|
Author
|
Topic: Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
Message 143 of 270 (435978)
11-24-2007 12:13 AM
|
|
|
3... FGM (to molbi... and others interested in MGM)
As I said I am not an expert on FGM. The practice of FGM, based on what I knew, seemed pretty awful. I was surprised when looking at the data, that perhaps some of my knowledge was counter to evidence. I like skepticism so I ran with questioning my own preconceptions, and public mantra, on the topic. You are correct that Lightfoot-Klein's (from now on I'll say Klein's) research had methodological flaws, and I don't remember saying otherwise. My only point with her research is that it presented some opposite conclusions to popular conception, and gave a pretty good account for questioning methodology in earlier research on FGM's effects. Cultural traditions regarding how sex is discussed could heavily influence results. One would think an anthropologist would have found that interesting and plausible, rather than mocking the tradition (the smoke ceremony being a public secret... how does that undercut what she said?), and throwing personal insults at her (as if not being classically trained is a real charge?). You then offered abstracts which appeared to support claims of FGM's negative effects on female sexuality. From what I could see, the methods of the first were problematic in that it was clinical (which is well known to skew results) and the stated results in the abstract essentially meaningless (what do the %s actually represent) as well as inconsistent. The second article was simply a literature review and contained the same type of articles (old) you challenged Klein's paper for referencing. Given the nature of your criticism of Klein, and the nature of your citations, I presented a cite of a very recent study that countered the claims in yours, and suggested there was more research with such "non-negative" findings. My question to you... now what? Your only criticism was that it was an abstract. Did you not offer citations which were merely abstracts? Were they not meant to convince me? If I had agreed they showed your position was right, wouldn't argument have ceased? If they were meant to convince, then mine should have been equally acceptable to you. You should have dealt with the results. Ironically when I went to post this, I found another post by you offering still more abstracts and lit reviews in support of your position... but no methods to research. You even concluded by suggesting you had put the issue "to bed". Am I supposed to ignore why you handwaved away my cite, and now accept this new stuff (which ironically is OLDER than my cite)? Anyway, being interested in the science I decided to look at the cites you gave as much as I could find given my admitted armchair restrictions... On your first two cites. Dareer's paper is old (something you seem to criticize in others) and isolated to undescribed interviews of Sudanese women (whose culture is known not to be easy to assess on such questions). The second quote you referenced as coming from Hosken, F. (1993). The Hosken Report... However I found that same quote as coming from Rushwan, H. (1996). Intriguingly those two quotes were together (though in opposite order) in an FGM lit review at: PATH. Perhaps you can shed light on whether you or they mis-cited that quote, which by the way is nothing but an undocumented assertion as offered. It's a non-sequitur. I am assuming of course that you weren't quote-mining PATH to pretend you did some great literature search yourself. That link contains some interesting mix of info, including some contrary stuff regarding effects on sex drive as well as why it is practiced... I'll leave the link as is, but here are some very short snippets around the piggy-backed quotes you had used in your post (but not from there of course)...
Cultural values and ambiguities make women's sexuality very complex. This is also an area that has not been widely studied. Although it is difficult to verify reports of women's sexual experiences, physical complications from FGM often impede sexual enjoyment... In a 1993 Sudanese study, 5.5 percent of women interviewed experienced painful intercourse while 9.3 percent of them reported having difficult or impossible penetration. Those opening statements are suggestive as to the state of knowledge and call into question their ultimate assertions. Given that this is an entity whose purpose is to eradicate the practice, they might be taken with a grain of salt. Intriguingly those last figures are rather low and it is a later study than the other Sudanese study you offered. Further up the page you can see a study which has the complaint of low libido (in Kenyan women) at only 3.6%. Your third cite (Thabet) has some merit. I'd like to know more about it, though again the methods are unknown. Taken as is, it is interesting to note that the author is arguing that parts remain for pleasure, even in type 3's, if only that they have to be reconstructed for greater pleasure. And as is there are still a lot of women who do have pleasure (even if statistically less than uncut women). I found another article done around the same year, with somewhat different findings. Admittedly it is of type 1&2 vs uncut, which may dovetail with Thabet's findings to suggest it is only the most severe (type 3) which can lead to reduced pleasure, though fixable through clitoro-labial reconstruction. Here it is in full, sorry that this is long... The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria. Okonofu FE, Larsen U, Oronsaye F, Snow RC, Slanger TE. BJOG (2002 or 3)
OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between female genital cutting and frequency of sexual and gynaecological symptoms among a cohort of cut versus uncut women in Edo State of Nigeria. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Women attending family planning and antenatal clinics at three hospitals in Edo State, South-south Nigeria. POPULATION: 1836 healthy premenopausal women. METHODS: The sample included 1836 women. Information about type of female genital cutting was based on medical exams while a structured questionnaire was used to elicit information on the women's sociodemographic characteristics, their ages of first menstruation (menarche), first intercourse, marriage and pregnancy, sexual history and experiences of symptoms of reproductive tract infections. Associations between female genital cutting and these correlates of sexual and gynaecologic morbidity were analysed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and Cox models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of self-reported orgasm achieved during sexual intercourse and symptoms of reproductive tract infections. RESULTS: Forty-five percent were circumcised and 71% had type 1, while 24% had type 2 female genital cutting. No significant differences between cut and uncut women were observed in the frequency of reports of sexual intercourse in the preceding week or month, the frequency of reports of early arousal during intercourse and the proportions reporting experience of orgasm during intercourse. There was also no difference between cut and uncut women in their reported ages of menarche, first intercourse or first marriage in the multivariate models controlling for the effects of socio-economic factors. In contrast, cut women were 1.25 times more likely to get pregnant at a given age than uncut women. Uncut women were significantly more likely to report that the clitoris is the most sexually sensitive part of their body (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.26-0.47), while cut women were more likely to report that their breasts are their most sexually sensitive body parts (OR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.51-2.42). Cut women were significantly more likely than uncut women to report having lower abdominal pain (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.11-2.14), yellow bad-smelling vaginal discharge (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.54-5.09), white vaginal discharge (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.09-2.49) and genital ulcers (OR = 4.38, 95% CI 1.13-17.00). CONCLUSION: Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings. However, female genital cutting may predispose women to adverse sexuality outcomes including early pregnancy and reproductive tract infections. Therefore, female genital cutting cannot be justified by arguments that suggest that it reduces sexual activity in women and prevents adverse outcomes of sexuality. Your fourth cite was from amnesty which is also against FGM. You emphasized their statement that "a majority of studies on women's enjoyment of sex suggest that genital mutilation does impair a women's enjoyment." From which YOU then concluded studies I had cited, were "outliers". My first response would be to note that your quote was from 1997, a full ten years older than my recent study which suggested that more recent studies are coming to opposite conclusions. Second, I would note the word "majority" does not tell us how much of a majority, nor if there are any reasons to hold one group as more reliable than another (for example because of age and methodology). Third, implicit in that label is that there IS contradictory evidence. This of course leads me to your decision to circumcise your own citation. What immediately followed your quote was this...
