Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 151 of 270 (435998)
11-24-2007 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by macaroniandcheese
11-23-2007 11:45 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-23-2007 11:45 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 1:22 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 152 of 270 (436002)
11-24-2007 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by crashfrog
11-24-2007 1:58 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by crashfrog, posted 11-24-2007 2:46 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 160 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 4:04 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 153 of 270 (436005)
11-24-2007 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Silent H
11-24-2007 2:22 AM


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.
Wow. Congratulations on explaining something that was both completely obvious and completely irrelevant. You must really think we're morons.
I've explained, twice now, why your examples aren't really examples of the phraseology being discussed. Your response, I see, continues to be none at all.
Just that I wasn't taking her comment that way, and neither did I mean it that way.
Like I said - either this means you're an extremely poor speaker of English, or you're simply extremely disingenuous. While you may be content to write your posts in Holmes-ese, the rest of us are continuing to read and write in English. Perhaps you'd care to do the same?
In any case, you just came on to criticize me for insulting someone and trying to get away with it.
No. I came on to criticize you for insulting someone without having the courage to admit what you were doing. Insult all you like; I hardly expect you to stop simply because any of us ask you to. If there's one thing you've proven in the past week it's that you're absolutely incorrigible.
Just, don't name-call and then pretend like it's all "jokes", and that we're all just a bunch of soreheads with no sense of humor who simply can't appreciate your comedic stylings. Piss on our legs if you want; just don't tell us its raining.
It's the disingenuity and dishonesty we continue to object to.
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.
Ah, so you've slipped right back into your old habits of offering bald falsehoods about me.
No, I didn't say "no." I said "just as soon as you start acting civilly, Holmes." As we can all see, you've chosen not to do so, but that was your decision, not mine. I was perfectly willing to engage you civilly - as I did - provided you behaved in kind. Indeed it seems I've continued to do so, even after being subject to your relentless dishonesty.
That you interpreted my answer as "no" is simply your admission that it was a foregone conclusion that you would behave as disingenuously now as you have in the past. Gosh, and for a minute there I honestly believed you were here to change. How disappointing you continue to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 2:22 AM Silent H has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 154 of 270 (436006)
11-24-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Silent H
11-24-2007 12:13 AM


