Letters to the Editor
-
Euphemisms
Can we please place a moratorium on the term "female circumcision" and call it what it is - genital mutilation? I know you refer to it as such in the body of your article, but using the term "circumcision" for this practice - especially in a headline - completely masks its heinousness.
-
Congrats for pointing this out
You are doing what we in the West need to do if we want traditional Islam and Muslims to see some of our side of things. We can achieve more moderation in beliefs when we praise moderate Muslims for trying to bring about that very needed change. Too often we just condemn.
-
Laws and Human Nature
Some of the practices make menstruation, childbirth and procreative sex very problematic. Instead of telling Muslims what to do, tell them the effects of their actions. Any religion supports procreation. Does the Koran support the practice? I don't know. I don't have a copy of that book. If it does not support the practice, why not point that out?
However, one thing I wonder about is the effect of a patchwork of laws in various countries. If it is illegal in Egypt, then won't people take their kids to neighboring countries to do it? It may go underground and kids would die from "back alley" procedures. Sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?
-
This is indeed good news. Unnecessary surgeries on children are a form of child abuse.
Of course the Egyptian government cannot quite phrase it that way, because they are bucking years of tradition. Most often, good and lasting changes come in increments.
-
Pleased to read about this
What a good thing to read about, and glad to read it here first. I'm generally leery of governments banning specific cultural practices and interfering with parenting, and I'm certainly leery of anything a thinly-veiled dictatorship like the Egyptian government does. But acts of female genital mutilation seem beyond the pale to me.
That's an interesting point from another poster about how the ban could perhaps instigate a "blood border" effect, where children die from complications because their family take them long distances in order to circumvent the ban.
-
Great News, but...
....where is the outcry over male genital mutilation, aka circumcision?
-
Saw it coming
There is. Its just that this article is not about that.
-
Herself, dahling...
EVERYTHING is about that.
-
Thank goodness
A step forward. I'm thrilled!
-
Islamic AND Christian practice
It should be noted this is a cultural not a religious practice. According to the article on the topic posted right here on Salon:
"It is practiced by Muslims and Christians alike, deeply rooted in the Nile Valley region and parts of sub-Saharan African, and is also done in Yemen and Oman."
This seems to be more of a regional practice, on par with footbinding in China, designed to deem a woman more "marriageable" within the culture. It does not seem to b a Islam issue.
Either way, it's a good thing it's going out of fashion.
-
Herself
laughs at genitally mutilated men.
It makes her feel more powerful
-
Gynoplasty for believer binky-buttons?
Yes, yes: men are not genitally mutilated; they are merely "circumcised." A perfect example of the ancient art of euphemizing things done to demonized Others. I suppose men can learn to play that game, too, perhaps calling FGM "gynoplasty" or "CCA" (Cultural Clitoral Alteration).
Feminists sees males as "the enemy," of course. That allows the former to demand endless attention be paid to females: breast, not prostate, cancer (the latter affecting more people and killing about equally). Feminists are never-ever-ever satisfied with what society does for "wimmin"...though they never push for ERA-II: the Equal Responsibilities Amendment.
Feminists are, in fact, spoiled brats screaming for "Big Daddy" to do this or that...all the while complaining that they are not treated like adults.
Paris Hilton epitomizes them: bellyaching on and on about a few "horrific" days in an elite country-club hoosegow. Meanwhile, men who were actually TORTURED for years in the "Hanoi Hilton" remain mostly silent. Feminists think that womyn who whine more must suffer more.
-
Two Cents
Male circumcision lowers the risk of contracting HIV, and does not inhibit sexual function. When are we going to convince American parents to leave "abnormal" genitalia of their infants alone? Procedures on enlarged clitorises and ambiguous genitalia are still encouraged and performed by doctors in the US.
-
Female genital mutilation is not circumcision
I won't attempt to wade into the circumcision morass, except to note that those who would even attempt to equate male (penile) circumcision with female (clitoral or clitoral/labia) "circumcision" (i.e., genital mutilation) should seriously question the value of their elementary and secondary school educations, specifically in the areas of biology, anatomy, critical reasoning, and logic.
-
Islamic View
Actually, Muhammed did in fact explicitly rule on this.
