Multiculturalism

I'm proposing a kinder, gentler approach that considers the people involved. None of those are cultural practices that have been passed down from generation to generation for centuries. None of those are being promoted by the former "victims". Do you really need me to explain the criminal underclass created by Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s? Do you really need me to explain the criminal underclass created in Mexico, Columbia, etc. by the prohibition of recreational drugs in our day? Do you really need me to explain the criminal underclass created by the prohibition of abortion? Don't be afraid to repeat yourself or rephrase. If you showed that consumption of alcohol during the 1920s was eliminated I must have missed it. If you showed that the consumption of marijuana, cocaine, etc. has been eliminated, I must have missed it. For that matter, if you showed that rape, murder, child abuse or robbery have been eliminated, I must have missed that too.

No.You see - answering questions is easy. You need to explain why the opinion of the women themselves should be ignored. What does this mean?Edited by Modulous, : was reading Admin PMs and forgot to swap to normal user mode.

The notion that whatever approach you are proposing (the details you seem to be coy about) is kinder and gentler has not been supported by evidence, and is refuted by the evidence I have presented. This isn't a discussion unless you address my arguments and evidence and present your own to counter them. Which is both untrue and irrelevant at the same time. No. I'd like you to explain the criminal underclass created by making FGM a criminal offense. Is it the same criminal underclass created when they said beating children with weapons was outlawed? Why is the creation of this 'underclass' a problem? You know, the usual things people mean when they say 'explain what you mean'.FGM is illegal right now in many many countries, and has been for longer than the prohibition of alcohol in the USA lasted. So we don't have to rely on history like with alcohol prohibition - we can rely on contemporary observations so there's no need to argue by flawed analogy, you can just access the actual evidence that exists today.What is a criminal underclass (the term is not universally agreed upon)?
What makes the existence of a criminal underclass a problem that is greater than the crime being committed openly with impunity?
In what sense are FGM operators and the parents of their victims members of a criminal underclass?
Is the existence of the criminal underclass in this case worse than the action being prohibited?
Finally, why the hell am I having to explain to an adult with 10k posts to this forum how discussions are meant to work? It's not fear, it's fatigue. Why should I keep repeating myself? I have no evidence that repetition on my part will advance the argument. Female genital mutilation
data.unicef.org/corecode/uploads/topics/figures/uploaded_images/corecode/fig8.7_93.png
progress-ending-fgm-pdf | PRB I didn't show any of those things, because none of that is my position. Would you like to make a little more effort? Here click this -> Message 565 for some hints.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

That FGM is a cultural practice, supported by many women who have suffered it, informs how we should seek to stop it, but does not prevent it being an abuse of powerless children, which should be stopped. The assessment of abuse has to be an objective one - based on scientific clinical and psychological knowledge. It is blindingly obvious that to accept as definitive the opinion of the person who is carrying out the practice, even if they suffered it themselves, is deeply flawed. We look at it objectively, and bring the evidence.Let's point to one of the several reasons that FGM is a breach of the girls' human rights - their clitoris. This is a quotation from the Wiki page on the clitoris (it's sourced, so you can look it up if you want):"The clitoris is the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone and generally the primary anatomical source of human female sexual pleasure."By cutting it off, you are definitively and undeniably removing from these girls their primary ability to receive sexual pleasure. Now I don't know about you, but that is a breach of human rights. It's a brutalization of powerless people to have that done to them, without their informed consent. Have you got any objective evidence that cutting off the primary anatomical source of human sexual pleasure is anything other than a really, really bad thing to do ?Do note that saying that some women who've had the procedure done, support it continuing to be inflicted on young girls is not objective evidence - it's subjective - and that in any event, it is logically utterly flawed, since the women in question by definition cannot have experienced the pleasure which we know, clinically and scientifically, women who retain their clitoris enjoy. To put it crudely, they cannot know what they are missing.And this is quite apart from the other objective, clinically evidenced reasons that FGM is an abuse of young children.So often, we have to weigh individuals' rights against those of others. It would seem that you place the rights of someone to pursue a cultural practice, above the rights of powerless children not to have an extremely harmful breach of their bodily integrity. I think that the latter trumps the former - by a country mile.

