WTF India?

[PRONG HORN 3146]

[TwiceHorn 31476]

3 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

I'm not claiming a moral high ground on anything. I'm saying misogyny is rampant worldwide, and always has been. 

If you're referring to circumcision, regardless of your views of it, there's a different level of invasiveness in surgically removing a male's foreskin and surgically removing a female's clitoris. I'm not defending either practice, but I am saying this is not an apples to apples comparison.

It's also not motivated by subjugation.  However whacked you think circumcision is, it is not intended to desexualize its "victims."

It's actually a quite invidious comparison.

Edited May 30, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Gil Bang 25960]

 

[F250 28777]

5 hours ago, Nivek said:

Genitail mutilation is not something we can really claim a moral high ground on.

 

[gsoda3 3262]

10 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

You and I have very different ideas of the level of absolute control Great Britain held over India in the 1500s and beyond until well until the 19th century. 

not just india. you brought up the americas.  the english harboured worldwide ambitions from early on in henry 8's reign and spent the next 200 years building up to god level domination.  if not for some pesky trifles they had with the french til the mid 1500s they would have accomplished more faster but even then they eventually caught up to the spanish and portuguese. 

[SL Xpress 7515]

3 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

not just india. you brought up the americas.  the english harboured worldwide ambitions from early on in henry 8's reign and spent the next 200 years building up to god level domination.  if not for some pesky trifles they had with the french til the mid 1500s they would have accomplished more faster but even then they eventually caught up to the spanish and portuguese. 

I don't understand your point here.

I'm saying the British couldn't have changed the culture of India if they'd wanted to - which they didn't really, it wasn't what they valued about ruling India - until mid 19th century because neither the government nor their proxy, the British East India Company, actually controlled the subcontinent. 

As opposed to the Americas where they pretty much eradicated the culture of the Native Americans in areas where they colonized. I mean, I'm saying "they" but the US did a pretty slam bang job of taking over after winning independence. But while the nature of the colonization in Canada was slightly different, it still amounted to an institutional eradication of the Native American cultures. Something similar occurred in Australia. I'm comparing what the British did in NA and Australia to what they did in India. It was radically different in many ways. Although, to be fair plenty of Bengalis started accusing Churchill of genocide around a decade ago, a claim I do not agree with. 

No one should doubt British domination over much of the world for several hundred years, primarily through their command of the seas and their early start with the Industrial Revolution, but that domination took different forms in different places. 

I'd also like to point out that Hindus didn't actually run India for almost 400 years. They certainly seem determined to make up for lost time under Modi, however. 

[gsoda3 3262]

7 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

I don't understand your point here.

I'm saying the British couldn't have changed the culture of India if they'd wanted to - which they didn't really, it wasn't what they valued about ruling India - until mid 19th century because neither the government nor their proxy, the British East India Company, actually controlled the subcontinent. 

As opposed to the Americas where they pretty much eradicated the culture of the Native Americans in areas where they colonized. I mean, I'm saying "they" but the US did a pretty slam bang job of taking over after winning independence. But while the nature of the colonization in Canada was slightly different, it still amounted to an institutional eradication of the Native American cultures. Something similar occurred in Australia. I'm comparing what the British did in NA and Australia to what they did in India. It was radically different in many ways. Although, to be fair plenty of Bengalis started accusing Churchill of genocide around a decade ago, a claim I do not agree with. 

No one should doubt British domination over much of the world for several hundred years, primarily through their command of the seas and their early start with the Industrial Revolution, but that domination took different forms in different places. 

I'd also like to point out that Hindus didn't actually run India for almost 400 years. They certainly seem determined to make up for lost time under Modi, however. 

i was simply pointing out the british had been trying to conquer and rule since the early 1500s. i didn't mean to provide commentary on method or efficacy.  

[SL Xpress 7515]

1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

i was simply pointing out the british had been trying to conquer and rule since the early 1500s. i didn't mean to provide commentary on method or efficacy.  

