The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The ideological quagmire that is female circumcision > Comments

The ideological quagmire that is female circumcision : Comments

By Liz Conor, published 1/8/2006

Children are entitled to protection from the physical pain and shock, trauma, medical harm and suffering caused by female genital mutilation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Infibulation must be the ultimate form of population control practiced in countries where women are not valued. The death rate from female circumcision is high and the rate of complications at time of birth is high also. Fewer fertile women leads to lower population.

Female circumcision should not be practiced by Australian residents. Migrant groups that don't want their daughters to retain their genitals should not come to Australia.

Let the Somalia athletes remain in Australia
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 9:52:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where have you and other members of the sisterhood been hiding Liz? Good to see you have finally found your voice. Why is it that on some occasions we are told by educators and other mavens that for the West to impose its standards on other countries is arrogant and is also cast as an attempt to re-establish imperialism. However, on other occasions we’re invited to be shocked at some cultural practices in less enlightened or third world countries.

Liz just look at the sisterhood’s track record: silence on a female sent to prison without breaking the law; vocality about secret women’s business; silence on some NT Aboriginal women and children who are now refugees; vocality about equal representation in federal and state parliaments; silence about the rape of some Sydney females based on ethnicity; silence about the FGM practice of some migrants who have been arriving here since the early 70’s; and other mood swings which betray the essence of capriciousness. How amusing that you find fault in others.

Liz, remember the mantra which washes away all sins: ALL cultures are equal.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 10:22:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A little investigation on the internet reveals that girls in those countries that practice this horrific cutting will not be chosen for marriage in most instances if they are not mutilated thus keeping the tradition alive.
The husband will take a very sharp knife to the 'honeymoon' bed, proceed to cut open a hole in his new wife to admit his penis, then after depositing his seed..send her off to be re-stitched! Horror upon horror if she becomes pregnant....!!
This barbaric behaviour is not my idea of a loving, caring relationship, however i dont live in a country that practices this mutilation.
The mindset of the men in these communities to choose only a wife that has been mutilated is equal to the mindset of the older women in the same communities who actually perform the mutilation. Both genders co-operate to perpetuate the idea that unless the girls are 'done' early in life no man will marry them and they will have no chance of a 'normal' life in their community.
I dont know how these practices can ever end. I do think these refugees deserve as much compassion as we can possibly give and should be allowed to stay in Australia so that they will be able to live their lives in relative peace without the threat of having their genitals mutilated.
Posted by trikkerdee, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 12:37:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author starts by rightly condemning the barbaric non Christian practice of circumicising young girls. She then someone works in her anti Howard policies in regards to Iraq and 'Howard's multicultural war'.

If she wants to put an arguement that all children who are at risk of
abuse should be allowed to immigrate to Australia, then we better make room for every non Western nation to open up the flood gates.

I am in favour of the young girls from the Sierra Leone Commonwealth games getting Assylum as long as they sign an alliegance to be loyal to the country that is opening up their arms to them.

The anti Howard multicultural policies would not be needed if we had not been so stupid as to our the multi cultural policy we have had for the last 20 years more than likely starting with Whitlam (although I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong)
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 1:12:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article sits a little oddly with me.
I agree that female circumcision is horrifying and wrong and cannot be justified, that's why i got confused when the author seemed to be arguing, mid way through the piece, that as it was "cultural", there was somehow a debate about whether it could be seen as acceptable.
I daresay it was "cultural" for the Boers to oppress blacks in south africa - that didn't make it right or acceptable. It could be argued that anti-semitism was/is cultural in Christian Europe - that also does not make it right or acceptable. Suttee ( the burning of widows on their husbands funeral pyre in India), footbinding, honour killings and the stoning of adulteresses are all "cultural" practices, and all are cruel and wrong.
The human rights of women and girls are no less valid just because their oppressors are their husbands, fathers, mothers, mother-in-laws, brothers or aunts.
Posted by ena, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 2:59:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Australia admits every down trodden oppressed woman from every brutal ,third world country, we are in for a vast population increase . Because then the men from those same countries will come here seeking their women.
We have far too many opportunistic aliens here now. The latest lot who stayed around to collect their dues -then its back to the old country until trouble hits .We are expected to save "Australians" who add nothing to this country.
We need to look after our own, they should come first.
Our immigration laws need tightening up drastically.
Posted by mickijo, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 3:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think someone is telling porkies

Firstly let me profess I am not an expert on this procedure, however it is my understanding that if this procedure was to be performed, it would have been performed on these women before they reached puberty.