Re: 3... FGM (to molbio ... and others interested in MGM)
One would think an anthropologist would have found that interesting and plausible...
One would think that an anthropologist would be able to see thru obvious bullshit at a glance.
And she did.
I gave no more thought to Klein's unmitigated bullshit than a biologist would give to "creation science".
From what I could see...
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?
Did you not offer citations which were merely abstracts?
Two things.
One. I read the papers I cited. I cannot, in good faith, cut and paste entire papers here. They are copyrighted.
Two. I quoted relevant sections of the papers I cited, not just the abstracts.
My question to you... now what?
As with any research, one goes with the scientific consensus.
And the scientific consensus is, FGM destroys a woman's sexual response.
Am I supposed to ignore why you handwaved away my cite...
Do evolutionary biologists toss the ToE when one paper presents problematic findings?
No.
One reads the paper, pulls it apart.
If the methodology and data and analyses stand up to scrutiny, one tries to replicate the results.
And other researchers in this area are aware of Klein's findings.
And they find them no more credible than I do.
I am relying on the scientific consensus, as well as my own reading of original research that I find credible.
The second quote you referenced as coming from Hosken, F. (1993).
That is correct. Hosken cited another paper. Those wacky scientists. Go figure!
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".
I worked on finding and reading papers for over 3 hours. I drew my conclusions from that research. And yes, the papers you cited are outliers.
(Re: WHO site) That means their actual conclusion was NOT what you made it out to be.
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.
As for the remainder of your pathetic attempt to bolster your position ... you can't read any of the papers you are criticizing. Therefore, you are in no position whatsoever to judge their merits.
Now. About this paper: Okonofu FE, Larsen U, Oronsaye F, Snow RC, Slanger TE. BJOG (2002 or 3).
Frequency of self-reported orgasm achieved during sexual intercourse and symptoms of reproductive tract infections ... Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings.
You will notice that there is no data in the abstract to support the conclusion.
Which is Reason Numero Uno that one must read a paper, yes?
Rather than point out the obvious (you can't read the paper and thus are in no position to use it to as evidence) let's, for the sake of argument, assume that both this paper and the two you cited in the earlier post are absolutely stellar. Methodologically sound, exquisitely analyzed, the whole nine yards (even tho we know Klein's is bullshit).
The fact remains:
The VAST MAJORITY of the research supports my contention that FGM destroys sexual response for MOST mutilated women.
Therefore, at best, there are 3 papers that support your idea that the MAJORITY of mutilated women retain sexual response.
That bumps you from 2 outliers to 3.
Hardly impressive.
As to your final cite, Ms. Bell's work. Ms. Bell doesn't deal empirically with the issue of sexual response at all. She simply acknowledges that the research is out there (that the majority of mutilated women are unable to climax) and then cites 2 anecdotes (Ahmadu, Gruenbaum) as evidence to the contrary.
In fact, the majority of her paper is a rather tedious feminist pomo analysis of "Western v. Non-western ideas about gender and sexual response". And, as such, Ms. Bell's paper is irrelevant to a discussion of whether or not a mutilated woman is able to climax.
We are not debating Western v. Non-western ideas about sexual response.
We are debating physiological facts about sexual response: orgasm or no orgasm?
I do have a couple of bones to pick with Ms. Bell, tho.
Bell writes:
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.
Funny that she should mention Obermeyer. I read both those papers for my previous FGM post. And Obermeyer says NOTHING about 15% of FGMs being infibulation (aka type III).
I just pulled both Obermeyer papers up again.
The first is a literature review. The second is her response to criticisms that were made of the first paper.
NOTHING about 15%.
Shweder's paper hasn't any data in it either. It's just a response to Obermeyer's paper.
I can't read the Shell-Duncan cite. It's a book available only as a limited preview on books.google.
I found figures much, much higher than 15%.
We apologize for the inconvenience... - United States Department of State
Practice:
Type I (commonly referred to as clitoridectomy), Type II (commonly referred to as excision) and Type III (commonly referred to as infibulation) are the forms of female genital mutilation (FGM) or female genital cutting (FGC) practiced to varying degrees in Kenya. Type I and Type II are the most common. Type III is found in the far eastern areas bordering Somalia. Studies indicate it is practiced mostly in rural areas, especially among those that have lower educational levels and/or subscribe to non-Christian faiths. It is, however, also practiced by some Christians and was practiced by Ethiopian Jews, who now live in Israel.
Types I and II are most common.
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions
A clitoridectomy removes the entire clitoris and some or all of the surrounding tissue; this procedure occurs in approximately 80% of cases. The most extreme form of genital mutilation is excision and infibulation, in which the clitoris and all of the surround tissue are cut away and the remaining skin is sewn together. Only a small opening is left for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. Infibulation accounts for approximately 15% of FGM procedures.
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.
Bell writes:
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).
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.
Bell writes:
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...
There's no question that SOME women retain the ability to climax. After all, most of the physiological structure that is the clit is buried deep in a woman's pelvis. (The 2 spongy bodies responsible for a penile erection--they are in the shaft--are analogous to 2 spongy bodies of the clit that are inside a woman--they are parallel to the anterior vaginal wall).
The fact remains:
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.
So.
The only question on the table is this:
Does a woman have the human right to bodily integrity?
(For clarification: throughout this post, by "sexual response" I mean orgasm.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 12:13 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 4:18 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 155 of 270 (436007)
11-24-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by macaroniandcheese
11-23-2007 9:47 AM


brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
it's not common if less than 1% of people suffer from it.
Why does it matter? Since so many men go through it, it is common enough.
quote:
death is very rare.
Did you or did you not say:
it's not that men survive the procedure.
Well, which is it? Are you basing your argument on the fact that men survive the procedure or are you not?
If we medicalize FGM the way we medicalize other gential surgeries, would that make it OK?
And if not, why does that make MGM OK? And if not, then how does MGM differ?
And by the way...it isn't as rare as you make it out to be.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-23-2007 9:47 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 1:37 PM Rrhain has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 156 of 270 (436008)
11-24-2007 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Silent H
11-24-2007 12:43 AM