Ah, got it. I guess I thought you were replying to me regarding India, but you were talking in a more general way. Yes, the British had themselves quite a run there for a while. Thanks for the clarification.

[Nivek 16930]

19 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

I'm not claiming a moral high ground on anything. I'm saying misogyny is rampant worldwide, and always has been. 

If you're referring to circumcision, regardless of your views of it, there's a different level of invasiveness in surgically removing a male's foreskin and surgically removing a female's clitoris. I'm not defending either practice, but I am saying this is not an apples to apples comparison.

Misogyny is a worldwide issue, but things are changing for the better in the world for women, even if there is resistance and backlash against it, it is never going to be a linear progression, just like every other issue.  

Yes, male genital mutilation is widespread here, and some procedures involve allowing a religious person to suck some baby's dick and chew.    This is happening HERE. 

Removing girl's clitoris is not a widespread occurrence HERE.  According to Wiki in the 1990s, we had a law banning it, but a judge overturned it, and only 35 states decided to create their own laws banning it.  Iran outlawed it.  Egypt has a significant falling rate of this practice but sub-Sahara Africa seems to be the area keeping it alive and well as a practice.  India has also outlawed it but some communities still practice it.  

The point wasn't to say one is better than the other.  But we should look to solving our own issue with this practice that is still widespread and defers to perverts and morons whose belief in invisible friends has done real harm to others.  We can spin it as 'medically advantageous' if we want, but we are making an excuse.  

[SL Xpress 7515]

56 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Misogyny is a worldwide issue, but things are changing for the better in the world for women, even if there is resistance and backlash against it, it is never going to be a linear progression, just like every other issue.  

Yes, male genital mutilation is widespread here, and some procedures involve allowing a religious person to suck some baby's dick and chew.    This is happening HERE. 

Removing girl's clitoris is not a widespread occurrence HERE.  According to Wiki in the 1990s, we had a law banning it, but a judge overturned it, and only 35 states decided to create their own laws banning it.  Iran outlawed it.  Egypt has a significant falling rate of this practice but sub-Sahara Africa seems to be the area keeping it alive and well as a practice.  India has also outlawed it but some communities still practice it.  

The point wasn't to say one is better than the other.  But we should look to solving our own issue with this practice that is still widespread and defers to perverts and morons whose belief in invisible friends has done real harm to others.  We can spin it as 'medically advantageous' if we want, but we are making an excuse.  

You and I don't see circumcision the same way, although I do appreciate your passion and conviction on the subject. I especially appreciate the picture you're drawing of rampant baby dick sucking and chewing on the foreskin. I don't really see it as the crime against nature you do. I'm not going to make any effort to change your mind. I'll simply say we'll have to agree to disagree.

That said, I find your efforts to equate circumcision to the surgical removal of a female's clitoris horrifying. The procedures itself aren't even close to comparable. The lasting effects aren't in the same ballpark. And the motivations for each procedure are vastly different. Regardless, male circumcision is on the decline as well. I just don't think of it as compelling an issue as you do. 

Since we're talking about India, and my post specifically was about misogyny worldwide, I don't understand how the rate of genital mutilation among females in the United States has as much of an impact on the discussion as you seem to. But I certainly appreciate and respect your position that it does. 

[Bevo 13577]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Yes, male genital mutilation is widespread here

If it is good for the bibi, it is good for me.

[Nivek 16930]

6 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

You and I don't see circumcision the same way, although I do appreciate your passion and conviction on the subject. I especially appreciate the picture you're drawing of rampant baby dick sucking and chewing on the foreskin. I don't really see it as the crime against nature you do. I'm not going to make any effort to change your mind. I'll simply say we'll have to agree to disagree.

That said, I find your efforts to equate circumcision (misrepresentation) to the surgical removal of a female's clitoris horrifying. The procedures itself aren't even close to comparable (no one said they were, I believe there are 4 categories of this barbarism, some more horrifying than others to the point of being somewhat unfathomable). The lasting effects aren't in the same ballpark (again, no one ever said they were). And the motivations for each procedure are vastly different. Regardless, male circumcision is on the decline as well. I just don't think of it as compelling an issue as you do. 