This is not the first time that claims using the emotive term of ‘genital mutilation’ have been made. Such claims carry an enormous amount of emotive power.

Ever heard of Adelaide Abankwah? Well neither did I, until I began researching Marie Claire.

A woman calling herself Adelaide Abankwah entered the US illegally in 1997. She claimed she would be involuntarily subjected to a clitoridectomy if tribal members discovered she wasn’t a virgin.

“Marie Claire is most famous for championing the cause of "Adelaide Abankwah" a purported tribal princess who allegedly left her homeland of Ghana to "escape genital mutilation." Although immigration didn't buy "Adelaide's" story and kept her in detention, Marie Claire did believe it, telling her tale under a headline that shrieked, "Why Are Women Who Escaped Genital Mutilation Being Jailed in This Country?"
http://www.nationalreview.com/blyth/blyth200407290001.asp
<a href="replace with http address" target="_blank"> your text </a>
"Adelaide Abankwah" was actually Regina Norman Danson, a Ghanaian hotel worker. http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1878 <a href="replace with http address" target="_blank"> your text </a>

Jean Allman a Professor of African History wrote a letter to Marie Claire
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=8748
<a href="replace with http address" target="_blank"> your text </a>
“Surely a magazine of your stature employs investigative reporters capable of fleshing out the facts of a story.”

“That said, I am disgusted that your magazine has made Adelaide into a cause celebre when there is every indication that her story is contrived. Female genital mutilation is not only NOT practised in the area of Ghana from which Adelaide claims to come, but NEVER has been.”

I do not know if female circumcision is practised in Sierra Leone, but I bet you my bottom dollar that Australia’s women’s magazine editors will not pass up this opportunity to increase the sales of their magazines.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 3:19:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Liz Connor begins by being unduly reticent in condemning infibulation. Catherine Annas surely nails the issue: “When the effects of female genital mutilation are honestly faced, nothing can justify it. Not culture. Not tradition. Not parental rights. Nothing.” Liz clinches with another argument: that children are entitled to protection from the physical pain, trauma, medical harm and suffering caused by female genital mutilation. This argument turns on the existence of rights of children who require protection from harmful actions whether those actions are by parents, religious leaders or the state and whether the justifcation given is cultural, religious or pseudo-scientific.

If the above is right, the question then becomes what process is best when the need for intervention against the process becomes necessary, and who decides? We in Australia don't have a great track record when protection of children's rights are concerned (witness stolen generations, abuse of state wards, incarcerartion of refugee children). Perhaps we should look more closely at the international models of child protection (the Norwegian model comes to mind with its Children's Ombudsman and children's rights enshrined in constitutions).

The work of UNICEF offers some hope but that organisation is hopelessly under-resourced and inadequately supported by the wealthier nations like Australia which is happy enough to be in clear breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child when it pleases our government.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 3:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no ‘ideological quagmire’ regarding female circumcision. The confusion Liz Connor refers to results from the clash of reality with all too popular anti-Western apologist ideology which holds every culture to be ‘equal.’

How confusing to weigh Western cultures against the cultures of people who customarily mutilate their own children. Gee, maybe all cultures aren’t equal after all! Shock horror - perhaps all those victims of Western Imperialism – aren’t such victims after all. Maybe there was a reason our Western forebears considered so many other peoples barbaric - maybe some of them were!

Then again, female circumcision isn’t such a big deal, compared to the horrors of fast food, capitalism and democracy?

Enough sarcasm.

While there is much merit in cultural diversity, customs which have the effect of subjugating or controlling people should always be rejected. Tolerating female circumcision for the sake of ‘respecting’ other cultures is a plain and simple abomination. For the same reasons our ‘evil’ Imperialist ancestors suppressed cannibalism, and we today should reject the Burka.

How sad that some people are so ashamed of their own culture’s moral superiority, that they’d even contemplate ignoring another culture’s mutilation of children. All cultures are not equal
Posted by Kalin, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 3:54:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, You are right. Multiculturalism was implemented by Whitlam and Grassby. Then followed up by Fraser. So both major parties are to blame for the divisive policies.

FGM is but one of the nasty cultural practices that came with MC.

No one has yet stated if FGM is against the law here. If not it should be and mandatory notifacation by medical staff also, so the parents of the girls can be dealt with.

