Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

Dareer, A. (1981). "An Epidemiological Study of Female Circumcision in the Sudan". Khartoum, Sudan: University of Khartoum Hosken, F. (1993). The Hosken Report: Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Females, fourth edition. Lexington, MA: Women's International Network Defective sexuality and female circumcision: The cause and the possible management
Saeed Mohamad Ahmad Thabet and Ahmed S.M.A. Thabet
J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. Vol. 29, No. 1: 12-19, February 2003 Amnesty InternationalThe MAJORITY. The 2 studies of which you are so fond are outliers.And, as I mentioned previously, Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's work is fatally flawed. Methodologically (where's the data?) and analytically.To wit: A case history based assessment of female genital mutilation in Sudan
Charlotte Schiander Gray
Evaluation and Program Planning
Volume 21, Issue 4, 1 November 1998, Pages 429-436A couple of things should jump out at you.First. The entire raison d'etre for Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's "superior" insight into mutilated Sudanese women is her "secret" knowledge of the smoke bath.From Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's article: Well. Not so much, hm? Seems "the whole village would know".Second. To highlight Nada's testimony: Remember this marvelous tidbit from Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's work? "Her lot in life". This agrees with Nada's testimony.And yet, Ms. Lightfoot-Klein takes, at face value, the protestations of 90% of the mutilated Sudanese women that they are "sexually satisfied".Despite the fact that "they have to be like that in public".Last night, as I tried to go to sleep, I couldn't understand how a researcher could so grievously misinterpret anthropological data.So I googled Ms. Lightfoot-Klein. Hanny Lightfoot-KleinWell. That explains a couple of things.The methodological flaws and the analytical flaws!This woman has no training!After all, what proper scientist would fail to include the data in her article?Geezlooweez.I hope I have put to bed this nonsense about mutilated women "enjoying" penetration.My questions about individual rights/human rights/the UN and coercion are still on the table, tho.Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

considering that 80% of fgm procedures are type 2, that places a strong majority above the "equivalency" line. i don't think it's a significant enough concern to even discuss fgm 1. i think it's only under the term because of it's role in the continuum. no. it isn't. there are a laundry list of complications, but that term generally refers to what happens when shit wasn't done right. true enough. so get these people proper medical care. oh wait. we might be infringing on their cultural freedom with our western medicine. i imagine they're done the same way fgm is. with fairly blunt tools in wretched conditions. but, i'd imagine any kind of surgery is this way there for the most part. unless you think surgery is a mondern thing. then that's not circumcision, is it? you're not even aguing the same issue with me. if you're offended by a word that denotes degree, i can't help you. as best i can tell, the us and south korea seem to be the countries with the greatest prevalence and number of circumcisions. both of these countries are pretty modern and both avail themselves of generally satisfactory medical conditions. it is my perception, that thus, most of the circumcisions in the world occurr under generally good conditions. now. as i have said before, the consent issue is huge. but. south korea only practices circumcisions because the gis were mostly circumcised. (and, i'd imagine, they didn't want to lose all their women to these large white men with large white penises with prominent heads, and less smegma which is nasty in the mouth, or whatever.) the reasons for circumcision in the us and south korea are plainly cosmetic. sure, people defend the practice by saying that it reduces the risk of penile cancer or aids or whatever, but they do it because then it doesn't look like a sandworm. if you're used to it, generally, circumcised penises are more attractive. it's just the way it is. but this is not a decision that should be made by parents of infants. if it's not binding, then don't do it. if timmy wants his dick to have a prominent head, he can have the procedure done later.

