Multiculturalism

For FGM, I have already drawn the line. It is butchery. It is patriarchal misogynistic bullying on a cultural level. It needs to be destroyed worldwide, everywhere, without exception.So now you want to muddy the waters bringing up other procedures asking for some impracticable hard and fast line that FGM crosses where these others do not.Each case is analyzed on its own merits. But then you knew that. You’re just blowing smoke. Bullshit. You are directly equating decisions on medical necessity with cultural butchery.In these cases the line you would ask for is between those two, btw. Is that line really that unclear for you?I do not believe you cannot see it. You're blowing smoke again, aren't you. You could probably do this sitting on the john, too, but so what? And I don’t know where this word opposition (in quotes even) came from. I didn't use it.On your head, on the john, it doesn't matter. When you advocate stup*dity (there is my damn banned word again. How droll.) you are going to get "opposition" whether it bites you or not. From your Message 690.See? You did know what we were talking about and knew your question for 800 posts was irrelevant to both the present discussion and the greater topic. You were blowing smoke for 800 messages.You do know smoking's not good for you, right?Since you bring up the greater subject of this thread, multiculturalism, I'll put in my 2₵.That’s fine and dandy. Have all the sub-cultures you want within this larger culture. Practice all your old cultural customs to your heart’s content.Just be aware that if your custom grossly violates the norms of the larger culture you have entered (like mutilating children), we’re going to throw your ass in jail. And before you ask, that determination will be made on a case-by-case basis by those organs of our society that we charge with determining such things (courts, legislatures, me).

You contradict yourself. The doctor is only recommending a procedure. It is the parents who must give consent. At one time it was not unheard of for children to have a pre-emptive tonsillectomy.

You haven't drawn a line at all. You've only said that FGM is on one side of the line. That's like saying that Moose Jaw is in Canada. I want you to name a town on the border, one inch inside Canada. I want you to name a procedure that is not "butchery" but is right next to "butchery" - you know, with nothing but the width of a line separating them. That's what it means to draw a line. You contradict yourself. You claimed that you already drew that line. That's what I'm saying. Every case of FGM ought to be analyzed on its own merits. Some of them may be "abuse" but you have no basis for painting them all with the same brush.And if you're going to claim that "it's all black" then you have to be able to demonstrate what else is black and what is white. On the other hand, if you understand that it's all gray, as I have been saying, then there is no hard and fast line. Medical necessity doesn't enter into it. Parents make decisions based on a doctor's recommendations or on a priest's recommendations or on a pastor's recommendations or on an imam's recommendations or on a teacher's recommendations. Again, you're just saying that the line is between Calgary and Denver. You're not saying where the line is. If you can't be more specific, I tend to think that it's no more than an imaginary dotted line in your head. You think the people who are calling me "stupid" and "disgusting" and "a bad person" aren't opposed to what I'm saying? I'm glad to hear it. Ya see, I might think that "stupidity" included the inability to understand such simple phrases as, "I do not support FGM," even after it has been repeated several times and explained several times. But I'm willing to concede that you're just illiterate, or perhaps to lazy too read the thread, if that's what you prefer. Everything I have said in this thread is in the context of multiculturalism. What you quoted from Message 690 is a small aside. So we'll chalk up another one who's in favour of throwing the mothers (who were once the victims) in jail. I'm still agin it. Indeed they will. Each case will be decided on the basis of whether or not it is abuse; hopefully the courts are not as foolish as you guys in taking an all-or-nothing approach. And each case will be decided on the basis of whether or not culture is a mitigating factor, which is all I have been saying.

Actually, UNICEF says that and its based on objective analyses of the available data. Because its not a conspiracy theory, its the objective conclusion that UNICEF came to from analyzing the empirical data. You're right, my bad.It is amazing, though, to see just how low you will stoop to in the name of multiculturalism.

Bullshit. You wanted a line, you got a line. In fact you got three of them.Appendectomies vs FGM: Yes there is a line. One is a medical necessity the other is misogynistic torture and butchery.Vaccinations vs FGM: Yes there is a line. One is a medical necessity the other is misogynistic torture and butchery.Dentistry vs FGM: Yes there is a line. One is a medical necessity the other is misogynistic torture and butchery.These are the three procedures you yourself brought up in comparison with FGM. I drew the line you wanted for each of them. Is the difference really this hard for you to see? You contradict yourself. First you say I said where the line is then you say I didn't say where the line is. Do try to be consistent - at least in consecutive sentences. In Context:

quote:

---

So now you want to muddy the waters bringing up other procedures asking for some impracticable hard and fast line that FGM crosses where these others do not.

​

Each case is analyzed on its own merits.