Since we're talking about India, and my post specifically was about misogyny worldwide, I don't understand how the rate of genital mutilation among females in the United States has as much of an impact on the discussion as you seem to. But I certainly appreciate and respect your position that it does. 

I get that these can be charged-up discussions but let's speak with respect and not misrepresent one another.  

I am not really passionate about the subject, because well, I am just typing on a message board not actually doing anything.  I am just hiding behind a keyboard when taking a break from x or y responsibility or killing time.   I did use evocative terminology though.  

Female genital mutilation is trending down.  Male genital mutilation, which is common in the US is trending down but is still over 50%.  Whereas FGM, according to Unicef is down to 1:3 (age 15-19) since the late 1990s (when it was half) and the majority of this is happening in 31 nations.

I support women's issues and body autonomy (with votes, donations, and how I raise my kids), but I can't really get motivated to point fingers at others while we are ignoring or downplaying our own related issues.  Kind of feels like a fat guy sharing dieting tips with Henry Cavill.  Or trying to hand out "how to be an asshole" tips to Andrew Tate.   I appreciate that you care and I really do wish you success if this is your concern.    I am actually more interested in local education issues but I do really enjoy watching Russians get blown up and I am passive in the latter as well. 

[naija 2854]

Spend one day treating someone who has undergone FGM, and I guarantee you'll never question whether you can get motivated about abolishing the practice because you know, male circumcision. 

As an aside, the logic of "I can't complain or advocate for X, because we have Y set of problems" is faulty.

[SL Xpress 7515]

34 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I get that these can be charged-up discussions but let's speak with respect and not misrepresent one another.  

I am not really passionate about the subject, because well, I am just typing on a message board not actually doing anything.  I am just hiding behind a keyboard when taking a break from x or y responsibility or killing time.   I did use evocative terminology though.  

Female genital mutilation is trending down.  Male genital mutilation, which is common in the US is trending down but is still over 50%.  Whereas FGM, according to Unicef is down to 1:3 (age 15-19) since the late 1990s (when it was half) and the majority of this is happening in 31 nations.

I support women's issues and body autonomy (with votes, donations, and how I raise my kids), but I can't really get motivated to point fingers at others while we are ignoring or downplaying our own related issues.  Kind of feels like a fat guy sharing dieting tips with Henry Cavill.  Or trying to hand out "how to be an asshole" tips to Andrew Tate.   I appreciate that you care and I really do wish you success if this is your concern.    I am actually more interested in local education issues but I do really enjoy watching Russians get blown up and I am passive in the latter as well. 

I'm with @naija on this one. 

Again, it's your view, and you're welcome to it. But when I mention the horrors of female mutilation as evidence of worldwide misogyny and then you bring up how we can't point fingers at people surgically removing clitorises because of circumcision in this country, that's a form of equating the two, IMO. 

I also didn't mean to say we don't have any issues with misogyny in this country. In fact, the whole point of my post was how widespread and normal misogyny is in many ways. And there are plenty of other issues as well. Obviously. But there's not the same kind of issues regarding women in this country that there are in India. 

The bottom line is you see circumcision as a horrible evil in this world, and I don't. But I can respect that you do. But any kind of conversation where we're trying to equate the two in some way doesn't make any kind of sense to me. It makes me want to vomit a little, to be honest. 

[Willfully Horn 8017]

I love to read novels set in India. The few female Indian authors I’ve read describe an extremely difficult life for women. Many women who marry move into her husband’s family’s home, where the new mil rules the roost. From princess to chambermaid is a tough transition. And those are the “lucky” ladies, with family support and protection.

Fuck misogyny. We have two daughters, and they both make me so proud, and yet the world they are to inherit is so very fucked. Want a better world? Be a better person. Do not tolerate misogyny.

[Gatorubet 30239]

On 5/30/2023 at 3:40 PM, Tailgate said:

I wish I knew. It’s truly unreal how often this happens there. 