However, one study found that 90% of the infibulated women interviewed reported experiencing orgasm... The mechanisms involved in sexual enjoyment and orgasm are still not fully understood, but it is thought that compensatory processes, some of them psychological, may mitigate some of the effects of removal of the clitoris and other sensitive parts of the genitals. That means their actual conclusion was NOT what you made it out to be. Please don't do that again. I believe it's actually against the rules here, but in any case, it's pretty bad form. Especially when you go to great lengths to extol your virtue as not speaking out your ass. From what I'm reading, the telltale odour is indicative otherwise. I'm going to end this with a final citation I hope everyone will take a gander at. It should be of special interest to those debating FGM v MGM. Intriguingly it's from an anthroplogist, acting in a manner I would expect an anthropologist to be acting. The full paper is an examination of the issue of GM in the light of different views and activities concerning FGM and MGM. The author is not in favour of one or the other and even concludes that she is not arguing for relativism that excludes coming to a negative opinion of either one. But she does not shy away from condemning the bold assertions made by anti-FGM activists, including world bodies like the WHO, in their quest to demonize something and remove it from adequate scientific scrutiny, as well as anthropological understanding. If anyone wants a good idea of what my opinion is of the state of science on FGM or MGM, this is a very good example...
Genital Cutting and Western Discourses on Sexuality, KIRSTEN BELL
MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY QUARTERLY, Volume 19, Number 2: Pages 125-148,
June 2005. Various snippets (but please read the whole thing at the link above)
My goal was to provide students with a more culturally relative perspective on female circumcision and to encourage them to consider similar practices in their own society. To this end, I drew comparisons to male circumcision... Each semester, the reaction of the students was both immediate and hostile. How dare I mention these two entirely different operations in the same breath! How dare I compare the innocuous and beneficial removal of the foreskin with the extreme mutilations enacted against females in other societies! ...I discussed the tendency among policy makers to homogenize female genital surgeries and to equate operations diverse in form and function with their most severe manifestations, while simultaneously reducing their meaning to patriarchy. I also pointed out that just as there is a common inclination to consider all female operations under the rubric of “mutilation,” there is a parallel tendency to collapse the widely variable forms of male genital cutting into a single operation involving the removal of the prepuce of the penis (see Caldwell, Orubuloye, and Caldwell 1997:1184)... ...Although it is true that several of the students did perceive that operations such as subincision constitute a form of mutilation, there was little sense that it was of a sexual nature. Indeed, what was striking was how willing students were to relegate such practices to the realm of “culture,” and how unwilling they were to place female surgeries in the same realm... ... Western treatments of male and female circumcision is alien to many Africans, who consider these operations to be fundamentally related in both their functions and effects. However, little attempt has been made to explore precisely why international opinion remains largely hostile to female genital cutting and indifferent to the male operations... ...Implicit within the WHO position is the assumption that such operations destroy female sexuality. This focus on sexual health becomes even more explicit in labels such as “sexual castration” (Badawi 1989; Hosken 1994:38) and “sexual blinding” (Walker 1992) that several writers have used to describe the procedures. Thus, although these organizations claim to be concerned about health generally, they are really concerned specifically with sexual health. This is because the detrimental long-term health consequences seem limited largely to in- fibulation (see Obermeyer 1999, 2003; Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000:14-18; Shweder 2000), which accounts for around only 15 percent of cases. Moreover, the short-term health effects can be minimized through the use of trained surgeons, sterile equipment, and anesthetics (i.e., the transfer of surgery to a medical setting). Yet, as Shell-Duncan, Obiero, and Muruli (2000:110) point out, “paradoxically, those who emphasize female ”circumcision’ as a public health issue at the same time oppose any medical intervention designed to minimize health risks and pain for women being cut.” Thus, the opposition of the World Health Organization (1997) and many other international agencies to the medicalization of female operations would reinforce the idea that their key opposition to female genital cutting relates specifically to its impact on female sexual health... ...what is interesting here is how irrelevant the issue of reduced sensation is for both the men who have this operation and their sexual partners. This poses a striking contrast to the dominant discourses surrounding female genital cutting, where the idea of a woman undergoing genital surgery to enhance her partner’s sexual pleasure (while concomitantly reducing her own level of sensation) strikes most observers as “barbaric” and misogynistic... ...It is clear that popular discourses on genital cutting are infused with cultural assumptions about male and female sexuality. Yet, these same discourses display a tendency to essentialize and universalize human sexuality in rather disturbing ways. As Fuambai Ahmadu (2000:284) notes, The aversion of some writers to the practice of female circumcision has more to do with deeply embedded Western cultural assumptions regarding women’s bodies and their sexuality than with disputable health effects of genital operations on African women. . . . One universalized assumption is that human bodies are “complete” and that sex is “given” at birth. A second assumption is that the clitoris represents an integral aspect of femininity and has a central erotic function in women’s sexuality.
Ahmadu argues that many women (herself included) who had sexual experiences prior to excision perceive either no difference or increased sexual satisfaction. She also points out that many Western women who have clitorises are unable to achieve orgasms. Similarly, Rogaia Abusharaf (2000:152) points out that Western women overemphasize the effects of female circumcision on sexual pleasure and that the specificity of African women’s experience is overlooked. Ellen Gruenbaum (2001:133-157) also questions the generalization that female sexual response is destroyed in circumcised women, pointing out that these perspectives are, in part, the result of ethnocentrism. Discussing her Sudanese experiences, she documents the changes in her own perceptions of female sexuality, as they were challenged over the course of her fieldwork. Gruenbaum (2001:140- 141) writes, I knew that men have orgasms (“finish”) in sex, but do women also? Yes, I was told, women “finish.” I wanted to ascertain that what they were talking about was a true orgasm and not some vague conceptualization by women who had never personally experienced them. I pressed for a clearer description. Somewhat exasperated that I didn’t seem to understand plain Arabic, a visiting midwife named Miriam grabbed by hand, squeezed by fingers, and said, “Look, Ellen, some of us do ”finish.’ It feels like electricity, like this,” and she flicked her finger sharply and rhythmically against my constricted fingers. Iwas convinced we were talking about the same thing.31 Vicki Kirby (1987:44), in an early article on female circumcision, cuts to the heart of the problem with applying Western understandings of sexuality to other cultural contexts. She writes, Although a whole battery of disciplinary practices (medical, pedagogical, familial, architectural, etc.) have produced what we take to be this essence of our personhood, we have reclaimed this cultural effect as a biological fact. Consequently, what has come to secure the “truth” of Western bodies becomes problematic when it is used as a universal, explanatory grid: the pleasures and desires of a body situated in other histories and other cultures, may not be so readily comprehended. Obermeyer (1999:95) concurs, pointing out that while studies that systematically investigate the effects of genital cutting on female sexuality are rare, the available evidence raises important questions about whether the link between an intact clitoris and orgasm represents an indisputable physiological reality... ...despite the heterogeneous voices speaking on this topic, I believe that many of these perspectives share common reductionist tendencies. Therefore, I think that policy makers err in assuming that their readiness to condemn female circumcision and condone male circumcision stems merely from the natural attributes and effects of these practices. Medical and commonsense constructions of the human body are not divorced from cultural beliefs and values, and such assumptions about the nature of the male and female body need to be critically interrogated in all of their complexity. It is my view that genital operations become tied into much larger discourses about the nature of sexuality. As I have shown, in the context of genital cutting, assumptions are regularly invoked that are readily challenged elsewhere. These assumptions include the idea that the male body provides the basis for understanding the female body; that men are ruled by their penises and that females are sexually passive; and that human sexuality is reducible to anatomy and physiology. Unsurprisingly, this framework results in a widespread inability to conceptualize male circumcision as anything other than beneficial and a similar inability to conceptualize female circumcision as anything other than a form of sexual mutilation tied directly to patriarchal domination. However, I suggest that the terms under which female circumcision is presently condemned by international agencies such as the World Health Organization deserve close scrutiny. Sorry for the length, but I thought the nature of the review supported its length for accuracy. I hope people will read the full paper.
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
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
ahem... armchairing
Well well well... Sorry to say that I use Merriam-Webster...
armchair Function:adjective Date:1858 1 : remote from direct dealing with problems : theoretical rather than practical 2 : sharing vicariously in another's experiences
We are all dealing with these topics theoretically. I realize it can be used purely derogatorily, but if you couldn't figure out I was riffing on your insult.
Where oh where, in your fevered imagination, have you found an appeal to authority in your hypothetical?
If someone says that because a world body had agreed to what I outlined, that it meant Jesus WAS our savior, needed to be brought back, etc... I thought that was pretty simple.
In case you have forgotten: What evidence have you that the OAU was coerced into signing the various UN human rights resolutions?
Are you hard of reading? I stated in that post that I was totally willing to say for sake of argument, that there wasn't any. It makes no difference to the ethical/political debate at hand. However, if you happen to be interested in how ununiform human rights are considered/treated by OAU, check into the history of their court on human rights and the impediments to its implementation. As far as I am concerned this is wayyyyyy off topic, and a subject I am not particularly intersted in... Hence I'm totally willing to give you that there isn't any.
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 139 by molbiogirl, posted 11-23-2007 11:39 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: 2... Multi v Mono culture (to molbio)
Show me where I claimed FGM is "merely" an instrument of domination.
Well earlier you said this...
So. FGM is intended to control women. And I do not remember you ever discussing any other cultural reason for it. Perhaps you can cite where you discuss its other merits within that culture?