I am given to understand that evidence exists that FGM has/is carried out here and further at least one Sydney hospital has a department set up specifically to deal with post FGM problems. There is other evidence that suggests that Aussie born girls have been sent overseas, to have the job done. Some bloody "holiday"!

Before we get carried away with happenings in other countries, we should clean up our own backyard first.

FGM is barbaric. We do not allow bullfights. revenge killing or a host of other cultural practices so why not outlaw FGM?
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 5:46:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly I would like to say that it is good to know that people have not forgotten about the issue of female genital mutilation. With more than 2 million females at risk each year globally it is definitely an issue that we cannot afford to brush under the carpet.

There are a few points I would like to clear up. James H mentioned that he doubted it was practiced in Sierra Leone. Yes, genital mutilation is practiced in Sierra Leone along with almost all of the countries stretching west to east in a band along the top of Africa. It is also practiced in the Middle East, Asia and North America. Quite alarmingly it is common among most Muslim women in Indonesia and Malaysia; however type three infibulation is not always the case.

Also, the comment was made doubting the truth of the Sierra Leone stories based on "porky- pies" they were telling about the age of genital mutilation. While female genital mutilation is most common between the ages of three and ten years, the procedure can be performed any time between three and the first pregnancy. What an aweful experience having known sex and life previous to mutilation to then go through a pregnancy with it.

Perhaps next time we decide to be so judging of another's story, especially from our comfortable and comparatively safe and stable first world position, we might take a few more moments researching so as to at least give informed opinions.

Some more information on how to go about making a difference would have been appreciated. Having said that an organisation called Tostan that are working with UNICEF currently in different African countries have already successfully helped over 28 communities abandon FGM uniformly. They did not approach the villages on a moral pedestal with the motive of converting those to their own superior way of life. By being open to discussion and without judgment, the villages chose of their own accord to empower themselves and abandon the tradition and also to help neighbouring villages to do the same
Posted by cmaro, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 6:09:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some facts and resources on FGM/FGC in order to guide the discussion:

According to the report on FGM or FGC released by the Office of Senior Coordinator for International Women's Issues (2001), “Type II (commonly referred to as excision) is the form of female genital mutilation (FGM) or female genital cutting (FGC) widely practiced on women and girls in Sierra Leone. It is generally practiced by all classes, including the educated elite. Sierra Leoneans who live abroad sometimes bring their daughters back to Sierra Leone to participate in initiation rites that include this procedure. Type II is usually carried out within a ritual context. It is part of the passage from childhood to womanhood. Some estimates place the percentage of women and girls in Sierra Leone who undergo this procedure at 80 percent. Others put the percentage higher at 90 percent. All ethnic groups practice it except Krios who are located primarily in the western region and in the capital, Freetown.” For more information visit: http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/rep/crfgm/10108.htm

Additional resources: BITONG, Liliane. Fighting genital mutilation in Sierra Leone. Bull World Health Organ. [online]. Nov. 2005, vol.83, no.11 [cited 01 August 2006], p.806-807. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862005001100005&lng=en&nrm=iso

For information on rape and other forms of sexual violence against women in Sierre Leone visit: www.svri.org/sle.htm

For more information on FGM or FGC more generally visit: http://www.svri.org/female.htm

Just one last comment, FGM/FGC does occur in Ghana, in 2004 the national prevalence rate was estimated at 5% (ref: www.measuredhs.com/topics/gender/FGC-CD/start.cfm)
Posted by Liz Dartnall, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 6:12:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's nothing rational about religon.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 1 August 2006 7:32:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In Australian law, children are entitled to protection from genital cutting, provided that they are female. If they are male or intersexed, they may be cut at the will of the parents.

We might like to argue that it isn't the same, that one is neutral or even beneficial while the other is harmful, that one is sanctioned by religion while the other is not and finally that one is customary and familiar while the other is not. However, the fact remains that about a half of humankind is protected from involuntary genital alteration while the other half is not.

If involuntary female genital cutting is against the law, then isn't it about time we considered the ethics of male circumcision?
Posted by mg1333, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 12:58:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes what about the massive torture of male circumcision, practised by the supposed peace loving and caring jews and christians. Cultural, how about superstitious and depraved, its all associated with religion and all religious cultures have used some form of barbaric torture, to restrain and control their flock.