The Indian bartender at the Heathrow United Club 30 minutes ago looked like he was going to stab me when I ordered a third Bloody Mary, so this hits close to home. 

[Gatorubet 30239]

6 hours ago, Nivek said:

I get that these can be charged-up discussions but let's speak with respect and not misrepresent one another.  

I am not really passionate about the subject, because well, I am just typing on a message board not actually doing anything.  I am just hiding behind a keyboard when taking a break from x or y responsibility or killing time.   I did use evocative terminology though.  

Female genital mutilation is trending down.  Male genital mutilation, which is common in the US is trending down but is still over 50%.  Whereas FGM, according to Unicef is down to 1:3 (age 15-19) since the late 1990s (when it was half) and the majority of this is happening in 31 nations.

I support women's issues and body autonomy (with votes, donations, and how I raise my kids), but I can't really get motivated to point fingers at others while we are ignoring or downplaying our own related issues.  Kind of feels like a fat guy sharing dieting tips with Henry Cavill.  Or trying to hand out "how to be an asshole" tips to Andrew Tate.   I appreciate that you care and I really do wish you success if this is your concern.    I am actually more interested in local education issues but I do really enjoy watching Russians get blown up and I am passive in the latter as well. 

Mullet Free? 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

Yeah, there's still something to be done for getting assimilated.

Oh look at that. Another group of people claiming religion as a shield against treating people equally.

But as news spread of her impending appearance, not everyone at Google was happy. A handful of Hindu employees said that they felt “targeted” on the basis of religion, a company statement and several anonymous interviews confirmed. They appealed to Google leadership asking that the speech be canceled, and so it was. 

Soundararajan was informed her talk would not go forward, The Washington Post first reported. 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/big-techs-big-problem-also-best-kept-secret-caste-discrimination-rcna33692

 

[RollLeft 5045]

On 5/30/2023 at 9:17 AM, ztejas said:

Alright. What are we supposed to do about it?

Any and all SJWs with a penchant for culturally appropriating the matters of other communities to the white courtesy phone, please.    

[RollLeft 5045]

18 hours ago, Nivek said:

...The point wasn't to say one is better than the other.  But we should look to solving our own issue with this practice that is still widespread and defers to perverts and morons whose belief in invisible friends has done real harm to others.  We can spin it as 'medically advantageous' if we want, but we are making an excuse.  

Your argument is weak and is akin to those who cried that being gay is perverted and furthermore being gay has done harm to others because they are more likely to be a pedo.  We can spin your point of view away from NOT being medically advantageous if we want but we are making an excuse for phimosis, paraphimosis, bacterial infections, STI's, or other male circumcision issues.  See how that works. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by RollLeft

[HamsterHookah 112]

And to think, this is the country that is the fastest growing in population and GDP and global power (playing both sides, the West and cozying up with Russia/China as opportunists). 

[Nivek 16930]

2 hours ago, RollLeft said:

Your argument is weak and is akin to those who cried that being gay is perverted and furthermore being gay has done harm to others because they are more likely to be a pedo.  We can spin your point of view away from NOT being medically advantageous if we want but we are making an excuse for phimosis, paraphimosis, bacterial infections, STI's, or other male circumcision issues.  See how that works. 

Chopping someone's head off cures headaches as well. 

[Nivek 16930]

11 hours ago, naija said:

Spend one day treating someone who has undergone FGM, and I guarantee you'll never question whether you can get motivated about abolishing the practice because you know, male circumcision. 

As an aside, the logic of "I can't complain or advocate for X, because we have Y set of problems" is faulty.

Again, another strawman argument.  Save the whales doesn't mean fuck the fish.  

Complaining on a message board isn't advocacy. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

Wow, and we haven’t even gotten around to the fact that South Asia has a unique problem with cooking stoves. They explode all the time but for some reason only when operated by young brides whose parents haven’t paid the full dowry expected by the in-laws. 

[Nivek 16930]

11 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

I'm with @naija on this one. 

