Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
From a note I sent for the author:
You quite rightly refer to the various instances of this practice as "female genital mutilation" but then later in the article your perpetuate the myth by writing "female circumcision".
I know you understand that it is certainly NOT circumcision, but unfortunately dilute the message by using the softer, inaccurate term later in your article.
I'm not picking on you - I have the same concern with other authors as well - but the problem will not be generally understood until we stop using that soft term for something which is much, much worse and destroys female lives in many, many ways if it doesn't kill them from infection shortly after the mutilation.
I'm not really in favor of routine male circumcision either, but in areas where hygiene may be a problem and it shows a viable health benefit, it's worthy of consideration.
But in anticipation of the flame wars that are sure to follow, I'd like you fellows to consider the equivalent as having your member whacked off below the tip. And that's the less drastic equivalent.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
