i do see it as a human rights violation, but i think that such a black and white mentality is dangerous, particularly when you have a cultural divide.
correct me if i'm wrong, but the cultures that participate in genital mutilation are typically developing countries in northern africa and he middle east. for instance isn't egypt (a more developed country)moving away from that trend now?
i think from an antropological perspective, it is imperative to remember that cultural maturity is a process. certain factors must be in place before a civilization experiences a paradigm shift. look at our attempts to bring democracy to a country that might not be developmentally ready for it, and consider america-our consumption patterns are one step away from being human right's violations, but do we see it that way yet?
regarding circumcision vs. genital mutilation- could the difference in outrage stem from the fact that the purpose of circumcision is not to remove pleasure sensors from a boy's body?
perhaps it is cultural blindness on my part, but i am much less offended by the notion of removing a foreskin than i am the removal of a clitoris.
your use of the term "cultural maturity" implies that there is a linear pattern of inevitable progression, a movement from barbarism to civilization. at least, that's what it feels like. is western american culture "not ready" for a paradigm change in the way we look at the female body so that girls stop mutilating themselves through anorexia? what makes a culture ready for change? "developed" is pretty synonymous with "westernized." i don't mean to sound vicious; i'm just curious to know what you think.
1)if cultural maturity implies a linear pattern, i'll need a better example of a word to use.
2)comparing anorexia to genital mutilation is a difficult analogy, at best. i see where you're going with that, but anorexia is a form of self mutilation, not a human rights violation. it isn't a one-time-invasive procedure like FGM.
our culture endorses it, to be sure, but more implicitly than FGM is endorsed in some areas.
3) i don't know how western is synonymous with developed. again, give me a better example to use.
4)the practice of FGM varys widely. in more tribal regions, the procedure is very brutal. they are in unsanitary conditions, and the mutilation is more severe. in parts of india, girls get a surgery-with anaestheisa. in some arab countries, the girls get nicked with a razor. to lump all of these customs into one pot and declare them all to be as extreme as the worst offender, is to my mind, pardon me- "western, linear thinking"
i think tonyjohnuk" said it best. i'll refer you to his thoughts, below.
ps i like your iconsparkly_queenApril 10 2006, 16:52:15 UTC
when countries become developed, it usually implies that they have more contact with the developed, westernized, capitalist "first" world...thus becoming more like the Euro-American world players.
ps i like your iconsparkly_queenApril 10 2006, 16:57:05 UTC
when countries become developed, it usually implies that they have more contact with the developed, westernized, capitalist "first" world...thus becoming more like the Euro-American world players. that's what i meant by equating western with developed. i am well-versed in the diverse procedures that fall under the term FGM; i was challenging your reasoning, not your opinion.
correct me if i'm wrong, but the cultures that participate in genital mutilation are typically developing countries in northern africa and he middle east. for instance isn't egypt (a more developed country)moving away from that trend now?
i think from an antropological perspective, it is imperative to remember that cultural maturity is a process. certain factors must be in place before a civilization experiences a paradigm shift.
look at our attempts to bring democracy to a country that might not be developmentally ready for it,
and consider america-our consumption patterns are one step away from being human right's violations, but do we see it that way yet?
regarding circumcision vs. genital mutilation- could the difference in outrage stem from the fact that the purpose of circumcision is not to remove pleasure sensors from a boy's body?
perhaps it is cultural blindness on my part, but i am much less offended by the notion of removing a foreskin than i am the removal of a clitoris.
Reply
is western american culture "not ready" for a paradigm change in the way we look at the female body so that girls stop mutilating themselves through anorexia? what makes a culture ready for change?
"developed" is pretty synonymous with "westernized."
i don't mean to sound vicious; i'm just curious to know what you think.
Reply
2)comparing anorexia to genital mutilation is a difficult analogy, at best. i see where you're going with that, but anorexia is a form of self mutilation, not a human rights violation.
it isn't a one-time-invasive procedure like FGM.
our culture endorses it, to be sure, but more implicitly than FGM is endorsed in some areas.
3) i don't know how western is synonymous with developed. again, give me a better example to use.
4)the practice of FGM varys widely. in more tribal regions, the procedure is very brutal. they are in unsanitary conditions, and the mutilation is more severe.
in parts of india, girls get a surgery-with anaestheisa. in some arab countries, the girls get nicked with a razor. to lump all of these customs into one pot and declare them all to be as extreme as the worst offender, is to my mind, pardon me- "western, linear thinking"
i think tonyjohnuk" said it best. i'll refer you to his thoughts, below.
Reply
Reply
Reply
i am well-versed in the diverse procedures that fall under the term FGM; i was challenging your reasoning, not your opinion.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment