Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

Both references you cited earlier (in Message 15) made the point that FGM is intended to control a woman's sexuality.Why are you demanding evidence from Nator when you yourself provided the evidence in Message 15?From your response in Message 15: From your second cite (Prisoners of Ritual: Some Contemporary Developments in the History of Female Genital Mutilation): I would argue that, at best, the mothers/grandmothers/aunts are indifferent to the horrific consequences. That is completely beside the point.The fact remains: FGM is intended to control women.From your response in Message 15: I'd hardly call 1/2 of Africa "limited". In addition, in recent years, millions of Africans have migrated to Europe and North America, bringing their traditions with them.FGM is not "geographically limited".From your response in Message 15: Over 3/4s of those who have been mutilated have FGM II or FGM III, the most severe "forms".From your response in Message 15: From your first cite in Message 15: Sounds real enjoyable. Even better! So why does the author state: The "sexual pleasure" data came from interviews with 97 women. The author claims that 90% of these women experienced orgasm.That's remarkable. Studies here in the U.S. have shown that 70% of women do not climax thru penetration alone.I seriously doubt Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's results.So.FGM is intended to control women.
FGM results in infections, cysts, fistulae, pain and death.How is eradicating this barbaric ritual "a pretext to destroy cultural diversity"?

That's true. Children die because they are denied blood transfusions, medical treatment, etc. here in the U.S. as a result of their parents' religious convictions.I would argue, however, that no parent has the right to kill his/her child, whether thru medical neglect or mutilation.

I know you were responding to Nator. The "better" alternatives are horrific as well.And yes, I meant the mothers/etc. are indifferent to the risks. I read both cites in their entirety.Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's data do not agree with the other studies she cites in her article. "Enjoyed" and "pleasure" are a far cry from "orgasm".Her data also contradict more recent studies: Female genital mutilation and its psychosexual impact.
J Sex Marital Ther. 2001 Oct-Dec;27(5):465-73. Female Genital Cutting:: Clinical and Cultural Guidelines
Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 59(4):272-279, April 2004.There are over a dozen other, more recent, papers I could have cited. I did not accuse Ms. Lightfoot-Klein of manufacturing her data. I've read the entire thread.And I'll ask you again: How will eliminating this barbaric practice "destroy" the cultures that practice it? That's Laurie Anderson.

The tradition is intact.That's all I meant.

A child cannot seek asylum.Even after a girl is mutilated, she is kept quiet.Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz Legislation on Female Genital Mutilation in the United States
Center for Reproductive Rights Briefing Paper
http://www.reproductiverights.org/pdf/pub_bp_fgmlawsusa.pdf FGM has been illegal in Germany for 6 years.Just this last September, two German girls, ages 1 and 4, were rescued.Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz "A first".It was dumb luck these girls were spared.It's going to take a lot more than a couple of laws on the books to stop this barbarity.

I've picked thru your posts to try and draw a bead on your "destroy" v. "preserve" conundrum.Message 22 was the best I could do. You are way off the mark.Just by way of introducing myself, you should know, I have a degree in Anthropology (Cultural Anthropology!).Please show me where anyone in this thread has "questioned the value of cultural diversity/integrity". If????Tiananmen Square? Again. Monoculture? Who here has advocated a monoculture? ???Shia v. Sunni? The very definition of FGM.Uncut women are harshly punished....The rest of your post natters on about some mythical global monoculture.FYI, by definition, any culture is a "monoculture". Any culture "acts like a headmaster" aka sets up rules. Any culture punishes deviants.The question you should have asked:How can universal human rights exist in a culturally diverse world?http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1627e.htm It should be patently obvious that the "protection of cultural heritage" (FGM) is sometimes going to come in conflict with other basic human rights (bodily integrity).In the UN Declaration of 1948, which is still the central reference text in the debate concerning the universality of human rights, the inviolability of the person is formulated in Article 3 with the words, “Everyone has the right to life, freedom and safety of person,” and it is expressed in Article 5 with the explicit prohibition of torture and the prohibition of cruel treatment and punishment.In 2005, the Organization of African Unity resolved to strive for gender parity. The OAU and others in Africa are fighting tooth and nail to change their society(ies).Your contention that eurocentric monsters are intent on destroying "the other" is soooooo 1970.