I haven't any idea what YOU meant by destroy. It's from your OP! The first sentence, for pete's sake:
Can't you tell the difference between saying cultural diversity will be destroyed and a statement that a culture has been destroyed? I said the former, you asked the latter. (AbE)And by the way, I was punking on your question itself, NOT saying you were claiming cultures could be destroyed. It was to insinuate you were asking a question you knew would be unanswerable. My original edition even had something like "You know and I know...", but I chopped the section out to save space. I thought it was clear enough.
Show me where I said "removing one piece" of a culture would "destroy" it?
You asked my how ending FGM would destroy a culture. That is ONE piece is it not? And that is NOT synonymous with my saying destruction of cultural diversity.
Whodathunkit? Anthropologists don't use that term, it seems. Look. H. You need to show me that "monoculture" exists. Not that some wingnut thought it up.
I just gave you a link to its usage. That it is not used by any specific scientific group does not make it unreal. Did you have a hard time understanding it? Oh and nice dodge on all the rest of the things you dismissed like nations and cultures. But hey, take a look at where else I found monoculture...
Main Entry: monoculture
Function:noun
Date:1915
1 : the cultivation or growth of a single crop or organism especially on agricultural or forest land 2 : a crop or a population of a single kind of organism grown on land in monoculture 3 : a culture dominated by a single element : a prevailing culture marked by homogeneity
But you know old Webster... what a wingnut! Edited by Silent H, : took, take Edited by Silent H, : clarification.
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
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
armchair, again...
um. no. try again. if you choose to post from ignorance, that's your prerogative. but do not accuse the rest of us of your sin.
You know all I was doing was riffing on an insult. Ugh, last time I do that. Anyway, to armchair does not mean inherently to do something from ignorance, it means from a purely theoretical standpoint. It means you are not right where something is going on where the understanding might change. In this context, none of us are rushing off into the field to study the exact things we have under discussion. And I caveated my statement with "as far as I understand". Maybe someone is.
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
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: 2... Multi v Mono culture (to molbio)
Actually, let me hit you a bit harder. After all of your disingenuous behavior (and I think I feel safe in characterizing it as such) I decided to go ahead and test your claims on not finding anything about monoculture in science literature. I started with PubMed. The word itself came up with only biological stuff. But did you think to use its other forms? I tried "monocultural" and got 21 hits that are a mix of socio and bio articles. Here is 1 example... Ethnic identity and acculturation in Hispanic early adolescents: Mediated relationships to academic grades, prosocial behaviors, and externalizing symptoms. Schwartz SJ, Zamboanga BL, Jarvis LH. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2007 Oct;13(4):364-73.Click here to read Links
This study examined acculturative stress and self-esteem as mediators of the association of ethnic identity and acculturation with psychosocial outcomes. The study sample consisted of 347 Hispanic adolescents in a "new" immigrant-receiving community in the Midwest. The authors expected acculturation to influence psychosocial adjustment through acculturative stress and ethnic identity to influence psychosocial adjustment through self-esteem. Results indicated that relationships of ethnic identity to academic grades and to externalizing symptoms were mediated by self-esteem and that both U.S. and Hispanic acculturation orientations were directly associated with prosocial behavior. The relationships of U.S. cultural orientation to academic grades and to behavior problems were mediated through acculturative stress and self-esteem. Implications of these findings for the study of Hispanics in more monocultural receiving communities are discussed. Here is another... Some effects of bicultural and monocultural school environments on personality development. Goebes DD, Shore MF. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1978 Jul;48(3):398-407.Links
Preadolescent girls in a bicultural school, compared with those in a monocultural school, showed more heterocultural peer-group organization, better self-image, and greater acceptance of an unknown cultural group. These differences were not found among younger (latency-age) children in the two schools. No significant differences were found in role-taking ability between girls in the two schools, suggesting that the bicultural school environment contributes to the difference in the other personality dimensions studied. Do I need to continue, or are these wingnuts too? I think I deserve an apology for the "not talking out your ass" claim. The stench is getting pretty thick.
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
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
|
|
Message 149 of 270 (435994)
11-24-2007 1:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by crashfrog
11-24-2007 12:58 AM
|
|
Re: Holmes-ese
I think I'll break my silence to deal with this as its a discussion of insults. The use of the term "armchair" does not have to mean lack of practical experience at all. It can mean that one is safely speaking from a point where it is easy to criticize. Like say, outside the ballpark where one is not playing second by second under the roar of the crowd (like the actual QB is), or facing the guns (and other conditions) of battle. Thus a guy who played football all high school, and so knows the game, can grow up to be the 45 yo Armchair Quarterback saying how easy it would have been for him to have made the right play. So can a general, criticize another fighting a fierce campaign, while safe in his drawing room hundreds of miles away.
you don't possess the requisite skills in English to properly use idioms;
Perhaps I don't. I stated accurately how I was using it.
or you have absolutely no problem insulting your interlocutors and then hiding behind disingenuous "explanations" of how your insults weren't really meant to be insulting.
Clue to guy with reading problem... I was called an armchair anthropologist, not the other way around. I took her to mean not doing any practical research, or criticizing from a distance, not that I was talking from a position of ignorance. It was after her insult that I said we all are armchairing it at EvC... that implicates myself as well. Why would I insult myself? But hey, given what Molbio just said, I guess you are right... that is what SHE meant. What a shame. Happy Thanksgiving. Edited by Silent H, : for play
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2007 12:58 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Just to let you know I said I'd try to make it simple, because it is complex and I felt my own wording would get confusing.
the entire purpose of international organization is to build international standards of behavior. read a book or two.