A talented writer, would put across a balanced piece, not a politically correct feminazi format, concentrating on the gender suffering the least in numbers. I know they're pretty ignorant in some of those cultures, and support must be given to those wishing to get beyond those archaic practises. But if they want to be here, then they should give up all their cultural and religious ways to be really rid of its negatives. If they hang on to their culture, they can expect nothing, but that culture following them.
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 8:25:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yes, i agree with mg1333. until there is opposition to =all= genital cutting of children, efforts to halt fgm will seem arbitrary.

it seems surprising, for example, that Liz Connor can pen the following paragraph:... "What about the Western medical intervention on children born of 'indeterminate' sex? What of plastic surgery and labioplasty, not to mention psychiatric operations ranging from lobotomy to removal of ovaries? What of unnecessary birth interventions such as episiotomy and some caesarian sections?"
.... without once considering any possible parallel between amputating parts of the genitals of girls & those of boys.

the truth is that in many cultures, female 'circumcision' consists of the removal of the prepuce alone, which modification is claimed by many women to improve sexual function, for an example see http://www.aznewage.com/female_circumcision.htm. what's more, female circumcision has been practiced therapeutically in the west in exactly the same way as male circumcision, for example, see http://www.noharmm.org/femcirctech.htm and http://www.noharmm.org/circumfemale.htm.

in contrast to removal of the clitoral prepuce, removal of the male prepuce involves a significant component of the skin surface & sensory capability, as well as the natural mechanical function of the penis. the impairment of sensuality inherent in male circumcision is quite explicit in the jewish and arabic religious importance of the practice. it is a sacrifice.

i don't want to trivialize the misery caused by female genital mutilation. many boys die of circumcision, but clitoridectomy & infibulation are, even in comparison to that, quite monstrous in conception & execution.

nor do i wish to align myself with The alchemist's 'feminazi' comments. i don't think genital mutilation is necessarily confined to to the domain of gender politics. wrt to male =and= female genital cutting i would simply ... "add another qualification, one that strips ambiguity from the issue. They are children."
Posted by j0n0, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 9:21:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
it may interest readers to note that Africa itself is turning away from female genital mutilation. See http://www.todayonline.com/articles/134088.asp , http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=25793 , and many others.
Posted by mg1333, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 10:28:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the replies.

There are indeed two omissions in the piece, one is male circumcision, which indeed falls under the principal ethical imperative I'm arguing for - they are children - and I lend my voice to calls that it be discontinued, until boys reach an age where they are able to decide for themselves, if it is central to religious identity and participation.

The last comment really needed to be followed through with the details and links so kindly provided by some of the readers. The piece popped up rather more quickly - I thought I had another week. I intended to do more research to add to that final comment, and I wanted to continue my previous efforts to get in touch with the Sierra Leone atheletes and run it by them first. Thanks to Liz SVRI and j0n0, I will certainly follow them up.

The comment by cmaro is also crucial - 'They did not approach the villages on a moral pedestal with the motive of converting those to their own superior way of life'. It's difficult however to take a position without that inference, and I imagine there may have been some women and men in those communities who did abandon the practice who nevertheless felt this was an imposed value from the West, and therefore paternalistic. That's why I make the comment about the difference between analysis and taking a position - a difficult distinction to make as an academic. And the question remains, is this a matter for 'outlawing'. Does this not make the practice more an assertion of state repressed traditional identity, and therefore more stridently pursued than it may have once been? The model cmaro refers to is undoubtedly where we should be lending our support, most crucially, I imagine, in the form of donations.
Posted by LizC, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 10:45:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In addition, the piece trys to set out, very sketchily, why the asylum claims of the Sierra Leone athletes have been met with silence. I meant to add a little more about Enlightenment thinking and the faith put in universal law through the Scientific Revolution, Newtonian physics and the Lockean ideal of equality before the law, which is the origin of universal human rights law. I imagine there is another piece a refugee advocate could write that simply details the lack of interest Australians in general have shown for the plight of asylum seekers in general.

Of course I am dismayed that the piece has attracted assimilationist zealouts, as this issue always does, like flies to sticky paper. As I said this the worst time to raise this issue, and I knew the risk, but this had to weighed against the claims of the Sierre Leone athletes.

I try to point out that we pedestal westerners have plenty of cultural practices that could be considered 'barbaric', yet we reserve that nicety from primitivism for first nation peoples, and here in Australia for migrants in general.