Yes, legislative force is one way. Social pressure is another. Sometimes the two work together. Obviously at the nation level I am not directly affecting the actions of my government - this is not a direct democracy. I can only indirectly influence these things. I'm not sure why you felt the need to say that - but I've not denied this. Of course I understand that. That was my point. If it missed your point, why did you bring voting up? Yes, that comment was tongue in cheek. Well of course it doesn't. Wolves, being enormously different from humans, fail as a useful analogy. If an American wolf believed that infanticide is the wrong way to control populations, he might enact social consequences (refusing to share kills) against German wolves who think it is the best way. The Germans might do likewise. If one of the two groups decides to force the issue, a lupine war might break out.Since Wolves don't have complex communications, interlupinal trade or lots of international migration...I don't see what you are trying to say with your analogy. You can have both a recognition of shared humanity and accept that there are still differences, and some differences will not change, some will and some differences will vanish. Sometimes new differences emerge. What is on the table depends on the circumstances. If the human rights violations are severe enough, warfare may well be on the table. Warfare might well not be the best solution - and often it isn't. I don't see any value in going to war based on the practice of FGM, but I do see there might be value in going to war to end a culture of genocide. Why make that assumption? Enforcement of human rights is more important than keeping certain cultural practices - but if a solution is proposed that will cause more suffering than the cultural practices...then it should be rejected. I imagine given the scenario - I'd be dead. I would embrace it in the spirit I originally made the embracing statement. It's part of being alive and it's terrible and frightening but also wonderful. That doesn't mean I will be happy with the specific situation, or that I wouldn't be motivated to try and change it. No, I do not favour dropping limits on forms of coercion. It means I favour having limits, and accepting that they work both ways. If you don't see a reason to go to war that is fine. However, the society isn't inflicting damage on itself (in either case), but on other human beings. Sure - some governments ignore those limits when they feel they can, and I am against them for doing so and feel the international community should stop being pussies and politically punish Britain and America for being such gigantic dicks. Maybe they are doing, but it is hardly a big public punishment. That might be the reason they are giving now, but the reason they gave then was that Iraq posed an imminent threat and as such the limits were different than if the act was humanitarian in nature.

Brenna, read more carefully. I did not say they CANNOT. That's what mod was asking. I restated it much more clearly from a practical standpoint. Yes anyone can try to change their culture. However... if you do not have a right to vote within your community you do not have EQUAL say in the culture (as those with votes can have you physically stamped down and so minimize how much influence you have), and may have NO say in the fate of their culture (depending on the stomping).I tend to think advocates of women's rights, black civil rights,and homosexual rights would agree with that assessment. In jail or dead is a very hard place from which to affect the society (though it can be done). I stand astounded by the naivete. No one is forced to agree to anything at the UN, and all nations fully support the stated agreements within the same way and with the same understanding. Is that what I am understanding you to be saying? Because the UN says so? No I don't understand that, not one bit. What is it some sort of religious council that tells you how you have to feel? I'm not intending sarcasm with that question at all.The UN is a political body that can be disbanded at any time. I really don't get that what they say has any meaning greater than what the international body of autoworkers would have to say about life. Great, okay, this is where I see a direct contradiction to what was said above (or what I thought you saying) about the UN. First of all the UN passed a resolution which really did allow the US the space to interpret the meaning to their own end (so they couldn't be firectly censured). So if it was unanimous or with majority support means everyone actually agrees? That all interpretations are the same?Furthermore that they could not stop the US from acting, or rather that no nation attempted to stand up against the US (and friends) sort of undercuts their initial agreement at the UN, if it violated individual rights, right?Finally, what the US did CAN be described as acting in the name of human rights. Bush has done so himself, and a poster in another thread said he was right (even if his intel and motive was wrong). The Iraqi people really were suffering under a despot. Many dying and being tortured, overtly. If the idea is that FGM should be stopped because of it leading to torture and death (even if mistakenly well meant), why couldn't Bush decide he should try to stop active torture and death (when intentionally inflicted as such)?I don't get how he would be acting unusually... unless there are limits to how people should effect other nations and cultures?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Shit, I was just about to post my 3 reply roundup, when I saw this next post of yours. Let me read it all and integrate its discussion into the post I had ready to cut n' paste.Now I am well behind on other things... I really thought I could cut n' paste and get the heck out of here for a while. So, please also excuse the fact that I may not get back to you for a bit. While it may be by tonight, it could easily be not till after this weekend.Hmmmmm, maybe I should have left those three posts as they were. Ah well. And by the way, why act on the high horse? I had three replies to you, which I've been condensing (they all said so). Its a bit of a cheap shot to act all put out in a new post when you know a person is working on submitting an answer in the mean time. And contrary to your assertions, I have not been fond of any study. I have welcomed any more detailed research that could be provided. ANY with ANY CONCLUSION.Sheesh.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