Yes... inter-national behavior, not intra-national.
because of the increase communication, there is a singular international culture. there really is. what you don't seem to get is that there are lots of "cultures" and they intertwine and overlap and diverge all over the place. the culture of the international system is continually developing and standards are changing and strengthening. one of those normative standards is that you don't interfere with national sovereignty. another is that you keep your word. these sound like very simple, obvious things, but they're the very heart of normative standards.
Actually I do get what you mean by this. But where I disagree is that any international agreements, particularly with regard to cultural concepts, have any weight or meaning as far as whether there is an international norm for all people.
you misunderstood. norms form on their own. they really, really do. the un is a facility. it helps build norms by increasing communication and the freedom to do it. then, the codify some of the norms that are developed.
Yes, I misunderstood that. And I still feel confused whether you mean norms between the diplomats and nations, or the cultures within the nations based on agreements between the diplomats/leaders of a nation. By the way I still recommend the last link I gave on FGM. You don't even have to argue about it. Its an interesting way to check your own concepts on the topic. And you might enjoy the author's history of how clits were viewed with regard to female sexuality over the years, not to mention always viewed in comparison to male sexuality rather than as having one in their own right. I think its a rich piece of work and hits several topics besides just whether the two are equatable.
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
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: Holmes-ese
My example was of people that could be qualified to be on the field, just that they aren't so they have no right to criticize those who are. If you mean difference in immediate visceral/physical experience, then you have a point. Intellectual or educational experience, you would not. Not to claim people CAN'T mean it that way (speaking from ignorance). Just that I wasn't taking her comment that way, and neither did I mean it that way. I mean that doesn't even make sense if you look at what I said when I used that term in one of my other posts (in reference to myself). Yeah, actually READ my posts. But anyway, here I am admitting if my interpretation is wayyyyy off, then I didn't understand the idiom. That's okay given how many people screw up "the proof of the pudding" or "look a gifthorse in the mouth". In any case, you just came on to criticize me for insulting someone and trying to get away with it. Clearly I wasn't as I was including myself. If you have a problem with insults then criticize molbio. (AbE)BTW, I was not claiming that molbio didn't know the meaning, or that she was trying to claim anything other than it being an insult. I was only claiming that I didn't realize that's what she meant (speaking from ignorance) until she said so... and then brenna... and you.
Many of us, in fact, are practicing professionals in the fields on which we're commenting.
Uh, anthropology? And I have admitted quite plainly that I'm not an expert on the subject of FGM, nor a professional anthropologist. So much for your theory.
"feminist doctrinal analysis"
She was using a feminist critique interpreting FGM and not an anthropological one. Did you read the anthropologist's paper I linked to? Compare her comments to molbio's.
Nonetheless I'm somewhat puzzled by your "silence."
I started this thread before I became embroiled in your insults in another thread. In that thread I asked you if we could engage in civil debate. Your answer was an unqualified no. That was the end for us. Now this is. Edited by Silent H, : clarity btw Edited by Silent H, : more
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2007 1:58 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: 2... Multi v Mono culture (to molbio)
I'm lumping your two responses to #2 in this post... If all you say in a thread is that FGM is used to control women, and nothing else, and I cannot read your mind, then all you have PRESENTED is a feminist doctrinal analysis. I'm sorry but that is a fact. You may think all sorts of different things, but I can only go by what you present. In addition you used the word "barbaric" which is a common feminist usage for such practices and generally not an anthro one... at least not the stuff I had been taught. Intriguingly it was the act of NOT sticking words in your mouth, which resulted in my interpretation of the presentation you've given about FGM. Perhaps you'd like to explain what your actual position is now to avoid confusion. And finally on this point the charge was "reduction to", which does not mean "ONLY", the former means that the others are superfluous or inconsequential to the one.
You can read my mind.
Well maybe I can after all. First you criticize me for claiming you said something, which you then make clear never believed. Then I point out that's actually what I thought... you didn't believe it... which must mean you were asking a question which was pointless. So what is it, did you think cultures can be destroyed? If so, how? And if you think they can't, then my insinuation was right.
Anthropologists don't use the concept of "monoculture".
First, I never claimed that anthropologists use that term. I was claiming that it seemed ridiculous an anthropologist couldn't understand what the term meant or how it was being used. And as it is I showed that it was being used in the social sciences. This gets into your second post. Those articles are using it exactly how I used it. If you don't get that, then you are the one having a reading comprehension issue. I did not say that monoculture means American culture, and I don't even know where you got that idea. America can introduce monoculturalism, but as yet it hasn't. The link I gave explained all this. Now, since it IS in the dictionary, and it IS used in Social science journal articles, in the way I used it... its time to stop this game. Indeed...
We focused on a midsized Midwestern community rather than a traditional gateway community such as Miami, New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles to further enrich our understanding of receiving contexts and their relevance to acculturation and ethnic identity. Recent census data indicate that more and more Hispanics have been immigrating to nontraditional destinations that were previously not home to large immigrant communities (Marotta & García, 2003). Acculturative stress may play a prominent role in a community that is not accustomed to receiving immigrants and in which relatively few supports are available for them (cf. Amason, Allen, & Holmes, 1999). Moreover, in more monocultural communities, acculturative stress may be important for second- and third-generation immigrants, especially those from visible minority groups and whose names or customs may identify them as belonging to a minority group (cf. Lara, Gamboa, Kahramanian, Morales, & Bautista, 2005).
