Female circumcision Watch

Jamie
Badges: 18
#121
Report 12 years ago
#121
(Original post by Anonymous)
What is your opinion on female circumcision? Why can some people not see that it is entirely barbaric? (Well in my opinion, I think it is.) I read that on the night of the woman's marriage, she is cut open and then SHE IS SEWN CLOSED AGAIN TO SECURE FIDELITY TO THE HUSBAND! Why are women treated in this way? Men are just as likely to be unfaithful (if not more) and they don't go through something as bad as that. I think everyone should be free to do what they want and with who they want, even if infidelity is a very selfish and wrong thing to do, I believe that people shouldn't have to go through such a procedure.
ok, firstly it is already banned in every developed country in the world, and is on the edges of legality in most african states.
secondly its referred to as 'female genital muilation' these days - sign of the attitudes in the west against it.

A cursory glance reveals this post elft by someone
"thers who circumcise their sons are most likely to have been circumcised themselves.. like FGM.. it's a continuous thing.. very few choose to steer away from this 'tradition'.. they are aware of the potential risks.. and yet they go on.. why fight that"

most peopel don't know the risks. most people have no choice in FGM and are circumscised as kiddies. their parents are generally illiterate and know nothing about the child birth risks, risks from infection (which is the big killer) infertility due to said infections, increased infection risk throughout life there after...etc etc.

if the deputy leader of the most propserous educated state on the continent of africa has such stupid ideas as 'having a shower after sex reduces HIV risk' then what do you think the common folk will know of disease and sequeala.
quote
reply
richl
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#122
Report 12 years ago
#122
(Original post by pendragon)
Very true.
It's interesting that certain people have attempted to though (and believed they could) - Bentham's Felicific calculus is an example (but that's probably for another thread)
0
quote
reply
xXMessedUpXx
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#123
Report 12 years ago
#123
(Original post by pendragon)
Well if he was in pain beforehand from tightness etc. then technically that is a kind of sensitivity. Of course when pain is involved you might not distinguish between different levels of sensitivity which may be more subtle for some than others. But no man having chosen to undergo the procedure is going to let himself decide afterwards that it was a mistake, and all sorts of self-serving reasoning might have crept into his judgement on this count which could cloud his objectivity. How can anyone who has chosen to have it done be wholly objective? A truly fair test would be to take a man with no pain or reason for circumcision and then forcibly carry out the procedure - though such an experiment would of course be immoral in the extreme - which actually serves to highlight my point that it is wrong to do this to an infant with no capacity to consent.
I think to a degree, he didn't kinda have the choice. for the sake of his health he had to have it done. could have been nasty complications otherwise.

and this thread is seeming to be better suited to D&D :s:
0
quote
reply
Anonymous #3
#124
Report 12 years ago
#124
(Original post by Robot Chicken)
A cursory glance reveals this post elft by someone
"thers who circumcise their sons are most likely to have been circumcised themselves.. like FGM.. it's a continuous thing.. very few choose to steer away from this 'tradition'.. they are aware of the potential risks.. and yet they go on.. why fight that"

most peopel don't know the risks. most people have no choice in FGM and are circumscised as kiddies. their parents are generally illiterate and know nothing about the child birth risks, risks from infection (which is the big killer) infertility due to said infections, increased infection risk throughout life there after...etc etc.

if the deputy leader of the most propserous educated state on the continent of africa has such stupid ideas as 'having a shower after sex reduces HIV risk' then what do you think the common folk will know of disease and sequeala.

when i was comparing male circumcision to FGM, the only similarity i confirmed was that it is continuous practice that gets passed on from generation to generation; from fathers to sons and from mothers to daughters. i did not say that the women who are sufferes of FGM and their encompassing society are aware of the risks (though you don't have to be a rocket scientist to put two and two together; women are being cut open with blunt objects, usually not under anaesthesia and women in large numbers are dying as a result - if this does not add to their empirical knowledge that mutilating these women bears the 'risk' of death or other potentially harming diseases, than what will? ) I was saying that in male circumcision - usually you would assume that - the parents are aware of the risks.. Here i'm talking about more developed countries like in America or UK.. these practices are so old that stories about accidents and deaths would be passed on as gossip and slowly people would become increasingly aware of the potential risks.. experience and the increasing use of doctors and hospitals should have brought the potential risks of circumcision to mind.

Anyway -about FGM- off course by educating these people by, perhaps, western values you would be reducing (and are currently) the number of FGM cases. And maybe that's the right way to go.. My question for the purpose in interevening with FGM in those countries was posed on the basis that women who have gone through mutilation, still impose this tradition onto their own daughters.. my question was if they don't try to stop it then why should we? however, I was only trying to gain a response from one the members to help me out in a paper i am writing..

HIV is a relatively new thing which more and more people are becoming aware of and are struggling with everyday. I don't think you can compare the two. If it is the remark about 'having a shower after sex reduces HIV risk' being stupid, it is only because they are yet to acknowledge - through experience -that this statement is wrong.. It is true that uneducated people are at a disadvantage, however, it is not only through schooling that you gain knowledge..

but then again.. you did say it was only a cursory glance :rolleyes:
quote
reply
wendizzle22
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#125
Report 12 years ago
#125
My jaw dropped when I saw this on the topic list! I thought of clitoris removal at first, but I think both forms absolutely terrible. I'm all for body modifications for aesthetic purposes, but to do this against someones will is a disgrace and unlike male circumcision has no apparent medical use, that I can see anyway. (Male circumcision is ok if the foreskin is too tight etc.)
0
quote
reply
Jamie
Badges: 18
#126
Report 12 years ago
#126
(Original post by Anonymous)
when i was comparing male circumcision to FGM, the only similarity i confirmed was that it is continuous practice that gets passed on from generation to generation; from fathers to sons and from mothers to daughters. i did not say that the women who are sufferes of FGM and their encompassing society are aware of the risks (though you don't have to be a rocket scientist to put two and two together; women are being cut open with blunt objects, usually not under anaesthesia and women in large numbers are dying as a result - if this does not add to their empirical knowledge that mutilating these women bears the 'risk' of death or other potentially harming diseases, than what will? ) I was saying that in male circumcision - usually you would assume that - the parents are aware of the risks.. Here i'm talking about more developed countries like in America or UK.. these practices are so old that stories about accidents and deaths would be passed on as gossip and slowly people would become increasingly aware of the potential risks.. experience and the increasing use of doctors and hospitals should have brought the potential risks of circumcision to mind.

Anyway -about FGM- off course by educating these people by, perhaps, western values you would be reducing (and are currently) the number of FGM cases. And maybe that's the right way to go.. My question for the purpose in interevening with FGM in those countries was posed on the basis that women who have gone through mutilation, still impose this tradition onto their own daughters.. my question was if they don't try to stop it then why should we? however, I was only trying to gain a response from one the members to help me out in a paper i am writing..

HIV is a relatively new thing which more and more people are becoming aware of and are struggling with everyday. I don't think you can compare the two. If it is the remark about 'having a shower after sex reduces HIV risk' being stupid, it is only because they are yet to acknowledge - through experience -that this statement is wrong.. It is true that uneducated people are at a disadvantage, however, it is not only through schooling that you gain knowledge..

but then again.. you did say it was only a cursory glance :rolleyes:
"My question for the purpose in interevening with FGM in those countries was posed on the basis that women who have gone through mutilation, still impose this tradition onto their own daughters.. my question was if they don't try to stop it then why should we?"

One could use the same argument when discussing sexual abuse within families.
Take the big cases inf rance where whole communities were sexually abusing their kids, with full knowledge fo all involved including the mothers.
The mothers were allowing it so why shouldn't we?

of course the idea of doing nothing because their culture allows it is preposterous. in this case it was a 'microculture' as it were. in the case of FGM it's a macroculture of long standing.

but then you can't allow something barbaric to coninue for the sake of hisotry/tradition.
quote
reply
Schmokie Dragon
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#127
Report 12 years ago
#127
(Original post by pendragon)
If that is your attitude then frankly it doesn’t matter what you think, your thoughts will lead to no consequence.
That is a little harsh. Honestly, if we all shut up until we had the political and scientific wisdom to solve the problem, then very few people would have the freedom to voice opinions. Most people here have very little practical knowledge of how to implement their beliefs in the real world, and what we say here counts for nothing in reality.