culture and laws are not equivalent. stop equating the two. piss off. i did not say that all nations agreed to the stated agreements, just the necessary majority or plurality. there are often political agreements made within the un, like in congress, to get things passed. you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours. but there's not a great deal of potential for overtly forcing some country to agree with a human rights declaration. please. it was passed in 1948. and, have you read it? cause it's really not that groundbreaking. no, because people have decided that they will not allow someone else to beat their children just because they "own" them. same deal, just on a national level. no. but they are supposed to participate in formulating international laws and standards of behavior. they don't tell people how to feel, but they are supposed to aid governments in forming treaties defining norms. norms form naturally. the un is simply a forum for communication.the icc and the icj have some power of enforcement, the un does not. the un decrees depend on the actions of members. the un depends on member states keeping the treaties they agreed to. unfortunately, people are assholes and have decided that because the un is involved, they no longer have to respect their own treaties. exactly. it's a building which creates a forum for diplomacy. it's there to facilitate norm formation. there is no way to interpret the un resolutions to allow action such as the us participated in, especially since instead of bringing sadaam to justice under the icc, he was allowed to be murdered by a sectarian interim government. as i said above. member states are expected to stand by their word in treaties. if states break the law, their leaders must be brought to trial under the icc. unfortunately, the us has consistently defied the international courts and consistently protected their leaders from justice. if we had been interested in defending human rights in iraq, we would have done something about the rape camps in the mid 80s or even after the first gulf war. in the midst of the first gulf war, we found TONNES of documents detailing victims of institutional rape and murder and all manner of evils. i've seen them. my advisor worked on the translation committee. but the us almost never does anything like that. we're run by realists. realists are only concerned with issues of national security. we're also run by business men. business men are only interested in profit. between this, we have a false national security claim used to defend a grab for power. no one brought up the "oh yeah, and he was a human rights nightmare" until after it was clearly demonstrated that there was no national security threat whatsoever. it's an excuse to continue a power and profit grab. no reason, he just didn't and wouldn't. period. just because you could say it might have potentially succeeded in removing a despot (you know, if it hadn't made an even bigger humanitarian nightmare) doesn't mean that's why it was done.the unfortunate thing is that international law is designed by people with conflicting interests. as such, international law can be contradictory. while international law and norms demand that we interfere to prevent demonstrable human rights abuses, it also condemns interfering with national security. bill clinton's strike in croatia was a perfect example. it was the right thing to do. it was demanded by international law and norms regarding genocidal actions. it was also clearly illegal. but. it was done well and cleanly and successfully contributed to the end of the genocide. too bad it hadn't been done a few years before when the serbs were murdering people in bosnia.****if buz starts some off-topic shit about how muslims deserve to be massacred, i suggest he be suspended. i don't feel like dealing with it today.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

So what? So people fight against change? How is that a justification for anything?

quote:

---

Some people in California died trying to protect their homes from wildfires. Instead of evacuating, they stood in the face of towering flames. They didn't want to move their homes, they didn't want to lose their belongings, their way of life. Is it really so hard to understand?