Again, it's your view, and you're welcome to it. But when I mention the horrors of female mutilation as evidence of worldwide misogyny and then you bring up how we can't point fingers at people surgically removing clitorises because of circumcision in this country, that's a form of equating the two, IMO. 

I also didn't mean to say we don't have any issues with misogyny in this country. In fact, the whole point of my post was how widespread and normal misogyny is in many ways. And there are plenty of other issues as well. Obviously. But there's not the same kind of issues regarding women in this country that there are in India. 

The bottom line is you see circumcision as a horrible evil in this world, and I don't. But I can respect that you do. But any kind of conversation where we're trying to equate the two in some way doesn't make any kind of sense to me. It makes me want to vomit a little, to be honest. 

No.  I see circumcision as a barbaric practice that is rooted in cultural mysticism.  I think it should be ended.   Your failure to understand we lack a moral high ground on the subject of genital mutilation because somewhere in the world it is performed on girls and it is even more barbaric doesn't fix our own credibility issue.   

[956 Worldwide 34715]

Why are we talking FGM and circumcision on the India thread, it’s not even really an issue there outside of a small Islamic sect. Or anywhere on the subcontinent. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

Because we have the attention span of a gnat.

[Bevo 13577]

23 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Because we have the attention span of a gnat.

We've improved?

[52-80 19159]

There needs to be a second version of Godwin's law that has to do with conversations devolving into talking about dicks.

[Guadaloopy 10971]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

No.  I see circumcision as a barbaric practice that is rooted in cultural mysticism.  I think it should be ended.   Your failure to understand we lack a moral high ground on the subject of genital mutilation because somewhere in the world it is performed on girls and it is even more barbaric doesn't fix our own credibility issue.   

[Samson's Wig 3192]

I know that there's a cultlike movement out there to ban circumcision that can grab hold of those so inclined, but to feel that strongly about circumcision can only mean one of two things:

1. He is the rare recipient of a botched circumcision;
2. He's not circumcised and is upset that women, in significant numbers, prefer circumcised cocks (which might be the only reason needed for continuing the practice).

Otherwise, holy shit. Comparing it to female circumcision is fucking loony.

[Nivek 16930]

20 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

 

Otherwise, holy shit. Comparing it to female circumcision is fucking loony.

It is, that is why it was never done.  But never let facts get in the way...  

[SydneyCarton 48106]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

It is, that is why it was never done.  But never let facts get in the way...  

When you say genital mutilation occurs in this country equal to the genital mutilation occurs in places like Africa, and here you're referencing circumcision, while there it is cutting off a woman's clit, THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A FUCKING COMPARISON. 

[Gatorubet 30239]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

It is, that is why it was never done.  But never let facts get in the way...  

Show us on the doll where the smegma touched you..

[crash_davis 23113]

Cool story time. 

In my early 20s I worked in a diverse team (Chinese male, Indian male, white males/femails, African American female) for a company in Dallas. We're all in our 20s and get along great, lots of happy hours. One day, we're all shooting the shit in a cube. The Indian guy was really dark. The Indian guy leaves the cube. After a few seconds, the African American woman says, "Uhh uhh, what a waste of color."

Everyone looks at each other then starts laughing our asses off. One of the funniest things I've ever heard. We told him later in the day and he laughed his ass off.

[Nivek 16930]

18 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

When you say genital mutilation occurs in this country equal to the genital mutilation occurs in places like Africa, and here you're referencing circumcision, while there it is cutting off a woman's clit, THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A FUCKING COMPARISON. 

In thinking about it more, I suppose I did compare them.   See comparison involves looking at similarities or dissimilarities.  It can be judged as =, but it can also be judged as < or >.   That is the definition.  (Maybe I used the word comparable errantly earlier, I don't know.) And like most of the posters on here, I did have an opinion of which was worse.  Based on how this thread has gone, no amount of times of me stating FGM is worst than MGM, but both are GM will ever get through the emotional reactivity.   What I stated was that before we get on our high horse and start lecturing people around the world about GM, we should clean it up here.  Maybe explicitly banning the FGM practice (it is only banned by 35 states according to wiki) here in the United States, and tackling MGM (such as limiting it to adults only) here as well would be a start. 