I absolutely support the ideal of multiculturalism, I absolutely support refugees in the claims for asylum here and abhor this governments' migration policies. I support the principal of coexistence across all racial differences, be it the high court Wik decision on land rights on pastoral leases, be it Isreal and Palestinian independent statehood.

However, where cultural practices violate human rights I advocate the protection of those at risk, and sorry to be a 'feminazi' here, but those at risk from harmful 'traditional' practices are overwhelming women and girls. This shouldn't, of course, exclude boys rights to protection in all instances.

Thanks again
Posted by LizC, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 10:48:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe there is nothing worse in the literary world than writers, who hold the floor with a published piece, then make comments about comments on their opinions.

They had their chance to speak their mind in the original article. It's supposed to be a statement of their opinion. It's extremely bad form, I believe, to then turn around and start chatting about what they really meant, or forgot, or were too busy to say.

Perhaps some writers should preview their writing a little more fully before submitting it - if they wish to be taken seriously.
Posted by Maximus, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 5:41:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus, thats one approach and I see some value in it. I much prefer those authors who come back and discuss the issues with us. I've never liked the sermon format very much and really enjoy the kind of process which happens on OLO sometimes.

The wonders of diversity.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 5:55:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liz, its always refreshing when a writer actually becomes involved, thank you. You explained, the reason for your article lacking the content you wanted. But doesn't make up for your lack of statistical fact.

“However, where cultural practices violate human rights I advocate the protection of those at risk, and sorry to be a 'feminazi' here, but those at risk from harmful 'traditional' practices are overwhelming women and girls. This shouldn't, of course, exclude boys rights to protection in all instances. “

This does seem to fly in the face of reality, considering world statistics and the fact 60% of males in the USA are mutilated as babies.

World statistics.
http://www.noharmm.org/HGMstats.htm

You also conveniently forget the huge number of boys mutilated in tribal and religious rituals around the world. Culturalism causes this, that's why multiculturalism doesn't work, as we're seeing increasingly throughout the world.

Certainly compassion for the oppressed is what all sensible people should be about, but not at the expense of stability and peace. Its religious culture that's the problem, not geographic culture which always benefits other societies. We can embrace all positive benefits of cultural difference, but to also accept religious culturalism, is just asking for trouble as seen everywhere.

My reason for the feminazi comment, was because you have failed to include all child gender mutilation, in preference to misleading feminine bias. “traditional' practices are overwhelming women and girls”
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 6:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OMG,

Australia needs people coming here who cut thier own children, sew lips up and go on hunger strikes as though we need a collective hole in the head. Even bringing those who dont from the same countries is just bringing more crap to grab a dole cheque.

When are the leftist crap in this land going to realise that they are selling our citizenship way too cheap.

Sickend
Posted by SCOTTY, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 6:49:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
God bless your soul RObert. I really mean that mate.

I've said it before, and I know it's the truth, you're a better man than I.

When I write stuff, I make a statement. I don't know any other way to do it. I put my reputation and my guts and my balls on the line. I'm not talking about this forum stuff here, I'm talking about writing that I do elsewhere. Where? Don't you worry about it, you probably wouldn't like it. It's too strong for moderates like you. It's your nature to allow others to slap (turkey slap?) you across the face so you can turn the other cheek. Folks like you will inherit the Earth one day, and you deserve it.

Meanwhile, I'll keep on fighting in the gutter to make the world a better place for the likes of yourself, who are too moderate to call a spade a shovel.

Some of us are still warriors. Some of us have still got spines. Some of us aren't afraid to stand up and speak our minds and if required, die for it. But don't you worry, you'll inherit the Earth one day. One day, long after I'm gone and forgotten.

God bless you Robert. Make sure you never get any dirt on your hands.

Besides, when I write, I never, never, never, make any excuses for what I've written. Even if I learn that what I've written is wrong. That's the difference between a man and a woman - a man stands or dies on his responsibility for his own actions. He makes no excuses. A man, a real man, accepts his responsibilities. But then, a real man does stuff, for which he can take some responsibility for. Some others take the middle ground - it's comfortable for them.
Posted by Maximus, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 8:22:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice try Maximus. I'd prefer to think that I am comfortable enough with my manhood and my humanity that I can bend and make space for others. Are you doing one of your satirical pieces because the description you give of yourself is of someone who is very insecure and needs to strutt and act tough to compensate - that can't be you can it.