---

No, it isn't. And they should be free to do so. [quote]Different people and cultures choose to put value on different aspects of their lives. You happen to put it on human suffering and individual rights. Other people see it differently.[/qs]They can see it however they like; but unless they have the individual right to choose, they can't do it however they like. That's what it boils down to.

brennakimi writes:

quote:

---

i never said they weren't just as real. i said they didn't warrant wording which suggests equivalence. if the suffering isn't equivalent, the wording shouldn't be either.

---

Boys die from MGM. Girls die from MGM. They're both just as dead, but for you to then say that they aren't equivalent necessarily means that the life of a male is not as valuable as the life of a female.

quote:

---

men get circumcised in very few places, relatively.

---

Incorrect.What is the world population of men who have been circumcised? Think carefully.On top of that, of the areas where women undergo FGM, how many of those countries also practice MGM?

quote:

---

that leave gigantic chunks of high populations without it and fairly good reason to cite us experience.

---

Incorrect.More men are circumcised outside the US than inside. Just how many men do you think in the world have undergone genital mutilation?

quote:

---

if it causes no serious harm, there's no real reason to oppose it.

---

It causes death.Oh, but I keep forgetting...the death of a male isn't as significant as the death of a female.Since you seem to be stuck on the survival rate, would you be happy if FGM became as medicalized as MGM is in the West? We do much more invasive surgeries to women's reproductive organs all the time. Epesiotomies and even sexual reassignment surgeries are common enough. If the rate of death were reduced for FGM, would that make it any better?

quote:

---

this is no less a valid plaint, but it's certainly not the creation of a fistula.

---

But that's one of the common complications from MGM.Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting...when it happens to a man, it isn't as bad as when it happens to a woman.

quote:

---

in such cultures that participate in these practices by tradition and not by force at a legitimate age of consent

---

Only if one looks at the West. In other countries, where MGM is more common, that isn't true. It's part of the ritual of becoming a man.

quote:

---

but when these practices are done by force to people to young to consent, we have a significant issue.

---

You mean like infants?

quote:

---

even worse when they cause life or health threatening problems.

---

You mean like death?Oh, that's right...I keep forgetting. The life of a man isn't as valuable as the life of a woman.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:

---

you're just feeling threatened by the impending doom of the knife

---

When was it established that I wasn't circumcized?Is there a particular reason why you're obsessing over the status of my penis? I'm not going to have sex with you, brennakimi, so please stop asking.

quote:

---

it's not that men survive the procedure. that's not my claim. your claim is that this causes a fatal injury. it clearly does not.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Nobody dies from MGM? Is that your final answer?

quote:

---

my complaint is that fgm always creates an unhealable wound.

---

Except that isn't true.No wonder we're having trouble. You're making shit up.

quote:

---

you keep making vague claims about mass genocide

---

Where did I say "genocide"? I simply said that boys die from MGM and that because so many males in the world have been mutilated, the number of males who die from MGM surpasses the number of women who undergo FGM.No wonder we're having trouble. You're making shit up.

quote:

---

using the same word to describe inequivalent things is unnecessarily confusing to the public.

---

Men and women both have their genitals mutilated and die from the procedure. The only way they can be considered "inequivalent" is if the life of a man is not equivalent to the life of a woman.

quote:

---

see this magical thing we have the capability to express? degree.

---

And since both men and women die from having their genitals mutilated, it must be that the death of a male doesn't have the same degree of barbarism as the death of a female.

quote:

---

e. the problem here is that you think i'm all warm and squishy about circumcision.

---

Not at all.I think you just don't care. After all, take a look at the language you've been using: "Tiny little bit of flesh." "It clearly does not [cause a fatal injury]."

quote:

---

i just take issue with the equivalency of the term.

---

Well, since men die from the procedure, the only way to complain about equivalizing must be because a dead man doesn't rise to the level of a dead woman.

quote:

---

it saves me a lot of work.

---

Yes, I'm sure pulling things out of your ass is pretty simple.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

molbiogirl responds to me:

quote:

---

I cited my stat.

​

Care to cite yours?