But I am sure this will also be misunderstood, misrepresented, and there seems to be some precedence for this.  In the excerpt below, it seemed that it is quite common to have a visceral reaction when discussing this.  Now, I wasn't there when Kirsten Bell or Margaret Somerville spoke, so I cannot vouch for how these women presented themselves or the subject but it seems that the reaction on this thread mirrors the reaction these women received.   The article goes into some more detail, which I was largely ignorant of and it is hardly a detailed discussion (to be clear, there is more to learn).   I do not necessarily agree with the article I linked above (I am far too uneducated on the subject), but I do agree with the author's conclusion (about banning it on minors: since I have to be so explicit). 

One more time: Now I am not saying sewing up a vagina and cutting off the clitoris with a pair of scissors is the same thing as circumcision by a physician,  any more than one would claim that Sonny's BBQ beef plate is equivalent to Franklin's brisket even if they both make turds.  The emotional knee-jerk reactions have been largely unhelpful and certainly not thoughtful.  Or maybe I just wasn't explicit enough.  They are not the same.  The extremes of either (MGM and FGM) are not the same.  But they are classified as GM because both practices are GM.   Some forms of them are more horrifying than others and both can risk the life or the quality of life for the recipients.   

 

Quote

In the 1990s, when the Canadian ethicist Margaret Somerville began to speak and write critically about the non-therapeutic circumcision of infant boys, she was attacked for even addressing the subject in public. In her book The Ethical Canary, she says her critics accused her of ‘detracting from the horror of female genital mutilation and weakening the case against it by speaking about it and infant male circumcision in the same context and pointing out that the same ethical and legal principles applied to both’.

She wasn’t alone. The anthropologist Kirsten Bell has advanced similar arguments in her university lectures, provoking a reaction that was ‘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!’

There’s a problem with these claims. Almost every one of them is untrue or severely misleading

It’s easy to see where these reactions are coming from. One frequent claim is that FGM is analogous to ‘castration’ or a ‘total penectomy’. Put that way, anyone who tried to compare the two on ethical (or other) grounds would be making a serious mistake – anatomically, at the very least.

You often hear that genital mutilation and male circumcision are very different. FGM is barbaric and crippling (‘always torture’, as the Guardian columnist Tanya Gold wrote recently), whereas male circumcision is comparatively inconsequential. Male circumcision is a ‘minor’ intervention that might even confer health benefits, whereas FGM is a drastic intervention with no health benefits, and only causes harm. The ‘prime motive’ for FGM is to control women’s sexuality; it is inherently sexist and discriminatory and is an expression of male power and domination. That’s just not true for male circumcision.

Unfortunately, there’s a problem with these claims. Almost every one of them is untrue, or severely misleading. They derive from a superficial understanding of both FGM and male circumcision; and they are inconsistent with what scholars have known about these practices for well over a decade. It’s time to re-examine what we ‘know’ about these controversial customs.

Oh, and if you do read the article and take issue with some of the comparisons between labiaplasty and FGM (I know I did) read this or this and/or this.  Granted some of these societies are performing it on younger girls than women (who had kids) but the first or second article references a 15 yr old in Australia getting the procedure. 

So doctor ( @naija ) Is this wrong?  Are these articles wrong or misleading?  I defer to you, this is your area it seems (medicine, if not the specific specialty that you are focused on)  either way you are vastly more qualified to interpret this than I am based on your field and what is your view on the first article (aeon)? 

  

 

[Gatorubet 30239]

7 hours ago, Nivek said:

In thinking about it more, I suppose I did compare them.   See comparison involves looking at similarities or dissimilarities.  It can be judged as =, but it can also be judged as < or >.   That is the definition.  (Maybe I used the word comparable errantly earlier, I don't know.) And like most of the posters on here, I did have an opinion of which was worse.  Based on how this thread has gone, no amount of times of me stating FGM is worst than MGM, but both are GM will ever get through the emotional reactivity.   What I stated was that before we get on our high horse and start lecturing people around the world about GM, we should clean it up here.  Maybe explicitly banning the FGM practice (it is only banned by 35 states according to wiki) here in the United States, and tackling MGM (such as limiting it to adults only) here as well would be a start. 

