A New Debate on Female Circumcision

[Norseman]

A New Debate on Female Circumcision is the title of an article in the New York Times. It's too long to quote the whole article, and the commentaries are almost as interesting as the article itself, so I'll give you the first paragraph:

Should African women be allowed to engage in the practice sometimes called female circumcision? Are critics of this practice, who call it female genital mutilation, justified in trying to outlaw it, or are they guilty of ignorance and cultural imperialism?

Read it all and see what you think.

[Broomstick]

There are different levels of FGM, some of which really are pretty minor and probably have little effect long-term (other than cosmetic changes). So I have to ask - did these pro-FGM women experience a mild form of it, or the "pharonic" total obliteration of external genitalia that leaves a woman's crotch resembling that of a barbie doll?

[TithonusSyndrome]

"Cultural imperialism"??!? If I was drinking, I'd have spat everywhere. I don't see what this brings to the table that hasn't already been brought up in countless prior circumcision debates; the practice's advocates are stubborn relativistic baboons who wax poetic about the supposed sexual benefits (as if they'd be able to tell the difference since most of them have only had the benefit of one form of the experience) and great cultural pride that comes from fulfilling some loony old tradition.

I guess it's "cultural imperialism" to suggest that we not sacrifice people to sun gods, let bratty children believe they're entitled to special treatment, or allow western women to be abducted by conniving Muslim relatives for forced marriages? If so, then call me a willing subject of the empire.

[Androsphinx]

While I'm personally repulsed by the idea, having looked through the comments I think that it's very hard to ban people from doing this if they want to. What is very important is to educate and inform people to the point where they can make a reasonable decision in the matter, and obviously make provision to prevent any non-consensual application. What is also essential is to ensure that it is done in a hygenic and safe manner which eliminates physical risks - as has historically happened with male circumcision.

That makes the ceremony essentially what one of the commentators called "painful but meaningful" - and that seems to be an individual decision. What does seem particularly problematic is that female circumcision is practiced at an age where children are aware enough to be permanently traumatised by the action, but not mature enough to make their own decision.

[Cairber]

We were discussing this today on an anti circ board. I think of a couple things when reading this article. Mostly though the big thing for me is that the great wave of talk against female circumcision without accompanying knowledge has really weakened the movement and made way for articles like this. If you read the comments you see that not many of the people there understand that there are 4 forms of FGM and that not all of them mean the removal of the clitorus. This lack of knowledge leads people getting caught in the trap of thinking that, when a proponent of female circumcision accuses them of support of male circumcision and being hypocritical, they think the comparison is just not true because the penis is not cut off during male circumcision.

Acutal knowledge of the forms of female circumcision would create the realization that the removal of the clitoral hood or labia is very much like the same evil that is promoted in the USA and done to 57% of the infant boys.


After that, I think that Dr. Ahmadu purposefully ignores some of the very real consequences of female circumcision and dismisses experiences that are different than her own.

She has argued that the critics of the procedure exaggerate the medical dangers, misunderstand the effect on sexual pleasure, and mistakenly view the removal of parts of the clitoris as a practice that oppresses women.

then went back to Sierra Leone as an adult to undergo the procedure along with fellow members of the Kono ethnic group

She was circumcised as a consenting adult. She was probably not held down by anyone, told her uncircumcised genitals were ugly, lead to believe she would never marry without clitoral removal, etc. Considering her ability to attend an American university, she is/was probably wealthy and able to ensure a sterile environment and seek medical care in the event of a problem.

She also only speaks of the removal of the clitorus, ignoring the experiences of those who have other forms of FGM performed on them without consent as children or infants.

[Ryan Thunder]

While I hate to make the analogy; this seems to me to be something like abortion. I may not like it, but illegalizing may merely send it underground and make it more dangerous.

Mind you, I recognize that unlike female circumcision, there seem to be perfectly reasonable uses for abortion, hence my hesitation to use it as an example.

[Cairber]

no idea why i spelled clitoris wrong all those times, forgive my spelling.

[Imperial Overlord]

She was circumcised as a consenting adult. She was probably not held down by anyone, told her uncircumcised genitals were ugly, lead to believe she would never marry without clitoral removal, etc. Considering her ability to attend an American university, she is/was probably wealthy and able to ensure a sterile environment and seek medical care in the event of a problem.

She also only speaks of the removal of the clitorus, ignoring the experiences of those who have other forms of FGM performed on them without consent as children or infants.

I read an article by this woman several months ago on the subject and there are a number of important points that she soft sells. There is extreme pressure from older women in the culture to have the procedure, women who don't have it are considered sexually out of control and unsuitable for marriage, and she completely dismisses any possibility of it being linked to sexually controlling women because most of the social pressure comes from women (ignoring that continuing the procedure reinforces the social authority and power of the older women). She also made considerable mention of the alienation from her native culture due to her western education and being uncircumsized.

The article only succeeded in convincing me that she was an apologist for one of the least destructive forms of female circumcision and really wanted to fit in back home.

[Cairber]

So in a way it's like people saying that the teeth removal that is practiced in the luo tribe ( I think?) is done with consent...or the ritual circumcision schools that so many boys die at every year. Can you really be giving informed consent with all that pressure around you your entire life?