---

I did.In the very post you responded to.I even pointed out that your citations contradicted each other.You did read the post, did you not?

quote:

---

As for your other stat (5%), please provide the cite.

---

I did.In the very sentence that mentioned the 5%.You did read the post, did you not?

quote:

---

I most certainly am not implying that FGM is a "huge" problem here in the U.S.

---

Did you or did you not say: Which is it, molbiogirl? Are they bringing their traditions with them or aren't they?

quote:

---

You're projecting, Rrhain.

---

Right. You can't read a full sentence or remember your own words and I'm the one projecting....

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

brennakimi writes:

quote:

---

done properly, the flesh is cut, not torn.

---

Considering that in infants, the prepuce has not separated from the glans, exactly how do you think they retract it in order to cut it off?Be specific.

quote:

---

along with proper anesthesia.

---

Incorrect.In Western infant MGM, no anesthesia is used because of the risk of death. You have to strap him down.

quote:

---

this is why they can't possibly be properly done to infants... people won't anesthetize infants.

---

And yet, that's exactly what happens here in the West.So if there's no way it can possibly be done properly, why do you keep saying that it's just a "tiny little bit of flesh"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:

---

typical refers to most common complications,not complications that are common.

---

Indeed...but how many men undergo MGM?Give us a number of men who need to die in order for you to care.

quote:

---

that's why people get their sons circumcised. cosmetic reasons.

---

Except for those cultures where it gets done because if you don't, you won't go to heaven...or those cultures where it gets done because if you don't, you won't be considered a man...or those cultures where it gets done as a cure for masturbation...or those cultures where it gets done because people have been told it stops penile cancer...or those cultures where it gets done because mommy doesn't like the look of an unmutilated penis...or those cultures where it gets done....

quote:

---

a procedure performed safely in large numbers

---

Flayed alive...exactly how is that done "safely"?

quote:

---

with a limited relative number of people suffering any kind of negative complications whatsoever,

---

...except for those ulcers from not having a mucosal covering for the glans.

quote:

---

which is intended, currently to reduce exposure to disease

---

Except the number of penile cancer cases is vanishingly small and has no real connection to circumcision.

quote:

---

or improve appearance

---

Don't you think he should have the right to determine what his penis looks like and not his mother?

quote:

---

and ease of cleaning

---

Huh? How hard do you think it is to clean a penis?

quote:

---

is very different in degree and idea from a practice which is relatively very dangerous

---

You mean like the deaths from MGM?

quote:

---

causes relatively high numbers of negative complications

---

Like MGM?

quote:

---

and is intended to control the sexuality of a whole half of humanity.

---

Like MGM?Why on earth do you think it became so common in the US? It was considered a cure for masturbation.

quote:

---

my only complaint is that the two should not have synonymous designations. they are not, in any way, congruent.

---

Hmmm...dead boy...dead girl.If they're not congruent, it must because his life wasn't as valuable as hers.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

that's exactly what i'm referring to. it's not common if less than 1% of people suffer from it. death is very rare.

you're still not paying attention. i said done properly. why aren't you reading? i've said fifty times that even most cosmetic procedures cannot properly be done on a person unable to consent. you cannot properly circumcise and infant. are you really that dense? jesus. i said, in that post no less, that you cannot properly circumcise an infant because you cannot use anethesia. L.I.T.E.R.A.C.Y. is amazing. and it's wrong. it can be done properly, just not to infants. in much of the rest of the world, it's at least done to adolescents as a coming of age ritual. and, when done properly, it is just a tiny piece of flesh. the problems then are associated with reduced standards of medical care. if they changed fgm to a consentual procedure done on adults in a clean environment and banned infibulation, which is inherently harmful, only allowing fgm1 (which i don't really consider qualifying as fgm) then i would have no problems with it. i would disagree with it's use, but that's not my business.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