To everyone who has lept on puppy - everyone has "ideal world" beliefs. That does not make them shallow or weak to not be willing or able to implement their ideals in real life, it shows they are realistic. There are many things in life that I am sure many of us wished had never been invented or decided, yet we continue to take advantage of these things (for example, myself and McDonalds). I agree with puppy that in the ideal world people would take responsibility for their own mistakes and the money the state saves on not giving them a helping hand (benifits, new livers, child support etc) would go to those who genuinely need help, like the poor and starving in 3rd world countries. That does not mean that if I had a baby as a teenager I would wish for the state to abandon me, nor does it mean I would not want a second chance if I abused my organs. It simply means that I have a view as to where we have made a mistake and, if history was re-written, where I would change things. Sometimes decisons have to be made and opinions taken that would hurt people, especially those people who are kin to us, in the name of hepling others in a longer term sense.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and unless you are power weilding expert, that opinion, in the end, means nothing.

my question was if they don't try to stop it then why should we?
This is very simple. We should because those who have suffered are so firmly indoctrinated into that culture that theyr are effectively incapable of waking up, saying "that hurt" and deciding that something should be done about it. It takes an outsider or a revolutionary to break the mould. Should be turn a blind eye to young women being mutilated just because it is not our job to solve their problems? We are all humans, and where other humans cause eachother pain and suffering, we have some duty to intervene.
0
quote
reply
Schmokie Dragon
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#128
Report 12 years ago
#128
*yawns*

Common sense? If another person is harmed against their will, when they have done nothing concrete to warrant either discapline for the sake of reform, or removal for the physical protection of others, then that action is WRONG. Can this be argued against? There ARE some moral absolutes, very few, but they do exist.

But hell, I can't be arsed to argue philosophy.
0
quote
reply
pendragon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#129
Report 12 years ago
#129
(Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
*yawns*

Common sense? If another person is harmed against their will, when they have done nothing concrete to warrant either discapline for the sake of reform, or removal for the physical protection of others, then that action is WRONG. Can this be argued against? There ARE some moral absolutes, very few, but they do exist.

But hell, I can't be arsed to argue philosophy.
:congrats: There are moral absolutes if one has any common sense, looking at genocide is a sure cure for moral relativism.
0
quote
reply
sophisti_kate
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#130
Report 12 years ago
#130
Pendragon, you are my hero! I agree with everything you say, especially with the post-colonial guilt explanation. I firmly believe that if you can do something to free people from dictatorships, pain etc etc then you must do it. I don't care about international laws decreeing against intervention when there are people dying or being tortured. If the original motive for intervention is something less innocent than humanitarian reasons, then so be it. If the end result is democracy and freedom, then the fact that there was oil/money to be had along the line is perhaps less troublesome. That's why I supported the Iraq war - it would have been even better if they could have used humanitarian reasons infront of the UN, but as stated in its charter, sovereignty is king, (hopefully this is beginning to change with the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, but still a v long way to go). I can't bear it when states and governments just look on and don't act because of a) the Mogadishu factor, b) they have no self serving interests there, or c) the bureaucracy to deal with international incidents is ineffecient and cumbersome.
0
quote
reply
pendragon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#131
Report 12 years ago
#131
(Original post by sophisti_kate)
Pendragon, you are my hero! I agree with everything you say, especially with the post-colonial guilt explanation. I firmly believe that if you can do something to free people from dictatorships, pain etc etc then you must do it. I don't care about international laws decreeing against intervention when there are people dying or being tortured. If the original motive for intervention is something less innocent than humanitarian reasons, then so be it. If the end result is democracy and freedom, then the fact that there was oil/money to be had along the line is perhaps less troublesome. That's why I supported the Iraq war - it would have been even better if they could have used humanitarian reasons infront of the UN, but as stated in its charter, sovereignty is king, (hopefully this is beginning to change with the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, but still a v long way to go). I can't bear it when states and governments just look on and don't act because of a) the Mogadishu factor, b) they have no self serving interests there, or c) the bureaucracy to deal with international incidents is ineffecient and cumbersome.
Thank you for the support. However I don't think that military intervention is called for in all cases, and did not support the Iraq war - although now we are there I believe it is morally wrong for us to run away and leave Iraq in a mess like many Americans who initially supported the war now want to do, we must finish the job and clean up the mess those blundering moronic neocons have created. Ideals are no good if you apply them half-heartedly or ignore political realities; if you do so you either lose the moral high ground or you discredit and destroy your ability to intervene in future. It was more important to deal with Iran, but now who is going to find the will to deal with the very real threat they pose?
0
quote
reply
puppy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#132
Report 12 years ago
#132
(Original post by sophisti_kate)
If the end result is democracy and freedom, then the fact that there was oil/money to be had along the line is perhaps less troublesome.
Assuming democracy and freedom are the best ways to govern a country...
quote
reply
pendragon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#133
Report 12 years ago
#133
I hate to inject reality into the neocon fantasy, but some countries simply are not ready for democracy, or at least for western style democracy imposed upon them from outside. What do you do when people choose to elect the Nazi's or an Islamic theocracy?
0
quote
reply
puppy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#134
Report 12 years ago
#134
(Original post by pendragon)
You don’t know what 'moral backbone' is? So we have discovered the root of the problem - you don't even know what you are missing - but seeing as you don’t believe in giving transplants to people who have abused their own body you will never get one.