You seem to have lost the plot. I'm the one who's been asking you to explain why the opinion of the women themselves should be ignored.There are two sides to the story, as your own reference shows. Why are you ignoring the opinion of the women who want the practice of female circumcision to continue?

You have refuted your own "evidence". The fact is that a large number of women favour the practice of female circumcision. You have confirmed that fact. Any approach that I would favour involves treating those women in a kinder, gentler way - for example, by not imprisoning them. That would be the people who practice FGM and want to avoid prison. Not quite. In the case of FGM, it's people who are doing what they think is best for their children and that an oppressive government is trying to prevent them. It's more like hiding Jews from the Nazis. In this case it's the question of whether the practice ought to be a criminal offense at all. Why make criminals of marijuana smokers? Why make criminals of women who want abortions? Why make criminals of homosexuals? Indeed. Why do you continue wasting time whining about how I post? You need the serenity to accept the things you cannot change.

How can you have an objective assessment that ignores the opinion of the supposed "victims"? It's the "victims" who want to continue the practice. What's "obvious" is subject to change. It's "obvious" that the sun moves around the earth - but only if you are blind to objective observations. In your culture there's an obsession with sexual pleasure. In theirs, maybe not. And? Are they required to know what they are missing before they're allowed to have an opinion? Why do they need you, who are clitorally-challenged to begin with, to tell them what to think? As I've said, I don't favour the practice of FGM. I also do not favour imprisoning parents for doing what's best for their children.Remember that many of those children will grow up to agree that what their parents did was best for them. Many of us do, even though we protested at the time.Your claims of "objectivity" are empty unless you consider the opinion of the "victims" about whether they have been "harmed" or helped.

The view of the medical professionals involved is that harm is being caused. The WHO is well aware of the reasoning of the women who carry out FGM on young girls - it's on their website. They are unpersuaded. There doesn't need to be an obsession with sexual pleasure, for it to be harmful to drastically and permanently reduce a person's capacity for sexual pleasure. They don't. The girls who are being harmed, however, could do with people trying to help them out. Luckily, they have people like the WHO, the UN, several charities and a large number governments around the world having a go at helping them out. They've also got a large number of ordinary people like me doing a little to shout out and support the charities, in their work to put an end to this. I do not agree that undergoing FGM yourself, entitles you to an opinion that trumps independent medical assessment as to harm. I do not believe that because a practice is "cultural", it means that I lose my ability to argue that it is wrong.

And the people involved are unpersuaded by the opinions of those outsiders. You miss the point. To the women involved, the loss of sexual pleasure doesn't seem to trump their other considerations. It's nice to "help people out" when they want to be helped out. But some of those girls grow up to think that they weren't harmed at all, so they don't feel like you're "helping them out". To them, you're like the Boy Scout who "helps" little old ladies across the street whether they want to go or not. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how paternalistic it may be. You are not welcome to force your opinion on everybody.

You keep citing the victims of FGM as the supporters of FGM. There is a substantial body of research which shows that those who have been abused are more likely to abuse and indeed consider the abuses they have suffered as 'normal'. Indeed it may be a psychological need of those who have been abused to 'normalise' their experience in order to evade feelings of victimhood.A culture of sexual abuse can develop in a family setting across generations.Whilst you may say that FGM is not the same I am not sure in what way it is you consider it to be different?