Re: 2... Multi v Mono culture (to molbio)
Well earlier you said this...
So. FGM is intended to control women.
I did not say: FGM is ONLY 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?
Oh. I see.
If I state a fact (FGM is used to control women), then I also need to state every other reason FGM is used in order to prevent you from sticking words in my mouth.
I'll remember that in the future.
It was to insinuate you were asking a question you knew would be unanswerable.
Oh. I see.
You can read my mind.
I just gave you a link to its usage. That it is not used by any specific scientific group does not make it unreal.
OK.
Anthropologists don't use the concept of "monoculture".
Philosophers do.
Hmmmmmm. That is a pickle!
Let's see.
Who would better know culture?
Anthropologists do years of fieldwork and carefully analyze their data.
Philosophers ... do no research and carefully stare at their bellybuttons.
Yup. Best go with the philosophers!
Culture, both its material and nonmaterials aspects, is relatively easy to document.
Anthropologists do this for a living.
And they have yet to mention a "monoculture".
Hey! Look what I found in the dictionary:
Ghost
1: the seat of life or intelligence : soul
2: a disembodied soul; especially : the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness
3: spirit, demon
Oh noes! Ghosts are real! Merriam Webster said so!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 12:43 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 157 of 270 (436009)
11-24-2007 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by macaroniandcheese
11-23-2007 9:54 AM


brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
i said done properly. why aren't you reading?
And as I said directly to that statement the last three times you tried to make it: How does one "properly" flay someone alive?
quote:
i've said fifty times that even most cosmetic procedures cannot properly be done on a person unable to consent.
And what makes you think most men consent to this? When you won't get into heaven, when you won't become a man, when your an infant and your mother decides she doesn't like "icky foreskin," how is anybody able to make a free choice?
quote:
you cannot properly circumcise and infant.
So since up to 90% of US males have their genitals mutilated as infants and we can't find a single case of someone who has undergone FGM here in the US, why did we pass a law banning FGM but not MGM?
Y'see, brennakimi, the only men who undergo anesthesia while having their genitals mutilated are those adult men in the West who do it for reasons such as religious conversion or medical necessity. They make up a tiny percentage of the total number of men who have had their genitals mutilated. The rest have it done when their an infant and can't fight back or without anesthesia when they're older because that's what proves that their men: Being able to gut the pain.
quote:
it can be done properly
But it isn't. Yes, it is theoretically possible to wait until a man is an adult and have him undergo surgery, but that hardly ever happens. And then, it becomes a much more complicated surgery since the skin is now much larger, has more blood vessels, and is more highly ennervated.
quote:
in much of the rest of the world, it's at least done to adolescents
Without anesthesia and the risk of major complications becomes much larger because the genitals are much more developed.
quote:
and, when done properly
How does one cut off the prepuce with a piece of glass "properly"?
You don't really know anything about circumcision practices, do you? The only men who get to have an actual scalpel taken to them are infants who must be flayed alive.
quote:
it is just a tiny piece of flesh.
And the clitoris is even smaller. What does the size have to do with anything?
quote:
the problems then are associated with reduced standards of medical care.
So if it were medicalized, it'd be OK?
quote:
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.
Really?
Yet another place where we differ. We don't allow people to cut their arms off. Why would we let them cut their genitals off?
No, "religious freedom" doesn't cut it. We wouldn't let people to cut their arms off for religious reasons. Why would we let them cut their genitals off?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-23-2007 9:54 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 2:01 PM Rrhain has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 158 of 270 (436011)
11-24-2007 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Silent H
11-24-2007 1:21 AM