This is an examination of the effects of mechanisms used by monocultural communities to alter those from different cultures. Really, it is beyond me that you can pretend that cite in particular goes against my usage of the term. If anything it relates directly to the thread's topic (though on a nationally internal scale). And to conclude... if you actually read the original link I gave you will find that America is currently multicutural. I have NEVER claimed otherwise. The point is that there is a movement toward monoculturalism. Some nations have already switched their state's policies to monoculturalistic ones. Which means enacting laws and measures to maintain the dominance of the majority culture. Ironically the NATIONAL culture, which you previously claimed did not make sense, and now have let slide away... I'm tired of playing these games. The definition appears to be clear to you now, even if under pretense of telling me what it means. Now go back and figure out what this thread is about.
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
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: My mouth is getting awfully full (I can just imagine)...
Whoops I missed this one.
Therefore, by having the temerity to mention anthropological facts, I am somehow using a "feminist critique"?
Stating a fact ≠ a critique.
Much less a "feminist" critique. Correct me if I am wrong but you ARE criticizing FGM, right? And you are using one the main feminist critique of it, are you not? And as for mentioning anthropological FACTS, take a look at those lists you JUST provided. Where were they before? All you ever said up till now is ONE FACT... it's used to control women. Thus you reduced FGM to one issue... which is all I said... and that is the method of feminist criticism. Do you want me replay where that FACT was stated again, in your own words? It sure looked like a criticism to me. Edited by Silent H, : c s
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
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: 3... FGM (to molbio ... and others interested in MGM)
You cannot judge an entire paper from its abstract. If that were the case, then one wouldn't need to write the damn paper, now would one?
You are absolutely right... you can't judge a paper from just its abstract. Isn't that what I was complaining about FIRST? But that is all you presented to me. Now answer the question, were those abstracts you posted meant to convince me or not? You said its SOOL for me if I don't have access to the originals, but actually that's SOOL for you. In this area we only have what we present. And I do find it funny that when YOU can't get access to something, its a mark against me as well.
As with any research, one goes with the scientific consensus. And the scientific consensus is, FGM destroys a woman's sexual response.
Actually that isn't true. One goes with the analysis of evidence, even if it is counter to current consensus. Otherwise science would never make progress. Also, you have not shown that there is a consensus at all. I pulled quotes from your own cites suggesting as much. The more current papers are certainly suggesting otherwise.
And other researchers in this area are aware of Klein's findings. And they find them no more credible than I do.
I already said that it had methodological flaws. That does not make all of its findings incorrect nor able to pull into question the methodology and results of other studies. As it is other researchers have quoted her work. Bell's paper which I just cited, referenced her work and she is an anthropologist publishing in an anthro journal. Heck, Klein's paper (I believe the link I gave) is to an anti-FGM site which is putting it out there as a contrasting point of view, not a bullshit one. Your tendency to use personal attacks as an argument, is simply not convincing. And while I will not dispute your claim to have gathered and read all these things, I have to wonder why you fail to answer my questions about them. Certainly THAT isn't in violation of copyright laws.
Wrong. The WHO made mention of Klein's paper. As they should.
The WHO knows Klein's paper is bullshit. Which is why the WHO's conclusion remains: The MAJORITY of the research shows most mutilated women have been robbed of sexual response.
I can't believe you just tried to dodge the quote-mining charge by rewriting it as an issue about Klein (it had nothing to do with her) and providing more misinformation. Here is the Link you provided. 1) Contrary to your claim above, the WHO actually USES Klein's paper to support their position. It is the first citation they give and it is her quantitative estimate of women needing cutting before first intercourse. That is not denouncing it as BS... again you're the one stinkin' up the place. 2) As I stated in my previous post, this link is to a statement made in 1997. You cannot claim papers with contrary evidence made AFTER 1997 are indicated as "outliers" based on statements in that document. The nature of science is accumulating data and consensus can change over time based on newer and better info... 3) While they do say a majority of studies (AS OF 1997!!!) indicate sexual enjoyment of women is negatively effected, that is not a claim about ability to have orgasms, it is not indicative of how much a majority, nor whether there are differences which might effect reliability beyond sheer numbers, and lastly... the whole subject is caveated! That is something you circumcised from the paper, and it is unethical to do that. The word "however" means something, and what they went on to say opens the door for exactly the kind of articles I mentioned. I want to repeat that section for everyone's edification...
Genital mutilation can make first intercourse an ordeal for women. It can be extremely painful, and even dangerous, if the woman has to be cut open; for some women, intercourse remains painful. Even where this is not the case, the importance of the clitoris in experiencing sexual pleasure and orgasm suggests that mutilation involving partial or complete clitoridectomy would adversely affect sexual fulfilment. Clinical considerations and the majority of studies on women's enjoyment of sex suggest that genital mutilation does impair a women's enjoyment. However, one study found that 90% of the infibulated women interviewed reported experiencing orgasm.[2] The mechanisms involved in sexual enjoyment and orgasm are still not fully understood, but it is thought that compensatory processes, some of them psychological, may mitigate some of the effects of removal of the clitoris and other sensitive parts of the genitals. The yellow parts indicate the section you cleaved off. That section puts a totally different spin on what conclusion they are making. And that is to ignore the fact that they cannot comment on FUTURE STUDIES.
That bumps you from 2 outliers to 3. Hardly impressive.
Actually that's QUITE IMPRESSIVE to me. Perhaps you can tell me where WHO got their time machine so as to be able to judge all papers across time on the subject. As it stands, even the claim "majority" does not make all others "outliers". That has a totally different connotation which you've never brought evidence to prove (even on past studies).
The VAST MAJORITY of the research supports my contention that FGM destroys sexual response for MOST mutilated women.