As for tough words being more useful than a more gentle approach, I guess it depends on who you want to listen to you. If it's only those who already agree with you then fine, if you want others to understand a position they might not currently accept then I'll put my dollars in an approach that attempts to see their point of view and which does not hide behind false bluster and bravado.

As I said before there is scope for diversity. You keep writing tough stuff to impress those who already agree with you and I'll keep trying to communicate with those who may not understand my point of view right now (or who may have something to teach me).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 9:26:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus

Until your "confession" on the BB thread (ironic given your claim: "Besides, when I write, I never, never, never, make any excuses for what I've written) where, I believe, you excused yourself, I would just skim or even skip your posts - why? Because they were all so biased.

I have to question why you are even writing on a thread about female genital mutilation - you clearly couldn't give a toss about women in general. So I guess, I'll just go back to skipping your posts, which underscores R0bert's point about keeping lines of communication open.

It takes a real man to show compassion and understanding - that IS taking responsibility for oneself.

Only bullies brag - real heroes don't have to. They simply are.
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 3 August 2006 11:12:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hear, hear, R0bert.

Dear Maximus,

I know I am asking for another spray of abuse by responding to you, but, what the heck. I reckon, despite being a mere weak and feeble woman (to quote Queen Elizabeth the 1st), I've got some spine too.

I agree that when you stick your neck out - by writing your opinion - you have to expect to get it cut off, which also makes for vigorous and interesting argument. But, mate, there are plenty of women who use polemic and invective to make their arguments - just like you. I really don't think its gender specific. What about women like Germaine Greer? Or Anne Coulter or Pauline Hansen or Janet Albrechtson or Miranda Devine? The difference isn't that men and women do it differently, merely that its received differently. Men who bluster and bully are admired and called strong, with balls, and get told they call a spade a spade. Women who do the same are called shrewish, ball breaking bitches - I know, I'm quoting one man's response to me.

But, I agree with R0bert, if you want to persuade, if you want to learn, if you want to change those with minds open enough to be changed, then its better to speak reasonably and discuss the ideas, rather than the personality, gender or sexual preferences of the people who have them.

Jane Caro
Posted by ena, Thursday, 3 August 2006 11:19:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks mg1333 for informing us that FGM is against the law in Aus. But it raises another question. Do we adequately inform prospective migrants and refuges that FGM, and other cultural practices, are unlawfull here? It seems to me that we have at least a moral obligation to inform people of these matters before they take the huge step of coming here.

Those persons that feel strongly about a particular cultural practice may decide not to immigrate to Aus if they know certain things are unlawfull. It is too late once they are here.

I would be far more honest of us to say that we are a multi-racial country. But to say we are multicultural and give impressions that everyone can carry on with all their cultural practices is less than upfront.

On the issue of FGM there should be no doubt that migrants should be informed well before they decide to immigrate.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 3 August 2006 12:59:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, you say that it would be more honest of us to say that we are a multi-racial country than to say we are a multicultural country. An interesting distinction - but I'm not sure how a change in the terminology would bring about a change in practices. Please explain.

What are the key defining differences betweem multi-racial and multi-cultural? You might want to consider multi-ethnic and multi-faith while you're at it.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 3 August 2006 1:07:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FGM is still widely practiced mainly in Africa –with no sign of stopping soon.

The preferred age is between 3 and 10. (pre puberty).

It is now (since 1995) illegal to perform FGM in Australia. However many send there infants back home to get done due to family pressures – or maybe do them here secretly by visiting relatives.

Many cases of premarital and prenatal FGM reversal are being performed in Sydney's West – mainly at Auburn Hospital - at Medicare's expense of course.

There is no comparison between FGM and male circumcision except for the ritualistic aspect.

FGM is far more barbaric and MUCH more painful and takes weeks or months to heal - as it is often performed with a kitchen knife, a can lid, or a piece of broken glass, without sterilisation or anaesthesia. Infection often occurs and is very frequently deadly.

The sole purpose is protecting the family honour by making intercourse impossible – presenting a “stitched-closed” virgin bride to so demanding men. The husband then has the pleasure to cut her open with a knife on their wedding night… then sends her away to be stitched up again after he had "his" pleasure met.

In many instances pregnancy can and still occurs of course - with no possible outlet for normal vaginal delivery; the female is left with a horrific predicament.