Here in the United States, 1:500,000. 26 deaths per year.Thompson, Robert S.
Routine Circumcision in the Newborn: An Opposing View.
Journal of Family Practice, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 189-196, 1990.The death rate for FGM is 10%!The rate of MGM "accidents" here in the U.S. is 1.5%.Journal of Urology, Vol 153, no 3 part I, March 1995, pp 778-779.I'm not sure how one can classify FGM "accidents", since "normal" FGM results in lifelong pain/infections/cysts/fistulae.

By definition, no it isn't.Your loose (and therefore inaccurate) definition of culture needs some fine-tuning: As can easily be seen from this definition, "culture" can refer to the any number of national "sub" cultures. It means everything.There is no over-riding, monolithic, "national" culture. And, as I mentioned earlier, just such an international consensus has been reached. Via the United Nations.The United Nations Human Rights Treaties No. Individual rights are human rights. Human rights are international. By international consensus!If you feel that individual rights are somehow different from human rights, please enlighten me.

From Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's article: In light of this alone, "sexual satisfaction" of a mutilated Sudanese woman means something entirely different from the "sexual satisfaction" of an uncut woman.By "explanation" I am assuming you mean this, as you have referred to it several times: OTTO, H. A., (Nov. 10-13, 1988). The Extended Orgasm: New Perspectives. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, San Francisco.MEGAFU, U. (1983). Female Ritual Circumcision in Africa: An Investigation of the Presumed Benefits Among Ibos of Nigeria. East Africa Med. Journal, 40(11), 793-800.VERKAUF, B. S. (1975). Acquired Clitoral Enlargement. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 9(4), 134.MONEY, J., et al. (1955). Hermaphroditism: Recommendations Concerning Assignment of Sex, and Psychologic Management. Bulletin of Johns Hopkins Hospital, 97(4),284-300.None of these are available online.They are too old.It is interesting to note, however, that the author finds 32 y.o. study compelling. One that deals with hermaphrodites, at that. No, dear."Difficulty" can mean "absence of".Let's revisit that first quote: It is patently obvious that "sexual satisfaction" to a woman socialized to believe that "agonizing pain" is perfectly acceptable means something ... unique.Ms. Lightfoot-Klein chose not to share her data, with the exception of 3 case studies, so I am unable to say with certainty what she means by "sexual satifaction".This reluctance to share data is unusual, to say the least.
90% of the 97 women interviewed experienced orgasm?
And we are to take her word on this? I'd like to see your evidence, H.(Hint: Even the most repressive regimes cannot dictate a monoculture.) Again. By international consensus, the OAU has pledged to follow the treaties I mentioned upthread. Perhaps you are able to read the minds of the OAU, but I am sadly lacking in that ability. Just a "legal contract", eh?Bring on the inconsistencies!

Please provide cites to the relevant literature re: common values, behaviors, etc. of a national "culture". Long on bluster, short on answers.Look. In the OP you referred to individual rights. Are you unable to define individual rights?And unless you are able to document this supposed "coercion", I suggest you stop with the bare assertions.

Blah blah blah.Look. Provide the cites.I can't stomach any more of your armchair anthropology. Unlike you, I choose to research my positions, not pull them out of my ass. Now perhaps you'd care to grace me with your definition of human rights and how it differs from "individual rights". Twice now you have insisted that coercion of one sort or another is responsible for the OAU signing onto U.N. treaties. And please. No more of your delightful insights. Cites from the literature would be appreciated.What evidence have you of this supposed coercion?

You have no evidence of this "ignorance", nor does Ms. Lightfoot-Klein. You have manufactured this "enthnocentric blindness" out of whole cloth. Stunning. Truly stunning. Sudanese women revel in their "agonizing pain" and thus are able to climax 90% of the time.Perhaps American women would benefit from this extraordinary knowledge!After all, 70% of American women are unable to climax thru penetration alone. There's a big difference between a 40 year literature review and Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's reliance on 2 hopelessly outdated studies (out of the whopping 4 she cited).How's that research into the more recent literature going, btw? Oh ho! What's this? Coercion? You professed ignorance of having suggested "coercion" in your last post! Look. H. You seriously need to step up to the plate.You have spent the last 7 posts bloviating nonstop.I am not interested in your uninformed opinions.Provide support for your blithering nonsense or qualify each of your subsequent posts with the following:THIS IS MY OPINION AND MINE ALONE.

