FGM FFS!

[MajGenl.Meade]

rubato, I think the key difference is that FGM is not a hospital/hygienic practice. It's more likely to be conducted by some people with a rusty pen-knife, or even a sharpened rock or sea-shell. There are societies (and I mentioned this earlier) where male circumcision is performed by similar people with a rusty knife or a sharp rock and young boys die, far more often than occasionally.

[Big RR]

Ending an unjust war is not a moral imperative? But you do have a right to do that?

And the circle continues.

think the key difference is that FGM is not a hospital/hygienic practice.

And it would be somehow less objectionable/more acceptable if it were performed in a hygienic manner, such as by a surgeon in a hospital with anesthesia? I don't see that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, my dear. rubato ponders a difference in attitude toward FGM vs circumcision. Part of that difference in attitude is that we westerners are used to a safe/hygienic form of circumcision, usually in the first days after birth (not always of course).

FGM is a horrible mutilation practiced by beasts in horrible conditions on girls who are near-teens. But there is a similar mutilation, risking death, for tribal boys being initiated into manhood. That also is circumcision and it is certainly not considered benignly by various African governments - who nevertheless have a tremendous struggle against the traditionalists who claim "cultural" primacy.

As to the first, I can see that you will avoid any notion that moral imperatives confer any right to take action. Not very imperative eh?

[Econoline]

I can't believe no one has yet mentioned The Golden Rule (a.k.a. the ethic of reciprocity) as a justification for which "cultural practices" should be seen as harmful, and banned...and which may be allowed. Yeah, it's a stretch for males to imagine experiencing the sort of pain and harm that can only be experienced by females, but we're getting there...

Just as important--no, more important--there are now more women than ever with the POWER to do something about it themselves.

[BoSoxGal]

rubato, I think the key difference is that FGM is not a hospital/hygienic practice. It's more likely to be conducted by some people with a rusty pen-knife, or even a sharpened rock or sea-shell. There are societies (and I mentioned this earlier) where male circumcision is performed by similar people with a rusty knife or a sharp rock and young boys die, far more often than occasionally.

If you think the 'key' difference between make circumcision and female genital MUTILATION is the setting, you've got a LOT to learn about the physical realities of FGM.

[Lord Jim]

Comparing male circumcision to FGM is like comparing clipping a fingernail to cutting off a finger...

[wesw]

male circumcision is the cutting of a flap of skin, which may prevent some infections

female circumcision removes the clitoris, in order to give the woman less pleasure and hopefully to prevent her committing adultery


more like cutting off ones dickhead.....

....oh, sorry to interrupt you , rube, carry on....

[BoSoxGal]

Description of the different types of female genital mutilation

Female genital mutilation is usually performed by traditional practitioners, generally elderly women in the community specially designated for this task, or traditional birth attendants. In some countries, health professionals trained midwives and physicians are increasingly performing female genital mutilation. In Egypt, for example, preliminary results from the 1995 Demographic and Health Survey indicate that the proportion of women who reported having been circumcised by a doctor was 13%. In contrast, among their most recently circumcised daughters, 46% had been circumcised by a doctor.

The procedures employed in each type of female genital mutilation are described below.

Type I

In the commonest form of this procedure the clitoris is held between the thumb and index finger, pulled out and amputated with one stroke of a sharp object. Bleeding is usually stopped by packing the wound with gauzes or other substances and applying a pressure bandage. Modern trained practitioners may insert one or two stitches around the clitoral artery to stop the bleeding.

Type II

The degree of severity of cutting varies considerably in this type. Commonly the clitoris is amputated as described above and the labia minora are partially or totally removed, often with the same stroke. Bleeding is stopped with packing and bandages or by a few circular stitches which may or may not cover the urethra and part of the vaginal opening. There are reported cases of extensive excisions which heal with fusion of the raw surfaces, resulting in pseudo-infibulation even though there has been no stitching. Types I and II generally account for 80-85% of all female genital mutilation, although the proportion may vary greatly from country to country.