Actually, the evidence suggests we're making progress. Slower than ideal, but progress nonetheless. I'll live with that, if you live with a characterisation as an ivory tower idealist, so divorced from harsh reality that he would rather have children suffer, than be seen to be less than intellectually pure. On the plus side, I don't need your permission. I'll continue supporting efforts to put an end to this awful practice, along with the UN, WHO, charities et al, and you can continue objecting to us.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

You have been saying that; while ignoring the opinion of the women themselves. Hence why I turned the criticism back on you. I'm not. Why are you ignoring the opinion of the women who want the practice to end? Of course, and large numbers favour ending it. While treating women of the opposing viewpoint in a cruel way while they are too young to be able to assert their rights and objections. You favour methods that risk perpetuating a practice, meaning more girls suffer more negative side effects over the long term. You are also refusing to comment on this side of the equation.I'm talking strategies that reduces the number of girls who have their genitals mutilated before they can really do or say anything to object. That way there are as many as no women who have a scarification ritual performed on their genitals against their retrospective wishes. That's not an explanation, it's more or less just a rephrasing of the position I'm asking about. You think that slicing a child's genitals is more closely akin to protecting them from being murdered by a genocidal government than it is to beating them with a weapon? I'm afraid you'll have to do a lot of work to make that case.Beating children was also done for their own good. 'Spare the rod' - does this sound familiar? I'll take this as confirmation that you have no evidence to support your position, and you are incapable of answering even the most basic questions about it. The answer has already been given - it is unethical, immoral, abusive and unhealthy and these consequences are foisted upon children who don't have the capacity to make any decisions rather than waiting until they are adults - indeed if you ask these women one of the reasons they do it to 9 year olds is because waiting much later makes manipulating the girls much more difficult and they start to refuse. I'm hoping to shame you into acting in a way that doesn't remind me of Faith. If you are telling me that this is impossible, then should we just terminate any attempt at having a discussion?

quote:

---

PRB
ENDING FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION/CUTTING
14
Media’s Role in Promoting Change
Media campaigns can play a crucial role in informing
communities, promoting dialogue, and changing social
norms. They have the most impact when they are part of
a larger abandonment effort. Media campaigns supported
by public discussions at the community level, especially
when led by religious and community leaders, can help
individuals confront harmful traditional practices and
cultural beliefs.
The Tanzania Media Women’s Association’s (TAMWA)
launched its Stop FGM campaign in 2002. This
nongovernmental organization used television and radio
spots, posters, and newspaper and magazine articles to
abandonment rather than simply passing the law and
arresting violators. Tostan has spearheaded training for
government officials at the national and regional level to
promote awareness of the law.
38
Key opinion leaders emphasized that advocacy efforts
must be connected with social mobilization and efforts to
empower girls and women at the community level, and that
there be sustained government commitment to working
with communities to stop the practice (see Box 11, page
15). It is very important, said Berhane Ras-Work, to build
a bridge between legal frameworks and the community so
that rights and obligations under law are understood
and owned.
The FGM-Free Village Model is Egypt’s national program
to eradicate FGM/C. Launched in 2003, the program is
implemented by the National Council for Childhood and
Motherhood (NCCM), the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), and the Donor Assistance Group (DAG).
In 2008, the project evolved into a joint initiative under the
Ministry of Family and Population. It was initiated in 60 villages
and is being scaled up in another 60 villages
...
A 2011 midterm evaluation found that the program was
successful in changing views and attitudes toward FGM/C.
Close to 80 percent of women in the intervention group
retained information about its negative consequences
versus 30 percent in the control group. Eighty-one percent
in the intervention group stated that the information they
received made them reevaluate their views concerning
FGM/C, compared with 17 percent in the control group.

​

And 76 percent in the intervention group who received
information and whose daughters were uncircumcised stated
that the information convinced them not to circumcise their
daughters, whereas only 19 percent in similar situations in
the control group had the same response.

---

If they are completely unpersuaded then the probability is that it hasn't been presented to them fully yet. What are the limits of the abused:not abused ratio in your mind?Would you be OK with FGM if 1:1 felt they were harmed:not harmed? 5:1? How many children is it acceptable to abuse, exactly?

Agree.4 words:Hurt people hurt people.

Again, in "other" cases of abuse, do you see the victims campaigning for the right to continue the abuse? How many generations have to continue the practice before you acknowledge that it is normal (for that culture)?