[Imperial Overlord]

So in a way it's like people saying that the teeth removal that is practiced in the luo tribe ( I think?) is done with consent...or the ritual circumcision schools that so many boys die at every year. Can you really be giving informed consent with all that pressure around you your entire life?

It's enough pressure to make a western educated woman with a lot of other options to decide to do it. She feels that she "belongs" afterwards. I imagine that a young woman or teenager would crack pretty fast if they even tried to resist.

[Androsphinx]

Can you really be giving informed consent with all that pressure around you your entire life?

Sometimes, certainly. Other times, not. But a blanket ban doesn't allow for that.

[General Zod]

While I hate to make the analogy; this seems to me to be something like abortion.

How?

I may not like it, but illegalizing may merely send it underground and make it more dangerous.

So outlaw it for anyone under the age of consent. This lets them keep their barbaric mutilation practice and protects children at the same time (the usual targets).

[Cairber]

So outlaw it for anyone under the age of consent. This lets them keep their barbaric mutilation practice and protects children at the same time (the usual targets).

Exactly what we do here in the USA. You want a hoodectomy? Gotta be 18!

[Darth Wong]

I read an article by this woman several months ago on the subject and there are a number of important points that she soft sells. There is extreme pressure from older women in the culture to have the procedure, women who don't have it are considered sexually out of control and unsuitable for marriage, and she completely dismisses any possibility of it being linked to sexually controlling women because most of the social pressure comes from women (ignoring that continuing the procedure reinforces the social authority and power of the older women). She also made considerable mention of the alienation from her native culture due to her western education and being uncircumsized.

Even in our society, a woman dressed in revealing clothes tends to generate anger only among other women. She will tend to generate something else from men.

[Molyneux]

A New Debate on Female Circumcision is the title of an article in the New York Times. It's too long to quote the whole article, and the commentaries are almost as interesting as the article itself, so I'll give you the first paragraph:

Should African women be allowed to engage in the practice sometimes called female circumcision? Are critics of this practice, who call it female genital mutilation, justified in trying to outlaw it, or are they guilty of ignorance and cultural imperialism?

Read it all and see what you think.

If it's part of your culture to cut off pleasure-causing, non-malignant parts of the human body - especially some of the most sensitive parts in the entire damn corpus - then you can call me a cultural imperialist if you want, but your culture is BAD. It is a BAD culture. Simple as that.

[Ryan Thunder]

While I hate to make the analogy; this seems to me to be something like abortion.

How?

Read the rest of the post.

What did you think I meant?

I may not like it, but illegalizing may merely send it underground and make it more dangerous.

So outlaw it for anyone under the age of consent. This lets them keep their barbaric mutilation practice and protects children at the same time (the usual targets).

Hmm... That would be good. Unfortunately there are still the sick bastards who would set up their shady clinics for the parents to mutilate their kids. Or even worse, the parents might try to do it themselves.

It would have to be something gradual, I think. Something that would eventually make them forget about it. Once that happens, they'll probably have a more sensible view of it.

[General Zod]

Read the rest of the post.

What did you think I meant?

The last time I checked, "might drive it underground further" does not imply something is a valid analogy in the slightest unless you're an idiot.

[Ryan Thunder]

Read the rest of the post.

What did you think I meant?

The last time I checked, "might drive it underground further" does not imply something is a valid analogy in the slightest unless you're an idiot.

My point was that even if you were to outlaw it (regardless of what you think of it), people would do it anyways. It'd be more likely that people would end up getting half-baked 'doctors' to do it, so it'd be dangerous, too.

I'm not implying that abortion is "underground" or some such nonsense, if that's how you're reading it.

[General Zod]

My point was that even if you were to outlaw it (regardless of what you think of it), people would do it anyways. It'd be more likely that people would end up getting half-baked 'doctors' to do it, so it'd be dangerous, too.

I'm not implying that abortion is "underground" or some such nonsense, if that's how you're reading it.

I suggest coming back when you can actually give a better reason as to why outlawing it would be bad (or even remotely comparable to abortion) aside from "lolz it'll make people go underground". By your asinine reasoning selling drugs on the street shouldn't be outlawed because it'd just drive it further underground.

[Darth Wong]

My point was that even if you were to outlaw it (regardless of what you think of it), people would do it anyways.

The same argument could be made for everything that's currently illegal. The argument only carries weight if you can produce evidence that outlawing it would produce severe side-effects, like Prohibition did. Simply saying it doesn't actually make it so.

[Ryan Thunder]

My point was that even if you were to outlaw it (regardless of what you think of it), people would do it anyways. It'd be more likely that people would end up getting half-baked 'doctors' to do it, so it'd be dangerous, too.

I'm not implying that abortion is "underground" or some such nonsense, if that's how you're reading it.

I suggest coming back when you can actually give a better reason as to why outlawing it would be bad (or even remotely comparable to abortion) aside from "lolz it'll make people go underground". By your asinine reasoning selling drugs on the street shouldn't be outlawed because it'd just drive it further underground.

Alright alright, I get it...

[Broomstick]

My point was that even if you were to outlaw it (regardless of what you think of it), people would do it anyways. It'd be more likely that people would end up getting half-baked 'doctors' to do it, so it'd be dangerous, too.

Currently, doctors (of any sort) are almost never involved anyway, which is one reason it's so dangerous now - non-medical little old ladies wielding broken bottle bits or razor blades is par for the course in many areas