Type III

The amount of tissue removed is extensive. The most extreme form involves the complete removal of the clitoris and labia minora, together with the inner surface of the labia majora. The raw edges of the labia majora are brought together to fuse, using thorns, poultices or stitching to hold them in place, and the legs are tied together for 2-6 weeks. The healed scar creates a hood of skin which covers the urethra and part or most of the vagina, and which acts as a physical barrier to intercourse. A small opening is left at the back to allow for the flow of urine and menstrual blood. The opening is surrounded by skin and scar tissue and is usually 2-3 cm in diameter but may be as small as the head of a matchstick.

If after infibulation the posterior opening is large enough, sexual intercourse can take place after gradual dilatation, which may take weeks, months or, in some recorded cases, as long as two years. If the opening is too small to start the dilatation, recutting (defibulation) before intercourse is traditionally undertaken by the husband or one of his female relatives using a sharp knife or a piece of glass. Modern couples may seek the assistance of a trained health professional, although this is done in secrecy, possibly because it might undermine the social image of the man's virility.

In almost all cases of infibulation and in many cases of severe excision, defibulation must also be performed during childbirth to allow exit of the fetal head without tearing the surrounding scar tissue. If no experienced birth attendant is available to perform defibulation, fetal and/or maternal complications may occur because of obstructed labour or perineal tears. Traditionally, "re-infibulation" is performed after the woman gives birth. The raw edges are stitched together again to create a small posterior opening, often the same size as that which existed before marriage. This is done to create the illusion of virginity, since a tight vaginal opening is culturally perceived as more pleasurable to the man. Because of the extent of both the initial and repeated cutting and suturing, the physical, sexual and psychological effects of infibulation are greater and longer-lasting than for other types of female genital mutilation.

Although only an estimated 15-20% of all women who experience genital mutilation undergo type III, in certain countries such as Djibouti, Somalia and Sudan the proportion is 80-90%. Infibulation is practised on a smaller scale in parts of Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kenya and Mali, and may occur in other communities where information is lacking or still incomplete.

Type IV

Type IV female genital mutilation encompasses a variety of procedures, most of which are self-explanatory. Two procedures are described here.

The term "angurya cuts" describes the scraping of the tissue around the vaginal opening. "Gishiri cuts" are posterior (or backward) cuts from the vagina into the perineum as an attempt to increase the vaginal outlet to relieve obstructed labour. They often result in vesicovaginal fistulae and damage to the anal sphincter.

[MajGenl.Meade]

rubato, I think the key difference is that FGM is not a hospital/hygienic practice. It's more likely to be conducted by some people with a rusty pen-knife, or even a sharpened rock or sea-shell. There are societies (and I mentioned this earlier) where male circumcision is performed by similar people with a rusty knife or a sharp rock and young boys die, far more often than occasionally.

If you think the 'key' difference between make circumcision and female genital MUTILATION is the setting, you've got a LOT to learn about the physical realities of FGM.

I think perhaps you didn't actually read far enough. I was not addressing a difference between two actions but between some people's attitudes:

No, my dear. rubato ponders a difference in attitude toward FGM vs circumcision. Part of that difference in attitude is that we westerners are used to a safe/hygienic form of circumcision, usually in the first days after birth (not always of course).

FGM is a horrible mutilation practiced by beasts in horrible conditions on girls who are near-teens. But there is a similar mutilation, risking death, for tribal boys being initiated into manhood. That also is circumcision and it is certainly not considered benignly by various African governments - who nevertheless have a tremendous struggle against the traditionalists who claim "cultural" primacy.

[Big RR]

As to the first, I can see that you will avoid any notion that moral imperatives confer any right to take action. Not very imperative eh?

To hopefully end this cycle--moral imperatives are personal choices, and one may choose to act or not based on their own conscience. They are imperative in the sense that they demand action, and in that a moral person will act based on them.