But I am sure this will also be misunderstood, misrepresented, and there seems to be some precedence for this.  In the excerpt below, it seemed that it is quite common to have a visceral reaction when discussing this.  Now, I wasn't there when Kirsten Bell or Margaret Somerville spoke, so I cannot vouch for how these women presented themselves or the subject but it seems that the reaction on this thread mirrors the reaction these women received.   The article goes into some more detail, which I was largely ignorant of and it is hardly a detailed discussion (to be clear, there is more to learn).   I do not necessarily agree with the article I linked above (I am far too uneducated on the subject), but I do agree with the author's conclusion (about banning it on minors: since I have to be so explicit). 

One more time: Now I am not saying sewing up a vagina and cutting off the clitoris with a pair of scissors is the same thing as circumcision by a physician,  any more than one would claim that Sonny's BBQ beef plate is equivalent to Franklin's brisket even if they both make turds.  The emotional knee-jerk reactions have been largely unhelpful and certainly not thoughtful.  Or maybe I just wasn't explicit enough.  They are not the same.  The extremes of either (MGM and FGM) are not the same.  But they are classified as GM because both practices are GM.   Some forms of them are more horrifying than others and both can risk the life or the quality of life for the recipients.   

 

Oh, and if you do read the article and take issue with some of the comparisons between labiaplasty and FGM (I know I did) read this or this and/or this.  Granted some of these societies are performing it on younger girls than women (who had kids) but the first or second article references a 15 yr old in Australia getting the procedure. 

So doctor ( @naija ) Is this wrong?  Are these articles wrong or misleading?  I defer to you, this is your area it seems (medicine, if not the specific specialty that you are focused on)  either way you are vastly more qualified to interpret this than I am based on your field and what is your view on the first article (aeon)? 

Joey, have you ever thought about slowly moving your blade around the shaft of a penis…..I mean, thought about it a lot?

[naija 2854]

9 hours ago, Nivek said:

  What I stated was that before we get on our high horse and start lecturing people around the world about GM, we should clean it up here.  Maybe explicitly banning the FGM practice (it is only banned by 35 states according to wiki) here in the United States, and tackling MGM (such as limiting it to adults only) here as well would be a start. 

The thing is, if we point out that is what you are saying, you have claimed that it is a strawman argument, so I do not know what response you are looking for, when literally rephrasing (not paraphrasing) your words is tossed out as fallacy.

As for the articles, well, whether the omission was candidly deliberate or an editing choice for brevity's sake, it kind of describes two types of FGM, and you can be lead to believe that it's mainly the not so rigorous type and then the extreme alteration as described, that it listed as being 10%. In reality, there is a classification scheme, which is not comprehensive, but from that you can easily see that it gets severe quite quickly, and when you add those up, it's more than 10%. That number, also without a denominator, doesn't say much. 10% doesn't sound like a great number, but what if it was 10% of 200 million? 

As for the comparisons between labiaplasty and FGM, this is much like someone overhearing a conversation about miscarriage, and the physician is referring to it as an abortion, and thinking something's been found out. Labiaplasty is technically speaking, defined as female genital cutting already. You will see FGM classified as the same. The word choices often come from the user's bias.

[TwiceHorn 31476]

So, broader question.  Why is patriarchy and misogyny rampant worldwide and in the majority? of cultures (I am aware that there are matriarchal cultures, but think they are an extreme minority)?

Does it stem from the fact that men are mostly bigger and stronger?  From the reproductive imperative, by which men tend to be programmed to fuck as many women as possible?  Or because women get penetrated?**

**This isn't really serious, or maybe it is.  It seems that quite a number of things (men can't be raped, the seriousness of rape) seem to stem from that fact.