Re: 2... Multi v Mono culture (to molbio)
In both examples, "monocultural" is used to mean "majority group" as opposed to "minority group", not "the American culture".
From the first cite:
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).
The sample analyzed for this article is a subset of the sample collected, consisting only of those participants identifying themselves as Hispanic. The complete sample, consisting of the large majority of students in two of the middle schools that serve the city, is 41% non-Hispanic White, 28% Hispanic, 5% African American, 3% Asian, 17% mixed ethnicity, and 6% other. Although these figures are consistent with the ethnic distribution of the schools as a whole, the area in general is more than 75% non-Hispanic White (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). This suggests that the younger generation is more diverse than the adult population residing in this area. Culturally, the area is more monocultural and less multicultural than large urban areas that serve as traditional immigrant destinations.
If the U.S. were "monocultural", then urban areas could not be "multicultural".
See what happens when you don't read the papers?
The second cite is too old. It isn't online at my University library.
However, from the abstract which you quoted, it is clear that the authors are using "monocultural" and "heterocultural" to refer to the ethnic makeup of peer groups.
This has all of jack squat to do with a national "monoculture".
In fact, both these cites point to the myriad subcultures in the U.S.
Which is the exact opposite of your imaginary American "monoculture".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 1:21 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 2:44 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 159 of 270 (436013)
11-24-2007 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by macaroniandcheese
11-23-2007 10:58 AM


Re: Complication rate of MGM
brennakimi responds to me:
quote:
11.4% of heart surgery patients died from their surgery in an nyu study of death rates due to complications.
Logical error: Strawman, false analogy.
People who undergo heart surgery are doing so because they will die if they don't. Men who undergo MGM have no life-threatening disease or disorder.
quote:
quote:
or those cultures where it gets done because mommy doesn't like the look of an unmutilated penis
that sounds like a cosmetic reason.
So if daddy thinks his little girl would look better without her breasts (and since she stands a good chance of dying from breast cancer), we should allow infant girls to have radical mastectomies.
Since when do I get to force you to undergo surgery?
quote:
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.
Oh, no? They're debating right now whether or not to start a campaign of MGM in Africa to help stop the spread of HIV.
quote:
in these cultures, it's generally done when the men are old enough to consent.
Right: Don't get it done and you'll never be a man. That's not coerced in any way.
quote:
i hope you aren't referring to jews, because they don't exactly believe in heaven.
(*chuckle*)
As if that makes a difference.
quote:
and muslims? their view of circumcision is mixed.
So why do they do it?
quote:
christians mostly do it for cosmetic reasons.
No, Christians mostly do it because the doctor tells the parents they should get it done...sometimes to the point of doing it without the consent of the parents.
quote:
quote:
Flayed alive
appeal to emotion.
You mean the prepuce has separated from the glans?
What other term would you use for the forcible stripping of skin from the body? For someone who has been going on and on about not using confusing terms, what is the English word for peeling the skin off of a body?
quote:
quote:
except for those ulcers from not having a mucosal covering for the glans.
which, again, are unbelievably rare.
Incorrect. Pretty much every man has one at some time or another. Quite common at puberty. I'm pretty sure you can imagine why.
quote:
which is why they treat penile cancer with circumcision?
Yes. When you have had your baby, the doctor comes in and pressures the parents to have their son circumcized claiming that by doing so, they'll reduce the risk of penile cancer. By this logic, infant girls should have radical mastectomies to reduce the risk of breast cancer. It's much more likely a woman will come down with breast cancer than a man will come down with penile cancer. In fact, a man is more likely to come down with breast cancer than penile cancer, so we should have all infant boys undergo a radical mastectomy, too.
quote:
quote:
Huh? How hard do you think it is to clean a penis
it's not. but some people cite this as a concern
And just because people cite it as a concern, that makes it a legitimate reason? Some people claim that evolution is a crock...do we listen to them? Since it is obvious by simple inspection that the idea that it is "harder to clean an uncircumcised penis" is untrue, why do the doctors continue to tell parents this as a reason to mutilate their sons?
quote:
it might be very difficult to clean the penis of another person, especially one who tends to get poop smeared under his junk.
What part of "the prepuce hasn't separated from the glans" are you having trouble remembering? You can't clean "under" something when there is no "under."
And let's not play dumb: If it can be retracted, it isn't difficult to clean. By your logic, it is "difficult" to clean between a baby's fingers.
quote:
should we ban heart surgery because 6-11% of people die from it?
Logical error: Strawman, false analogy.
People who undergo heart surgery are doing so because they will die if they don't. Men who undergo MGM have no life-threatening disease or disorder.
quote:
it's because the procedures are not equivalent. period.
Dead male. Dead female.
If they're not equivalent, it must be because his life isn't as valuable as hers.
quote:
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.
I have never denied any such. You seem to be stuck in the attitude that if something that happens to a man is considered bad, that somehow reduces the horrendousness of it when it happens to a woman.
quote:
do you see that we're not talking about equivalent procedures yet?
Dead male. Dead female.
If they're not equivalent, it must be because his life isn't as valuable as hers.
quote:
it doesn't really matter whether more men die of circumcision than women.
Indeed.
It only matters that they're dead.
Dead male. Dead female.
If they're not equivalent, it must be because his life isn't as valuable as hers.
quote:
i'm talk talking about defending women at the expense of men.
See, and I don't see why the sex of the people has anything to do with it. Dead male. Dead female. Neither one needed to die.
quote:
i'm talking about the fact that it's dishonest to use terminology that suggests equivalence when the procedures are CLEARLY NOT EQUIVALENT.
Dead male. Dead female.
If they're not equivalent, it must be because his life isn't as valuable as hers.
quote:
i'm concerned with the truthfulness of terminology
And yet you seem to be incapable of using the term "flaying" to describe the forcible removal of skin from the body.
Somehow, I don't think "truthfulness of terminology" is really what's driving you.
quote:
and you think i like bathing in the blood of sacrificed baby boys.
Incorrect.
As I directly stated to you the last time you tried to say this, I simply think you don't care.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-23-2007 10:58 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 2:22 PM Rrhain has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 160 of 270 (436015)
11-24-2007 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Silent H
11-24-2007 2:22 AM