As horrific as it is, I question the author's using FGM as an excuse for not sending the now 'adult" (virgin?) women back...wouldn’t they have already been mutilated when they were still kids?
Posted by coach, Thursday, 3 August 2006 1:34:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't have a problem with multiculturalism. How can I, when I come from a very multicultural family myself? I came to Australia from England 44 years ago and immediately felt very much at home with friendly Aussies from a whole variety of racial backgrounds.

What I don't like is having other peoples' religious/superstitious beliefs [sometimes masquerading as culture] forced onto me and others, whether it be some of the more recent imports, or the 'traditional' Catholic or Protestant extremism.

I see female genital mutilation as a sign that the men of such cultures have low self esteem and feel incapable of having a faithful wife without subjecting her to extreme control. I see the forced wearing of a burka or suchlike in the same way.

I most certainly agree that prospective migrants should be told, in no uncertain manner, what is and is not generally acceptable in Australia. The Dutch govt has produced a film showing that, in Holland, gay relationships and nude bathing at defined beaches, for example, are acceptable. Well, these things are not illegal in Australia either, but can anyone imagine our extremist Christian controlled govt having either the guts or common sense to do likewise?

I agree that female genital mutilation is barbaric in the extreme and any adults involved in it in Australia should be severely penalised and deported. And I would let these athletes stay here, on these grounds.

I understand that male circumcision is not only accepted in Australia, but also subsidised by Medicare. What other unnecessary medical procedure, done for religious reasons and/or because it allegedly improves a person's appearance, is paid for by the taxpayers?

For those interested, there are organisations opposed to unnecessary circumcision, both male and female.

http://www.circinfo.org/
Posted by Rex, Thursday, 3 August 2006 2:28:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol. Am somewhat aurprized that you seek to know the difference between the terms multiracial and multicultural. Rather than interesting I would think the distinction was obvious.

Multiracial refers to the physical characteristics of those in our community and we are quite varied and from differing ancestry.

On the other hand to say we are a multicultural society suggests that we allow numberous unfettered cultures in our community. This is not correct and I consider the term multiculturalism a misnomer. We have restraints on the practice of aspects of many other cultures.

The subject of this thread, FGM, is a good example as it is against the law here, but practiced in many other cultures. Other examples are many such as cockfighting, polygymy, child marriages, consumption of some foods and so the list could go on, and on. As well some of the aspects of our culture would not be acceptable in some other cultures.

I do not wish to diverge from the threads subject, so I will say again the we should ensure that prospective migrants are fully aware of our restrictions on certain cultural practices including FGM
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 3 August 2006 8:44:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Maximus!

"What?"

They're expecting an answer.

"An answer to what?"

They think you're a dork with your head stuck up your own dark place.

"Well is that right?"

Yep.

"Don't they know about the 2 posts in 24 hours rule on OLO?"

Whether they do or not they're after blood - your blood.

"Well let me tell you, they're welcome to it. I've got more than I need anyway."

But seriously folks, isn't this just lovely? Over 2000 African girls being brutalised every day and some people here are more intereted in me.

Well, whatever...

Recently, I was being interviewed. A young woman, gen Xer, asked me "How did I manage relationships?"

I was aghast. My immediate interpretation of the question was "How did I manipulate relationships" - something of which I do not do. I'd never even think about it.

My answer was simple, "I don't! If people like me, then great. If they don't, then that's their problem."

However, I do thank the good Jane Caro for raising the matter of some of my favourite women writers - "What about women like Germaine Greer? Or Anne Coulter or Pauline Hansen or Janet Albrechtson or Miranda Devine?", she writes.

Indeed!

Let me tell you Jane, you know your good women. Greer is my role model, my mentor and inspiration. It is her tactics I employ. I hold Greer in the very highest esteem as my role model gutter fighter.

Coulter I couldn't care less about.

Hansen, she's nice. Besides, back in about 2000, she got voted in as one of the hottest 100 babes in Aussie FHM mag. Respect. Too bad she got hooked up with that scum who were her party faithful.

Albrechtson - what a woman - respect!

Miranda? Oh gosh. A truly lovely and beautiful woman with whom I have exchanged occassional opinions over time. I hold Miranda in the very highest esteem indeed. BUT DON"T TELL MY WIFE!

Any more questions folks?

Or, why don't we all get back to the thread. I'm really not that interesting or important. But female genital mutilation is.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 3 August 2006 8:45:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i wld just like to correct some statements by 'coach'...

