

[Stoid]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Who, specifically, do you think is denying it’s a sexist issue? It looks to me like you deny women can be sexist against girls, so when folks claim women have significant responsibility in this atrocity, you read it as denying it’s a sexist issue.

No, I read it as people pointing the fingers at women who are acting entirely within a society and culture that is dominated and controlled by men, which I think is bull. The people with the power are the people who are sexist.

-The main power dynamic at work is not men vs. women, but rather parents vs. children.

No, it’s not, or at least it’s not “main”, nor even significant in anything other than a purely practical sense.

Parents have no independent investment of any kind in seeing their female children’s genitals mutilated for any reason. Males want females to have their genitals altered, and the easiest way to accomplish that is during childhood, when there is complete control over the female not only socially, but physically.

-Many women continue the practice because they believe it is socially required by both men and other women.

No one has demonstrated that women would have the slightest interest in pursuing if they woke up one day and found that every male in their society rejected it.The fact that women have found ways to make it ok for themselves by tacking on additional justifications for it doesn’t mean women would ever want it independent of the necessity for it in order for females to marry…making it a male requirement.

-Many men who support it for their daughters do so because they also believe it is socially required by both men and other women.

Yes. It is something carried from generation to generation, it’s not a matter of each man independently deciding anew that mutilating women is a good idea. Everybody needs to be educated.

But, as demonstrated in the story of Gertrude and her parents, among others, even though today’s fathers didn’t come up with it themselves, they are fully prepared to **force **their resisting daughters to submit to it, as Gertrude’s father said and as several other girls found out personally around the same time.

So yeah…it’s men oppressing women, and using women to do it. And as long as the actions of (powerless) women are in response to the demands and requirements of the males in power, it’s the males who are guilty of discrimination, sexism, oppression, etc.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Stoid

No, I read it as people pointing the fingers at women who are acting entirely within a society and culture that is dominated and controlled by men, which I think is bull. The people with the power are the people who are sexist.

It might be dominated by men, but not all men dominate it. That’s the distinction you’re missing out on.

Parents have no independent investment of any kind in seeing their female children’s genitals mutilated for any reason. Males want females to have their genitals altered, and the easiest way to accomplish that is during childhood, when there is complete control over the female not only socially, but physically.

No one has demonstrated that women would have the slightest interest in pursuing if they woke up one day and found that every male in their society rejected it.

Untrue. People have shown that some women independently think it makes their daughters have better character to be mutilated. You’ve just rejected their first-hand experiences, ostensibly because they don’t conform to your Men=Bad, Women=Good narrative.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@wmfellows

I can assure you that I have not in any way shape or form been in any way bothered by this, nor dwelt on it. Indeed, except for some silly wankers here, in all my life I haven’t heard of any men dwelling on the fact.

Same here. I haven’t been affected in the slightest by having some useless skin removed and I’ve never heard any other guy complain about it IRL. Strangely, the people I’ve seen making the most noise about are women on message boards who seem to have a greatly exaggerated impression of its real effect.

[Magiver]

@wmfellows

And to illustrate, in a mere few minutes of searching
Sehin Teferra Tackling tradition: examining successful strategies in the mitigation of female genital mutilation in Ethiopian communities
Bottom line, so did Christianity in Eithiopia (and in East Africa). Over literally thousands of years.

It’s great that you found anecdotal evidence and I hope it makes you happy.

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 Christians? 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.

Sound familiar?

Do you not understand the difference between a major religious leader formally codifying approval for the behavior, and local custom?

I don’t understand you’re profound need to equalize religions or ascribe the codifications of one to another. Why does it bother you so much that major Islamic leaders approved of this and put forth Fatwas addressing it as recently as a decade ago? It happened. They addressed a local custom and made it a religious preference…. in writing. They also recently reversed that line of thought.

If you read the history of missionary work in Africa you’ll see that this practice was expressly forbidden and it led to a resistance of European imperialism. It’s difficult to break local social customs that we deem barbaric. That’s different from openly approving of it as a matter of doctrine.

[Sarahfeena]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Same here. I haven’t been affected in the slightest by having some useless skin removed and I’ve never heard any other guy complain about it IRL. Strangely, the people I’ve seen making the most noise about are women on message boards who seem to have a greatly exaggerated impression of its real effect.

Some women on a message board had me freaked out about it, so I asked my husband if he thought he’d lost sensation from it. He laughed and laughed.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

If I was any more sensitive, I don’t know how I could function.

[Sarahfeena]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

If I was any more sensitive, I don’t know how I could function.

That’s pretty much exactly what he said to me.

[wmfellows]

@Magiver

It’s great that you found anecdotal evidence and I hope it makes you happy.

One report, of course unlike Muslims, there are not a bunch of tubby Americans obsessessing over the Geez writings of the Tawehedo church.

Do you not understand the difference between a major religious leader formally codifying approval for the behavior, and local custom?

I understand the difference between a couple of religious scholars issuing an opinion and the entire religion. You’ve got the majority of Muslims who don’t give a fig about the practice and don’t practise it at all. But you trot out some absurd idiocy about incorporating into the religion (when in fact all the sources indicate that’s hardly the case, the opinion is not universal, etc).

You evidently do not.

No question of “levelling”- only non-bigoted rational thinking.

If you read the history of missionary work in Africa you’ll see that this practice was expressly forbidden and it led to a resistance of European imperialism.

And the relevance to the indigenous Tawehedo church is what? How does this relate to roughly two millennia of Ethiopian Christian practice?

Of course, on the missionary driven Christian church side, we also have African indigenous churches breaking off and explicitely supporting female circumcision (Kenya, Uganda), so by your fun house mirror standards, again Christianity adopted it…

[alphaboi867]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Same here. I haven’t been affected in the slightest by having some useless skin removed and I’ve never heard any other guy complain about it IRL. Strangely, the people I’ve seen making the most noise about are women on message boards who seem to have a greatly exaggerated impression of its real effect.

I’ve been with both cut and intact guys and IME the intact ones do seem to have greaty sensitivity, at least during oral sex. I’ve also found that oral sex is a bit more fun to perform on an intact guy.

[wmfellows]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Same here. I haven’t been affected in the slightest by having some useless skin removed and I’ve never heard any other guy complain about it IRL. Strangely, the people I’ve seen making the most noise about are women on message boards who seem to have a greatly exaggerated impression of its real effect.

Well I can’t say that I have noticed women more than men, but it’s only been here that I have seen any silly wankers in deep dungeon about the ‘horror’ of circumcision. I’ve always thought it was some silly posturing, a bit like the Oh So Sensitive & Smart thing.