My mouth is getting awfully full ...
... what with you stuffing so many words in there.
She was using a feminist critique interpreting FGM and not an anthropological one.
Horseshit.
I said "FGM is used to control women".
Women who practice FGM say "FGM is used to control women".
wiki writes:
The arguments used to defend FGC are multifaceted and vary between societies that practices this; they range from health-related to social benefits, and are summarized below.[21]:
* maintenance of cleanliness
* maintenance of good health
* preservation of virginity
* enhancement of fertility
* prevention of stillbirths in women pregnant for the first time
* prevention of promiscuity
* increase of matrimonial opportunities
* pursuance of aesthetics
* improvement of male sexual performance and pleasure
* promotion of social and political cohesion
Anthropologists document the reasons women practice FGM, thru interviews and fieldwork.
Female Genital Mutilation, Fertility Control, Women's Roles, and the Patrilineage in Modern Sudan: A Functional Analysis
Rose Oldfield Hayes
American Ethnologist
November 1975, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 617-633
Infibulation, or Pharaonic circumcision, is a widespread practice in Sudan. It involves cutting away most external female genitalia and almost completely closing off the vaginal opening. The custom is analyzed in context and is found to be functionally interrelated with marriage practices, norms of female modesty, women's roles, family honor, and the patrilineage. The custom furnishes critical support to the patrilineage and has a controlling effect on Sudanese fertility and the population growth rate.
New Perspectives on Female Circumcision
Ellen Gruenbaum.
The Female Circumcision Controversy: An Anthropological Perspective.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001. 242 pp.
In presenting the freshness of an anthropological analysis of female genital cutting [FGC], Gruenbaum has written the first thorough account of all aspects of this practice: economic and political contexts, religious beliefs, patriarchal power, the culture of sex, meaning systems, and cultural change.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 2:22 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 2:52 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 161 of 270 (436017)
11-24-2007 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Silent H
11-24-2007 1:45 AM


Re: Holmes-ese
Silent H writes:
quote:
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.
Hmmm...maybe it is a case of you just don't know the idiom.
What you describe is called "Monday morning quarterbacking."
The distinction is that an "armchair quarterback" doesn't know what he's talking about. The "armchair" being a designation of lack of practical experience: The procalamations come from sitting in one's armchair and thinking about it, not by actually doing the work to find out if those ruminations have any bearing on reality. This was a major flaw of Aristotelian physics: The denigration of physical experimental evidence in favor of thought experiments.
A "Monday morning quarterback," regardless of whether or not he knows anything, is using hindsight (complaining about the Sunday game on Monday) and extra information. Since he watched the game on the TV, he had the benefit of the skyview and was able to see the onrushing defensive tackle coming up the quarterback's blind spot.
Perhaps we should move away from the attempt to use a metaphor with the word "quarterback." Perhaps what you're trying to say is that someone is speaking outside his field of expertise or is trying to relive past glory.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 1:45 AM Silent H has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 162 of 270 (436103)
11-24-2007 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Silent H
11-24-2007 12:51 AM