And then where does THAT come from? So by majority they meant VAST? Isn't that one of the questions I posed? How do you know this? On Bell's paper, it was meant to show the diversity of evidence and opinion regarding GM and its sexual effects. I did not offer it as solving the issue. In fact I thought I said otherwise. There is a lot of conflicting info. However, it can be said that more recent papers (particularly post 1997) have questioned the inherent physical risks, as well as effects on female sexuality.
I read both those papers for my previous FGM post. And Obermeyer says NOTHING about 15% of FGMs being infibulation (aka type III).
No, actually that might not be from Obermeyer. In fact that comes from your cited WHO/Amnesty source that I linked to above. Raising the question yet again in my mind what your reading comprehension skills are.
And there's that 15%! again! Funny. It has nothing to do with the # of women who have had their clits hacked off. The clitoris (its removal and its role in orgasm) is what we are discussing.
Again with the reading comprehension skills. Since Bell didn't say the 15% had to do with clits getting chopped off, and clearly stated (in the quote you provided nonetheless) that it was about rates of infibulation... this seems like a manufactured issue on your part. That section of Bell's paper was not about sexual effects, that was about health effects. You might have noted that the quotes were not all about clits and orgasms.
That remains to be seen, now, doesn't it? As no MD will perform the operation. Seeing as how they took that silly oath and all.
First of all it has been seen. Second of all, that kind of attitude is the exact focus of Bell's criticism. It's extremely hypocritical to state some practice is bad because it has inherent health risks under any circumstance, and then refuse to allow a change in circumstances!
The MAJORITY of mutilated women have little to no sexual response. The MAJORITY of mutilated women suffer adverse health consequences.You have presented NO evidence that the MAJORITY of the scientific research supports these conclusions.
You have presented no evidence of the above... unless you are discussing older and quote-mined papers. I have no idea what you've read in your spare time, I can only speak to what you've presented. If mine were lacking, so much more were yours (since they were invariably older and less described). However, it does seem we can agree that evidence suggests some women do have the capability of achieving orgasm, even after infibulation.
Does a woman have the human right to bodily integrity?
This pretty much gets at the proposed subject of this thread. Though tightly narrowed. If you are asking me... the answer is not inherently, no. No one has inherent rights at all. Do women have such rights in western nations, generally yes. Outside of western nations, sometimes yes. Must the others change? I don't think so, no. Different cultures have different ways of viewing the world. Some do not involve individuals as the focus of life, but rather communities, or codes of conduct. These are valid concepts, even if coming to vastly different conclusions vs what we call human rights. Further, you did not mention that this is about parental rights. Do children have a right to bodily integrity, even in the west? The answer is no, except in very specific cases which are usually inconsistent. The concept of children's rights are a patchwork quilt of supporting ethnocentric concepts.
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
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: 2... Multi v Mono culture (to molbio)
Women who practice FGM self-report that it is to control the sexual appetite of women. Are they using a feminist analysis as well?
No. They aren't presenting it as a critique. Further, there are usually more concepts stated around it than that. No matter how much you want to twist and turn, you did not present some anthropological assessment of FGM in this thread. You came in with a critique and used control of women as its negative qualifier. As I said you also used the word barbaric. What you presented was a feminist critique. I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this.
The papers which you cite do not use "monocultural" to mean "the averaging of cultures". In both the cites you provided, "monocultural" is used to mean "majority group".
Man you have zero reading comprehension skills. MONO=single. Single culture. That would be the definition of a community with a single dominant culture. A majority culture attempting to keep its status using laws and measures would be enforcing a monoculture. But force is not requisite for a monoculture to exist. And a person belonging to more than one culture, might be called bicultural, or multicultural. Those quotes you cited from my posts fit with that just fine, unless you simply want to read them some other way. That last quote is the only one which might (I suppose) be written in a way that could be misread... If I hadn't given all the other supporting commentary. It was not the "averaging of cultures" which I defined as monoculture. I guess I'd call that monoculturalization. In any case it was the "common norm" in that same sentence which I was defining as a monoculture. And the articles I cited were not only using it as majority group, they also used it as more than one. You know there were more articles out there, do you need me to get them? Even if I was coining the term, which I'm not, how hard is it for you to figure out what I am saying?
Majority groups are composed of subcultures.
Yes majority groups are composed of subcultures, I have said as much. That does not change the fact that communities tend to have some common culture which can be defined as the majority culture. I suppose one could call this the majority subculture? And nations may try to institute monocultural practices to reduce subcultural variation or public practices. Your psych did not conflict with my position at all.
Your idiosyncratic definition is useless as it has no basis in reality.
First of all anyone can make a new word and define it for sake of argument. If you cannot follow its meaning because it is new or not used in science, then you have a big problem. Second, it clearly is useful as I presented a whole wiki page that used it to discuss issues. Are you claiming that you didn't understand what they meant? Plus, I have just pointed to articles which have used it in the fashion I did... and which you originally claimed didn't exist at all. If you can't figure out we (that's me and all the cites) are using it in the same way, then YOU are the one who is having a problem, not me. Edited by Silent H, : nip/tuck Edited by Silent H, : tuck
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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 3:52 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 3. (Aug., 1997), pp. 405-438.
Sounds great. So? How does this alter what you were saying, and why you were presenting it the way you were? I didn't claim an anthropologist wouldn't say that FGM is used (to whatever degree) to control women. The point is YOU never said ANYTHING ELSE, and in a context of criticizing the practice. That means you reduced it to that issue in order to criticize it. Find an anthropologist calling it barbaric as part of their analysis... and I don't mean citing someone else saying it. Sheesh. Edited by Silent H, : to you
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
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: 3... FGM (to molbio ... and others interested in MGM)
780 v. 3. I would call that vast. And that's 11 years old.