11.4% of heart surgery patients died from their surgery in an nyu study of death rates due to complications. should we ban heart surgery? how many people with hearts must die for you to care? that sounds like a cosmetic reason. these are used to defend the procedure along with claims it reduces exposure to aids. they are generally not used as reasons to get it done. in these cultures, it's generally done when the men are old enough to consent. it's not my concern. i hope you aren't referring to jews, because they don't exactly believe in heaven. and muslims? their view of circumcision is mixed. christians mostly do it for cosmetic reasons. appeal to emotion. again, being irrational. which, again, are unbelievably rare. the rate of any complication at all (including a sneeze) is less than 1%. that puts the risk of any one complication very, very low. stop telling me that the rates are higher WHEN THEY AREN'T. that's called LYING. which is why they treat penile cancer with circumcision? the risk of penile cancer is very, very low. but it's lower for circumcised men than uncircumcised men, and circumcision is a common treatment for penile cancer. therefore, it must be connected in some way. it's not worth getting the snip, imo, but it must be connected. oh look everyone! rhain's still not paying attention! it's not. but some people cite this as a concern, including some men who get circumcised later. but. it might be very difficult to clean the penis of another person, especially one who tends to get poop smeared under his junk. again. i don't think this warrants body modification, but someone might choose to reduce his efforts. which are 1 in 500,000. that's only significant because of the number of people who are circumcised. but it's far far far far far far far far fewer than die from complications of heart surgery!*edit* i later demonstrate the particular significance of those 1 in 500,000 deaths.should we ban heart surgery because 6-11% of people die from it? appeal to emotion. and unneccessary conclusion.
it's because the procedures are not equivalent. period.and we're not just talking about the risks to women. there is an added risk to any children a woman who has been infibrulated may have. btw. according to WHO, 15% of cases are of infibulation. 80% are type 2. that leaves 5% or less for types 1 (more or less equivalent to male circumcision and not, imo, a severe form of body modification) and 3. less than 5%.but. see? we're not just talking about women and their vaginas. we're talking about women, their vaginas, and their children. if 15% undergo infibulation, then if 2 billion women were circumcised (with the same distribution as now), then 300 million women would be infibulated. if 10 to 20 thousand babies die due to maternal infibulation now, imagine how many babies would die then. WHO estimates that so 15% of the midline 120m is 18m.so, let's go halfway with the dead babies and say 15 thousand die. 15k into 18m is 1200. so 1 child dead per 1200 women. so if there were 2 billion women being infibulated, 15% of them is 300m divided by 1200 is 250 thousand dead babies.about 2 billion men are circumcised (30% of the world population). if 1 in 500 thousand male people die of circumcision, then 4000 men die each year of circumcision. so. if women were mutilated at anyhere near that rate, the comparable effects are... simply uncomparable. how many babies have to die for you to care? hell. already the babies who die in africa alone because their mothers are infibulated already outweighs the number of men who die from circumcision. your argument of 'oh so many men die from being flayed alive"' is lost.do you see that we're not talking about equivalent procedures yet? let me show you a picture.side note: there seem to be two different definitions floating around for type 1 fgm, i'm referring to that which invilves only the removal of the clitoral hood. the following picture demonstrates both type 1a and 1b and skips type 3. however, the WHO sources describe infibulation as type 3, so i'm guessing that type 4 is an expansion to separate types 1a and 1b further into 1 and 2 and these definitions are only used here.do you see yet that we're not talking about equivalent procedures? it doesn't really matter whether more men die of circumcision than women. i'm talk talking about defending women at the expense of men. i'm talking about the fact that it's dishonest to use terminology that suggests equivalence when the procedures are CLEARLY NOT EQUIVALENT. that's all this whole godawful bullshit argument with you has been about. i'm concerned with the truthfulness of terminology, and you think i like bathing in the blood of sacrificed baby boys. get the fuck over it. you're making up an argument where it doesn't exist.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.