I can see you think moral arguments are voiced by 'morons', so I will leave you to outline some immoral ones. I don't think you are a psycho, or irrational by the way, I simply object to your views. I was going to tone down my criticism, but I don't like being called a moron much. :rolleyes:
I never called you a moron- that was a reference to someone who jumped into the transplant debate and started using the 'if it was your family...' argument, which is all well and good but doesn't actually have anything to do with one's idealistic moral stance on a topic which is the view point i've been debating from.

We seem to differ fundamentally in that you like to tell people what they should think and I don't. I know you go to Oxford or some stupid place but other people have worthwhile stuff to say too so maybe you shouldn't just pooh-pooh it all.

Of course I understand what 'moral' and 'backbone' mean, I simply fail to see how me having this imaginary thing would change what I've said on this topic.
quote
reply
pendragon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#135
Report 12 years ago
#135
(Original post by puppy)
I never called you a moron- that was a reference to someone who jumped into the transplant debate and started using the 'if it was your family...' argument, which is all well and good but doesn't actually have anything to do with one's idealistic moral stance on a topic which is the view point i've been debating from.

We seem to differ fundamentally in that you like to tell people what they should think and I don't. I know you go to Oxford or some stupid place but other people have worthwhile stuff to say too so maybe you shouldn't just pooh-pooh it all.

Of course I understand what 'moral' and 'backbone' mean, I simply fail to see how me having this imaginary thing would change what I've said on this topic.
Wow you're still upset; obviously I struck a nerve in attempting to locate a 'moral backbone'. The phrase is a perfect metaphor for a stance which, though attractive on some philosophically esoteric level, when applied in the real world means renouncing morality and ethical judgement of practices which are to every civilised person abhorrent. If you think the underlying meaning behind this metaphor is 'imaginary' then it is you who has the real problem.

Have I once argued that being an Oxford grad improved my argument? Of course other people have valid things to say, most of the great minds of history did not go to Oxford. But why did you even bring this up? I have not mentioned it; you must have some inferiority complex, whereas I happened to know from personal experience that there are more than a couple of stupid people at Oxford and there are highly intelligent people around who never even go to university. It is completely and utterly irrelevant so I really cannot say why you choose to mention it.

Your comment that I 'pooh-pooh' other peoples arguments seems to be a phrase which implies that I am posh, which is not the case. My father was an immigrant of mixed ethnicity. I don't want to give you a good spanking on this thread but you seem intent on coming back for more punishment.
0
quote
reply
puppy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#136
Report 12 years ago
#136
(Original post by pendragon)
Wow you're still upset; obviously I struck a nerve in attempting to locate a 'moral backbone'. The phrase is a perfect metaphor for a stance which, though attractive on some philosophically esoteric level, when applied in the real world means renouncing morality and ethical judgement of practices which are to every civilised person abhorrent. If you think the underlying meaning behind this metaphor is 'imaginary' then it is you who has the real problem.

Have I once argued that being an Oxford grad improved my argument? Of course other people have valid things to say, most of the great minds of history did not go to Oxford. But why did you even bring this up? I have not mentioned it; you must have some inferiority complex, whereas I happened to know from personal experience that there are more than a couple of stupid people at Oxford and there are highly intelligent people around who never even go to university. It is completely and utterly irrelevant so I really cannot say why you choose to mention it.

Your comment that I 'pooh-pooh' other peoples arguments seems to be a phrase which implies that I am posh, which is not the case. My father was an immigrant of mixed ethnicity. I don't want to give you a good spanking on this thread but you seem intent on coming back for more punishment.
1) I tried to make it clear that I was arguing my point from a philosophical level which is why I eventually came out and said that obviously I was against female circumcision and had initially only mused over my general attitudes to culture on this thread rather than given an opinion on the topic one way or another- so I still don't see the relevance of the moral backbone comment.

2) I know most of the great minds of history didn't go to Oxford... they went to Cambridge.

3) 'Pooh-pooh' was a perfectly innocent verb and nothing to do with insinuating you were 'posh' (I'd never do anything so crude), it just suited the meaning of my sentence. And I don't see what being an immigrant has to do with being posh or not, but since you mention it my family are also immigrants so I guess we both win.