---

Not every case of FGM, you idiot. Every case for the other procedures you were want to bring up as compared to FGM. If you are going to quote me don't twist it out of context. Bad form. Keep your head in the game, man.But, since you bring it up ... Bullshit. There are no "merits" to FGM, only demerits:1. misogynistic
2. torture
3. butcheryThese are the attributes of FGM, every case of FGM, and they suck.The only question for the courts should be, "Did you cut or aid and abet in the cutting?"If so then go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Did they cut or aid and abet in the cutting?If so then go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Let's take this slowly. You wanted a line. I gave you three of them.If you don't like the width of the line or where it is or it's the wrong shade of blue that is your own account, not mine.But to be generous to you I'll let you chose some other procedure or three. Bring them here and, since you're so insensitive to what is butchery, I'll tell you if they are on the FGM side of the line or not.Edited by AZPaul3, : cuz

In your examples doctors are recommending medical procedures for medical reasons that are deemed to be in the best medical interests of the child. How can you fail to see that FGM is NOT in that category? link

quote:

---

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

---

quote:

---

FGM/C is a fundamental violation of the rights of girls and is a deeply entrenched social norm. It is a manifestation of gender discrimination. The practice is perpetrated by families without a primary intention of violence, but is de facto violent in nature. Communities practice FGM/C in the belief that it will ensure a girl's proper marriage, chastity, beauty or family honour. Some also associate it with religious beliefs although no religious scriptures require it. The practice is such a powerful social norm that families have their daughters cut even when they are aware of the harm it can cause. If families were to stop practicing on their own they would risk the marriage prospects of their daughter as well as the family's status.

---

You can't objectively analyze what a whole culture thinks. You can produce a plausible explanation for why they think certain things but you can't use that as an excuse for denying their expressed opinions. Are you not saying that there's a conspiracy of some sort among African Muslim men to keep their women chaste and to brainwash their women into thinking they like it? How would that differ from a conspiracy to brainwash the American public into thinking there are no aliens among us? I stand tall in the name of equality and freedom for all people and all cultures.

Ah yes, standing tall for the freedom of men to beat their wives.That's so noble of you.

Ringo, fer cryin out loud, how can you defend cultures? Beyond the fun of ethnic foods and other colorful things that don't impinge on civil rights I mean. The history of western civilization involved giving up cultural biases in order to at least try to develop a just society for all but you sound like you want to go back to the Dark Ages. Racism and slavery could be said to have been cultural habits of part of western culture, and that had to go. Cultural oppression of women had to go. So FGM has to go if those cultures are ever to join the first world with liberty and justice for all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How does three lines constitute a line? There are three lines between Canada and California. That amounts to a pretty fuzzy definition of where "the line" is. So you claim. Misogyny has not been established, nor is it an excuse for you to overrule the wishes of the women involved. Torture is downright false. "Butchery" is just a silly attempt to invoke emotion. The line I've been asking you - or anybody else - to draw is between what YOU would consider acceptable and what YOU do not consider acceptable. The examples of appendectomies, vaccinations and dentistry have to do with consent, not with that line.So, can we get an answer? What WOULD you consider acceptable, in the area of modifying a young girl's genitals? What if it was less intrusive than male circumcision? Would you still oppose it and if so, why? And if the young girl consented, would that be acceptable to you? Think that through again. A line is the width of a line. If you're specifying "where" it is, you have to be more specific than within a thousand miles. Your "context" is not at all clear, even now. Before you call me an idiot, try to clarify what the hell you're talking about. That's what I do. The most obvious merit is that thousands of women want it. It isn't your business to decide that they shouldn't want it or they don't really, really, really want it even if they say they do. You're still not getting it. A line is very narrow. I want you to name a procedure very close to FGM but not quite FGM. You're thinking of FGM in terms of black and white so I want to know what's white, but right beside black.Let's start with bringing a scalpel into the same room with a little girl. Would that be acceptable? If so, would touching her with the scalpel be okay?I'm asking you to specify EXACTLY where you draw the line, EXACTLY where white ends and black begins, and ONLY in the area of female genitals. Got it?

The issue is parental consent versus the child's consent. Whether the parent approves a medical necessity or a cultural necessity is irrelevant.

I'm standing tall for the women's right to say what they want despite what you think they want.

That's what I'm saying. But it involved giving up OUR cultural biases, not forcing other people to give up theirs. Exactly. WE had to give up OUR biases and let the Africans have the same rights as we do. Let's keep doing that. Since many of the women support FGM, I think calling it "oppression" is inappropriate. It's just as bad for US to deny them their opinions - no matter how their opinions were formed - as it is for their husbands to deny them their opinions. If FGM "has to go", then let them let go of it themselves, at their own pace. Prohibition doesn't work.

Why is it irrelevant?"Medical necessity" involves objectively evidenced medical reason to consider a procedure as in the best health interests of a child."Cultural necessity".... Well perhaps you can explain what you mean by that and why that entitles parents to make life changing decisions for their children which are, in the case of FGM, very far from being in the best health interests of the child?

Because parental consent is not limited to medical necessity. If it was, we wouldn't need parental consent; we'd let the medicos decide. What YOU consider the "best health interests" of the child is overridden by THEIR desire for their children to be accepted in their culture. And since the children do grow up to live reasonably healthy lives, your subjective ideas about "best interests" mean little to them.