[elfenix 34243]

 

[Ben Tobin 374]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, broader question.  Why is patriarchy and misogyny rampant worldwide and in the majority? of cultures (I am aware that there are matriarchal cultures, but think they are an extreme minority)?

Does it stem from the fact that men are mostly bigger and stronger?  From the reproductive imperative, by which men tend to be programmed to fuck as many women as possible?  Or because women get penetrated?**

**This isn't really serious, or maybe it is.  It seems that quite a number of things (men can't be raped, the seriousness of rape) seem to stem from that fact.

My guess is that fear of the unknown stretches back to our lizard days and one of the greatest unknowns was where babies came from. This made women near mythical creatures and some cultures responded with fertility goddesses and others went with "I don't understand it so kill it". Men have always harbored a fear of women and it often leads to violence. But what do I know

[956 Worldwide 34715]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, broader question.  Why is patriarchy and misogyny rampant worldwide and in the majority? of cultures (I am aware that there are matriarchal cultures, but think they are an extreme minority)?

Does it stem from the fact that men are mostly bigger and stronger?  From the reproductive imperative, by which men tend to be programmed to fuck as many women as possible?  Or because women get penetrated?**

**This isn't really serious, or maybe it is.  It seems that quite a number of things (men can't be raped, the seriousness of rape) seem to stem from that fact.

My guess is that it goes back to genetics and the instinct to reproduce as a species that has a high-intensity parenting strategy (have few offspring, long gestation,and invest heavily in them).  I think there’s a deep, almost biological horror in most men of the idea they they may be fooled into caring and providing for a child that is not their own for years.
 

It seems to me that most misogyny and patriarchal control is built around creating a system of rules and norms that imposed severe penalties for non-sanctioned sexual behavior among women. 
 

[TwiceHorn 31476]

Also, I equate/conflate patriarchy with misogyny.  I'm not sure if that's accurate.  They're probably related, but maybe not inevitably intertwined.

[JesusSweatDuck 17781]

On 6/1/2023 at 9:36 AM, HamsterHookah said:

And to think, this is the country that is the fastest growing in population and GDP and global power (playing both sides, the West and cozying up with Russia/China as opportunists). 

Frankly, we should be playing a bit more with the visa situation to pull them away from China/Russia. 

[Nivek 16930]

10 hours ago, naija said:

The thing is, if we point out that is what you are saying, you have claimed that it is a strawman argument, so I do not know what response you are looking for, when literally rephrasing (not paraphrasing) your words is tossed out as fallacy.

As for the articles, well, whether the omission was candidly deliberate or an editing choice for brevity's sake, it kind of describes two types of FGM, and you can be lead to believe that it's mainly the not so rigorous type and then the extreme alteration as described, that it listed as being 10%. In reality, there is a classification scheme, which is not comprehensive, but from that you can easily see that it gets severe quite quickly, and when you add those up, it's more than 10%. That number, also without a denominator, doesn't say much. 10% doesn't sound like a great number, but what if it was 10% of 200 million? 

As for the comparisons between labiaplasty and FGM, this is much like someone overhearing a conversation about miscarriage, and the physician is referring to it as an abortion, and thinking something's been found out. Labiaplasty is technically speaking, defined as female genital cutting already. You will see FGM classified as the same. The word choices often come from the user's bias.

To the first point, I don't think most on here were rephrasing but misrepresenting what I said.  SX started the misrepresentation and the rest just followed suit, yourself included.  What I said was tantamount to the old adage involving glass houses and stones.  (Furthermore given the context of the times we live in, where women's body autonomy has been stripped away in the United States, we are far from the best people to lecture others on women's health/rights at this time, plus we continue to allow MGM to occur in this country without even requiring a license - something your barber needs to cut hair).  

To your second paragraph, at the bottom of the AEON article, it states it was an excerpt from a published article and includes the link (and also includes other publications by this author), and yes, it goes into more detail on the subject.

As to the last paragraph, the author touches on this cultural bias as well in the article.