4) I haven't had a good spanking in ages...
quote
reply
pendragon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#137
Report 12 years ago
#137
(Original post by puppy)
1) I tried to make it clear that I was arguing my point from a philosophical level which is why I eventually came out and said that obviously I was against female circumcision and had initially only mused over my general attitudes to culture on this thread rather than given an opinion on the topic one way or another- so I still don't see the relevance of the moral backbone comment.
It wasn’t simply aimed at you, but at anyone who holds the perspective of multiculturalist moral relativism.

(Original post by puppy)
2) I know most of the great minds of history didn't go to Oxford... they went to Cambridge.
Ooooo, cheeky! Charles Darwin and Issac Newton certianly qualify for Cambridge, while Adam Smith is an Oxonian who should also qualify. However, I wouldn’t assume that ‘most of the great minds of history’ were even English. Who do I think are other great minds of international stature? Mainly foriegners, the British have distinguisged themselves as nation of power and pragmaticism, we have never been well known for our intellectuals. A couple of miscelanous foreign great minds: Albert Einstien, Karl Marx, Martin Luther, Siddhartha Guatama, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustin, Confusius, Leonardo Da Vinci, Sigmund Freud. Truly great minds create a paradym shift.

(Original post by puppy)
3) 'Pooh-pooh' was a perfectly innocent verb and nothing to do with insinuating you were 'posh' (I'd never do anything so crude), it just suited the meaning of my sentence. And I don't see what being an immigrant has to do with being posh or not, but since you mention it my family are also immigrants so I guess we both win.
Then I apologise, you made me think of a sketch by Stephen Fry in Blackadder where he plays a toff who uses the phrase about 8 times in two sentences.

(Original post by puppy)
4) I haven't had a good spanking in ages...
Well in that case I might consider obliging if you really think you need one.
0
quote
reply
puppy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#138
Report 12 years ago
#138
(Original post by pendragon)
Ooooo, cheeky! Charles Darwin and Issac Newton certianly qualify for Cambridge, while Adam Smith is an Oxonian who should also qualify. However, I wouldn’t assume that ‘most of the great minds of history’ were even English. Who do I think are other great minds of international stature? Mainly foriegners, the British have distinguisged themselves as nation of power and pragmaticism, we have never been well known for our intellectuals. A couple of miscelanous foreign great minds: Albert Einstien, Karl Marx, Martin Luther, Siddhartha Guatama, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustin, Confusius, Leonardo Da Vinci, Sigmund Freud. Truly great minds create a paradym shift.

Hmmm I'd add a lot to the Cambridge list; Hawking, Milton, Wordsworth, Chandrasekhar, Russell, Wittgenstein, Babbage, Tennyson, Milne, Keynes, Cromwell. Maybe not all the 'greatest minds' but pretty *****in'.

Point taken on the not British thing (some great foreigners did, however go to Cambridge), but I think Aristotle and Plato would have been a bit too old to attend Oxbridge...

Oh and, 'paradigm'
quote
reply
pendragon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#139
Report 12 years ago
#139
(Original post by puppy)
Hmmm I'd add a lot to the Cambridge list; Hawking, Milton, Wordsworth, Chandrasekhar, Russell, Wittgenstein, Babbage, Tennyson, Milne, Keynes, Cromwell. Maybe not all the 'greatest minds' but pretty *****in'.

Point taken on the not British thing (some great foreigners did, however go to Cambridge), but I think Aristotle and Plato would have been a bit too old to attend Oxbridge...

Oh and, 'paradigm'
Stephen Hawking is over-rated, but he is an Oxonian anyway, he did his PhD at Cambridge.

I knew you would start listing poets, you should add Erasmus for Cambridge if you are going into the second tier.

There is a society at Yale, I think its skull and bones, that claims to trace its founding back to ancient greece lol

Yes, I cannot spell.
0
quote
reply
pendragon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#140
Report 12 years ago
#140
(Original post by Robot Chicken)
One could use the same argument when discussing sexual abuse within families.
Take the big cases inf rance where whole communities were sexually abusing their kids, with full knowledge fo all involved including the mothers.
The mothers were allowing it so why shouldn't we?

of course the idea of doing nothing because their culture allows it is preposterous. in this case it was a 'microculture' as it were. in the case of FGM it's a macroculture of long standing.

but then you can't allow something barbaric to coninue for the sake of hisotry/tradition.
Thats a good example, I hadn't heard about it. When did they stamp that out? What part of France was it?
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?

Yes (76)
29.69%
No - I got the required grades (147)
57.42%
No - I missed the required grades and didn't get in (33)
12.89%

Watched Threads

View All