Circumcision is obligatory for muslim males, but only honourable/not to be ashamed of for females (the practice appears to have been fairly common in Arabia 1500 years ago). The effect of that was that FGM died a pretty swift death in most of the Arab world, where today it is pretty much unheard of. In my experience Egyptians are rather looked down on as backwards and stupid in many Arab countries, for this among other reasons.
I work with many people from countries that practice FGM, and in my experience it is very much not a patriarchal thing, in that the men do not insist on it and if pressed aren't crazy about it. It is usually the moms insisting on it for their daughters, so for change to happen it must be led by women themselves. And yes, the Christians and animists do it too, it is most emphatically not a muslim thing.
-
I agree
Female genital mutilation is not circumcision
I agree, just like in boys, nothing but the clitoral hood should be cut off in little girls against their will and without anasthesia.
-
Response to Manatee
You wrote:
"Female genital mutilation is not circumcision
I won't attempt to wade into the circumcision morass, except to note that those who would even attempt to equate male (penile) circumcision with female (clitoral or clitoral/labia) "circumcision" (i.e., genital mutilation) should seriously question the value of their elementary and secondary school educations, specifically in the areas of biology, anatomy, critical reasoning, and logic."
I won't attempt to explain to you why there is a valid comparison between the two in some situations (as idiotic as Brightstar is, is point is correct). I will however direct you to various individuals and organizations that apparently did not receive decent elementary and secondary educations, yet still manage to dedicate their lives to eradicating female genital cutting (actually the preferred term, check the links).
The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project,
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.php, which actually maintains a side-by-side page explicitly comparing the two.
Abu-Sahlieh, SA "To mutilate in the name of Jehovah or Allah: legitimization of male and female circumcision."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7731348&dopt=Abstract
An article by a doctor published in major medical journal. Click on related articles for another half dozen or so more articles by other doctors published in other major medical journals. I chose this one for two reasons: the doctor was cited favorably by several anti-FGC websites and because the article addresses the Koran's take on the issue (fyi, it's against both male and female), noting that many important Muslim clerics and organizations have concluded FGC is forbidden by the Koran, important considering it is a cultural, not a religious practice. Regardless, sounds like a lot of doctors (and a lot of medical journals) need to repeat elementary school biology.
The International Coalition for Genital Integrity
http://www.icgi.org/information/hgm-classification/
Again, makes an explicit comparison based on WHO classifications, including suggesting what a gender neutral definition of genital mutilation would look like. This is a coalition of many different organizations made up of all types of different individuals from around the world, all of whom presumably failed elementary sex ed.
Although I am sure some will question the authority of my citations, those are just the first few I found in a quick Internet search. There are many other legitimate organizations and individuals who understand the parallel. As far as the correct terminology, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
Yes, it's Wikipedia, but it's talking about the World Health Organization, it's just a good summary. Point is, the term "female genital mutilation" is not only inaccurate, but also counter productive in that it is judgmental and condescending towards the target audience (my biggest complaint with the anti-FGC crowd). Which brings me around to my main reason for writing this letter (as much as I am opposed to male circ., I know its off topic for this article)
Why the hell did Manatee's letter get an editor's choice star? I mean, seriously. Not only is it in response to an off-topic letter, it's not even really a response (as Manatee admits) but rather a sophomoric insult of other letter writers. Perhaps this was the editor's attempt to show support for the use of proper terminology (not the point of Manatee's letter, or at least one that could have been better/less insultingly), but as mentioned above, it's not the proper terminology. Or perhaps (or in addition) it shows the editor's approval of the opinion that anyone who compares male and female circumcision lacks basic knowledge of human anatomy. If that's the case, why don't the editors actually say that for once? And maybe back it up with some evidence, show us how much they know about human anatomy and medical practice? And is this really the kind of discussion and debate you want to encourage with editor's stars? Insults? Conclusory statements that the other side is just stupid? I don't want to start up yet another discussion on male v. female circ. or about the nature/need for Broadsheet, but for me, the editor's star of this letter pretty much sums up my problem with Broadsheet. Rather than welcome insight and analysis, and thus advance understanding and knowledge, it ignores dissenting voices, contrary opinions, and legitimate flaws in its own logic and rewards and supports only those opinions, thoughts, and comments that comport with its own inflexible and immutable world view.