Where is the evidence for this figure, and what are the details of these studies? And by 3 I have the idea you are referring to the 3 I've cited?
Methodological flaw = incorrect, by definition.
You say the above, and yet...
Not re: sexual pleasure they don't.
So then you agree that just because there are methodological flaws does NOT mean that all its findings are incorrect. After all Klein is flawed and yet WHO does accept her findings. BTW your initial claim is that they said her study was BS. And I am correct that their conclusion regarding what the majority of studies had said (in 1997) did not refer exclusively to orgasm. Once again you quote mine...
Genital mutilation can make first intercourse an ordeal for women. It can be extremely painful, and even dangerous, if the woman has to be cut open; for some women, intercourse remains painful. Even where this is not the case, the importance of the clitoris in experiencing sexual pleasure and orgasm suggests that mutilation involving partial or complete clitoridectomy would adversely affect sexual fulfilment. Clinical considerations and the majority of studies on women's enjoyment of sex suggest that genital mutilation does impair a women's enjoyment. However, one study found that 90% of the infibulated women interviewed reported experiencing orgasm.[2] The mechanisms involved in sexual enjoyment and orgasm are still not fully understood, but it is thought that compensatory processes, some of them psychological, may mitigate some of the effects of removal of the clitoris and other sensitive parts of the genitals.
The above part in yellow is all you quoted. The full sentence is a description of why it is intuitive that removal of the clitoris would effect sexual pleasure and orgasm. The following discussion of the studies restricts commentary to enjoyment and does not indicate whether that includes ability to have orgasms. What's more you continue to ignore the fact that you quote mined that section to make its conclusion appear to support your position. And now you try to accuse me of quote mining by saying...
Here's the quote you pulled from the abstract.
I didn't pull anything from the abstract. I have the whole thing right there. I emphasized one area, but the whole thing is there to read. And what you did read you still could not comprehend...
An STD is not an indicator of sexual response.
Right, they didn't say that. Their point is that it could be an indicator of how cutting could effect sexual response.
520 papers published since 1997. 1 paper that supports your contention.
I'm sorry I must have missed all those citations you gave. Mind listing them again, including their methods? Just because there are 520 does not mean they are all negative. What's more the number of studies does not inherently mean anything (even if all negative). Where were they conducted, who was it on, how was it done, what degree of negativity, regarding what kind of FGM, regarding what topic of female life? And such a majority doesn't argue for consensus on a topic either. That's a total shysters trick. You really have a lame grasp of how science actually works.
Ms. Bell is specifically referring to the "complications" of "sexual health" (aka sexual response). And she is full of shit.
No. She is NOT discussing sexual health with the 15% statistic. Read the quote again (and it would further help if you had the whole section)...
Thus, although these organizations claim to be concerned about health generally, they are really concerned specifically with sexual health. This is because the detrimental long-term health consequences seem limited largely to infibulation (see Obermeyer 1999, 2003; Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000:14-18; Shweder 2000), which accounts for around only 15 percent of cases. Bell in the above is making the point that while orgs like the WHO are claiming to be concerned about health consequences they are really only concerned with sex... and then she sets out her reason: general health effects are largely limited to infibulation which is only 15% of the cases... whereas orgs like WHO are against all FGMs? Get it?
Well. I'm glad you finally said it. No one has inherent rights of any sort. Care to back that up?
Finally said it? I thought that was obvious from my OP! And I might point out it is the people claiming a positive that have to do the proving. Are there inherent rights of any sort? Where? How do you know they are inherent? If you would like to know my skeptical position on this is that, like God, or absolute moralities, I've never seen such a thing and there is no logical basis for such a claim. That others have many different conflicting views, serves as evidence that these are not inherent. Individual rights are what we take for ourselves, if we want them.
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
|
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: 12-11-2002
|
Re: Anthropology and Human Rights
Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.
Right, but that still doesn't change anything. I was discussing what you advanced here at EvC. Prove me wrong. Your quote showing an anthropologist discussing Type 3 being mainly used to control women STILL does not change what you wrote here at EvC. I have already said that was not a problem.
Rather like your imaginary “monoculture”, eh?
What is an imaginary monoculture? I showed you people using the term, rather extensively in fact. It does not even mean complete homogeneity which is what you seem to be insinuating here. Did you even read the Wiki description of it? Look, if you don't get what that word means, and that people are using it... in fact, if you are telling me you can't understand what is being said at that Wiki page (much less the articles), then there isn't a point in continuing conversation. Really, this is pretty immature behavior on your part. That said...
It’s perfectly clear that anthropologists see a connection between their ethnographic work and human rights.
I am going to be looking into this more deeply. As I said I was going through anthro a long time ago... certainly before the 90s. It appears some things HAVE changed, and from what I am reading (if this single person's view is the mainstream) this is troubling. That is a complete loss of scientific perspective. Then again, I guess it shouldn't be surprising since American Psychiatric orgs have been doing the same thing recently. Renouncing objectivity for social relevance. While this supports an idea that political analysis is now being allowed greater freedom within anthro, that would not argue that it has any scientific merit. I suppose I should be grateful the author only mentions an American org. But more importantly, it still doesn't change what you presented at EvC. I don't know what your intentions were, but all you provided was a reductionist explanation tied to a criticism. That's all you did and no amount of presenting other material is going to change what you presented.
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
|
™ Version 4.2