Rights are altogether different. Moral imperatives create a reason to act, but do not confer a right to act. I honest l cannot understand the confusion. If I honestly believe that use of dirty needles among IV drug users spreads deadly diseases, I may well have a moral imperative to act; but I do not have the right to distribute needles or to kidnap drug users to put them through withdrawal. I have a reason to act, and can use it justify what I do (or not), but a right did not suddenly spring up.

Indeed, sometimes I may have a right to act, but no moral imperative or justification. The idiots at Westboro have the right to voice their free speech even if it hurts others, but no real justification for doing so at soldier's funerals (they might claim they do, but moral imperatives are subject to moral judgments); likewise those who take them on and forcibly try to disperse them at a funeral may have a moral justification (which could be a moral imperative) to act, but no right to do so.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I see. Ah but I wasn't addressing personal imperatives/rights, moral or otherwise. The issue for me revolved around national decisions to intervene in the social constructs of other nations or peoples and how such decisions to interfere are viewed by citizens of the interfering country.

I have no problem at all with a more enlightened government interfering with cultural practises in other places - just as I have no problem with US expansion into its own western territories. FGM should be condemned and halted and to hell with "cultural norms". Less conservative folks than me often end-up finding "moral imperatives" which justify interference on their pet peeves while at the same time they regularly call for non-interference because "it's a native thing and we mustn't annoy the natives".

[Big RR]

Well Meade--that's where you and I differ. There may be times where it is justifiable (and I have explained my position on when above), but I see no right per se, whether it is as individual, group, or nation acting. Ordinarily I would say such actions should be avoided.

[rubato]

rubato, I think the key difference is that FGM is not a hospital/hygienic practice. It's more likely to be conducted by some people with a rusty pen-knife, or even a sharpened rock or sea-shell. There are societies (and I mentioned this earlier) where male circumcision is performed by similar people with a rusty knife or a sharp rock and young boys die, far more often than occasionally.

No, that's just silly. Even if FGM were done in a hospital it would be wrong and it would be condemned while male circumcision would still not be (overall there is a very small group who militate against it). The difference lies in the degree of injury and the far greater degree it takes away the woman's right to determine the course of her own life. FGM involves in some cases removing the clitoris so she cannot enjoy sex, it sometimes involves partially sewing shut the vagina to prevent sexual penetration, and in some cases the labia are removed or other things are done to make sex painful.

Opposing FGM is consistent with liberal principles of respecting the rights and body of the individual against force especially when they are children. FGM is a physical assault on a girl or young woman.

There is no inconsistency there. We have an obligation to respect the practices of other cultures except when they violate individual rights.

During the centuries when slaves were taken in East Africa and sold to Egypt, Arabia and beyond male children were often castrated because those who survived (and many didn't) the operation brought a much higher price. It is foolish to say that we would only condemn this because it was not done in a Hospital.


yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

I find myself in total agreement with rubato.

[wesw]

me too

I hope he would agree that the customs of sharia and of forced headcovering violate the individual rights of women

[MajGenl.Meade]

The odd thing is that I am opposed to FGM of any kind and that should be quite clear from my post. So why agree with rubato that "that's just silly". It isn't. I never once advocated that FGM is OK if it's done in a hospital - only a fool would persist in thinking that I did.

Once again, rubato made a sensible point about a difference in perception (i.e. people's attitudes) toward circumcision and FGM. Why do some people view them differently? That's how I understood his post and that's what I was responding to

All I suggested is that it's because we think of circumcision as a safe and sanitary practice. OTOH, we know that FGM is a violation, is barbaric, dangerous and is to be stopped. BUT circumcision is not always safe and sanitary. In some traditions, circumcision is also a barbaric and dangerous practice that enlightened governments wish to stop too.

[wesw]

what I find silly is your English (and Christian) elitism.....

assuming that everyone else is a backwards bunch of heathens only worthy of conquest.....

some surgeons use obsidian blades. the technological advancement of a people , or lack thereof, is no indication of a peoples worth or of their goodness or badness.

[MajGenl.Meade]

what I find silly is your English (and Christian) elitism.....

Not sure where you find that. Perhaps you'd quote a sentence so I know what you're speaking of.