Re: armchair, again...
In this context, none of us are rushing off into the field to study the exact things we have under discussion.
i am actually currently very much studying international organizations. you don't have to fly off anywhere to do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 12:51 AM Silent H has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 163 of 270 (436104)
11-24-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Silent H
11-24-2007 2:02 AM


not intra-national.
dear. international standards have a great deal of play on internal standards. people who don't treat their people well don't get traded with. you are aware that it was international and transnational behavior that ended south african apartheid, right? in fact, it was specifically individual divestment and refusal to trade and support companies that supported the government.
the distinction between foreign and domestic no longer exists. everything internal affects the external.
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.
disagree all you want; it doesn't change reality.
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.
kind of both. the international norms define a set of acceptable and unacceptable behavior for national leaders in both domestic policy and international action. the best part is that because of the increased level of communication in the world, even citizens in china hold their leaders to international standards. environmental activists in china have had a unique opportunity because their protests deal with what the government does, not the authority of the party. they've been able to change government policy on several of the dams that were to be built. and. some that were built are demonstrating exactly the negative impact the activists said they would and, it seems, this might strengthen their voice and potentially encourage to party to listen to the people.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 2:02 AM Silent H has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 164 of 270 (436110)
11-24-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Rrhain
11-24-2007 2:52 AM


Since so many men go through it, it is common enough.
except that you claimed that more men die of circumcision than women who suffer fgm and i demonstrated that that's not true. it's not okay to just say oh, 1 billion people (i went with 1/3 of the world population, oops) get this so that must be a big enough number to make random claims about it. in my last post, i demonstrated (incorrectly, so let me fix the numbers) the number of men who die of circumcision. so 1 in 500,000 out of 1 billion is 2000. so 2000 men have died during this generation of men being circumcised. how many million women receive the fgm procedures? 100-140 million. you were dead wrong.
Are you basing your argument on the fact that men survive the procedure or are you not?
i'm not. but i have to correct your claims.
If we medicalize FGM the way we medicalize other gential surgeries, would that make it OK?
if the procedure is limited from infibulation and is done in medicalized, safe environments to individuals capable of and who have given consent, i cannot argue with it beyond "i don't think it's the right thing to do".
And by the way...it isn't as rare as you make it out to be.
what isn't? death by circumcision? then find me a better source. but it has to be one that doesn't use your genocidal language, cause that's already been demonstrated to be bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 2:52 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 4:22 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 165 of 270 (436121)
11-24-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Rrhain
11-24-2007 3:16 AM


But it isn't.
and? just because something is done wrongly doesn't mean it can't be done correctly. outlaw the incorrect procedure.
And the clitoris is even smaller. What does the size have to do with anything?
you haven't been paying attention. we're not talking about just the clitoris. only 5% of women undergoing fgm have only their prepuce or clitoris removed.
So if it were medicalized, it'd be OK?
with proper medical care, a ban on infibulation, and a consenting adult recipient, i can't condemn it any more than modern labioplasty or vaginoplasty. it's not something i would do, but i can't deny it to someone else.
and since you asked about men and i know you'll ask about women...
When you won't get into heaven, when you won't become a man, when your an infant and your mother decides she doesn't like "icky foreskin," how is anybody able to make a free choice?
the last one is clearly an example of non-consent. the others... just because someone is intellectually distant from you doesn't mean they're incapable of responsible adult consent.
Really?
Yet another place where we differ. We don't allow people to cut their arms off. Why would we let them cut their genitals off?
No, "religious freedom" doesn't cut it. We wouldn't let people to cut their arms off for religious reasons. Why would we let them cut their genitals off?
we do let people do other cosmetic procedures to their genitals. we let people do all kinds of cosmetic procedures. if there is no real medical concern, then everything else is cosmetic. just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you get to ban it. it's this magical thing we call medical privacy. i honestly don't know why we don't let people cut off their limbs. *shrugs* we let people do all kinds of weird shit to themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 3:16 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 4:53 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024