I have access thru my University. You, my dear sir, are SOOL. Yeah. Can't read the paper, can you?Neither can I.This journal is all of 4 years old and my University doesn't subscribe.I cannot judge the paper from its abstract alone, and neither can you.Were I to have judged Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's paper on its abstract alone, I wouldn't have discovered its glaring methodological deficiencies.As you are unable to discuss the relevant literature, I suggest you get hopping and find substantive sources that support your position.

Rrhain,I am not insinuating you somehow support FGM. I cited my stat.Care to cite yours? Estimated Worldwide Incidence of Male Circumcision ComplicationsThis is a rough estimate. And this is an anti-circumcision site. Here is another estimate: Male circumcision: a review of the evidence
The Journal of Men's Health & Gender
Volume 2, Issue 1, March 2005, Pages 21-30I am unable to find an estimate for worldwide MGM death rate.The WHO estimates that 3 million/year undergo FGM.That's 30,000 dead/year. And the "complication" rate is nearly 100%. By "accident" I didn't mean death. And that was a U.S. stat. Diagnosis and Classification of Urethral Injuries
Urologic Clinics of North America - Volume 33, Issue 1 (February 2006)As for your other stat (5%), please provide the cite.This is what I found: Male neonatal circumcision: indications, controversies and complications
Urologic Clinics of North America - Volume 31, Issue 3 (August 2004)1.5% is right in the middle of this range.btw.I agree with you that MGM is barbaric and should be stomped out.Couple other things.From Message 96: A one year old or a four year old cannot seek emancipation. Are you assuming most children who are shipped off and mutilated are old enough to seek emancipation?Re: FGM and the U.S.I most certainly am not implying that FGM is a "huge" problem here in the U.S.You're projecting, Rrhain.Edited by molbiogirl, : added more quotes

Dareer, A. (1981). "An Epidemiological Study of Female Circumcision in the Sudan". Khartoum, Sudan: University of Khartoum Hosken, F. (1993). The Hosken Report: Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Females, fourth edition. Lexington, MA: Women's International Network Defective sexuality and female circumcision: The cause and the possible management
Saeed Mohamad Ahmad Thabet and Ahmed S.M.A. Thabet
J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. Vol. 29, No. 1: 12-19, February 2003 Amnesty InternationalThe MAJORITY. The 2 studies of which you are so fond are outliers.And, as I mentioned previously, Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's work is fatally flawed. Methodologically (where's the data?) and analytically.To wit: A case history based assessment of female genital mutilation in Sudan
Charlotte Schiander Gray
Evaluation and Program Planning
Volume 21, Issue 4, 1 November 1998, Pages 429-436A couple of things should jump out at you.First. The entire raison d'etre for Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's "superior" insight into mutilated Sudanese women is her "secret" knowledge of the smoke bath.From Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's article: Well. Not so much, hm? Seems "the whole village would know".Second. To highlight Nada's testimony: Remember this marvelous tidbit from Ms. Lightfoot-Klein's work? "Her lot in life". This agrees with Nada's testimony.And yet, Ms. Lightfoot-Klein takes, at face value, the protestations of 90% of the mutilated Sudanese women that they are "sexually satisfied".Despite the fact that "they have to be like that in public".Last night, as I tried to go to sleep, I couldn't understand how a researcher could so grievously misinterpret anthropological data.So I googled Ms. Lightfoot-Klein. Hanny Lightfoot-KleinWell. That explains a couple of things.The methodological flaws and the analytical flaws!This woman has no training!After all, what proper scientist would fail to include the data in her article?Geezlooweez.I hope I have put to bed this nonsense about mutilated women "enjoying" penetration.My questions about individual rights/human rights/the UN and coercion are still on the table, tho.Edited by molbiogirl, : sp