==There is no comparison between FGM and male circumcision except for the ritualistic aspect.==

i wld direct you to http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/articles/issues/fgc/index.php , in particular the description of Type I FGM, or Sunna Circumcision. Sunna is the removal of the clitoral hood (altho it sometimes involves the tip of the clitoris, which fact weakens this widely used classification). whatever, many examples of FGM involve removal of the female prepuce alone, & this is a _less_ radical procedure than male circumcision, but is otherwise _directly comparable_.

==FGM is far more barbaric and MUCH more painful and takes weeks or months to heal as it is often performed with a kitchen knife, a can lid, or a piece of broken glass, without sterilisation or anaesthesia. Infection often occurs and is very frequently deadly.==

this is true insofar as you are talking about clitoridectomy &/or infibulation, but the term FGM is commonly employed to include sunna, which is a relatively trivial, tho still invasive, procedure. otoh, male genital mutilation in a traditional setting just as frequently involves primitive instruments & poor infection control, & just as frequently results in illness, serious injury or death. there are active efforts in south africa to outlaw bush circumcision. some cultures inflict mutilations on boys beyond removal of the foreskin. subincision is usually -but not always- performed in adulthood. other radical forms of circumcision performed in childhood include removal of _all_ the skin from the penis, & even from the inner thighs.

contd...
Posted by j0n0, Thursday, 3 August 2006 9:53:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
==The sole purpose is protecting the family honour by making intercourse impossible – presenting a “stitched-closed” virgin bride to so demanding men. The husband then has the pleasure to cut her open with a knife on their wedding night… then sends her away to be stitched up again after he had "his" pleasure met.==

this is kind of patronising. these traditions of genital cutting have evolved over a very long time (witness the fact of male circumcision among australian aboriginals). in terms of reproductive fitness, the 'benefits' of unfettered sexual freedom are not as obvious for women as they are for men. at _some_ level, the protection of a woman's 'virtue' is also a benefit, & evidence for that is the complicity of women in the tradition. that the 'purpose' of genital cutting is more complex is evidenced by the variety of forms it takes. i do agree that it _seems_ barbaric, & believe it should be strongly discouraged.

there are strong motives for circumcised men to trivialize &/or valorize male circumcision, just as there are for genitally cut women to defend & perpetuate fgm. there are also many genitally mutilated adults of _both_ sexes who feel a visceral sense of violation when they realize that their god given body has been edited on their behalf. it is especially galling to be confronted after the fact with rationalizations that are ridiculous and offensive.

splitting hairs over exactly how much tissue is amputated from where & whether it is was part of a penis or a vulva all seems pretty academic to me.
Posted by j0n0, Thursday, 3 August 2006 10:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus, I admire that if you learn that what you’ve written is wrong you accept it and admit that you were wrong without making excuses. Real men AND real women do this :-) and I fail to see how it is a gender issue so FYI 'interested' not 'intereted', 'Pauline Hanson' not 'Pauline Hansen' and 'Janet Albrechtsen' not 'Janet Albrechtson' (although these last two errors were originally made by ena also). No excuses now you manly man you… ;-)
Posted by Pedant, Friday, 4 August 2006 8:45:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus,

You show great taste in women like Devine and Albrechtsen, but mate, I gotta ask; do you really think it wise to expose so much of your own genitalia on this particular thread?
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 4 August 2006 9:45:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, I don’t want to create a red herring either because the topic of this thread is very important. And your point about advising people about Australian law before they come here has real merit.

However, it is not a mere quibble to challenge your use of the terms ‘culture’ and ‘race’ and their derivatives ‘multi-cultural’ and multi-racial’ (or alternatives such as ‘multi-ethnic’ and ‘multi-faith’). The term ‘culture’ is one of the most complex inventions in language and thought. It encompasses to varying degrees aspects of practices deriving from ethnicity, birthplace, religion, age, education, social class and gender (among others).

Your definition of ‘multi-racial’ – it “refers to the physical characteristics of those in our community and we are quite varied and from differing ancestry” – is, in this context, most unhelpful. In what way can you predict a person’s attitude to genital mutilation by knowing their physical characteristics? (or for that matter, their country of origin)

You appear to be using a strictly pejorative definition of ‘multi-cultural’ when you assert that, “…to say we are a multicultural society suggests that we allow numerous unfettered cultures in our community.” If a ‘cultural’ practice is illegal in Australia it is still illegal when immigrants from many countries with different laws settle here. Calling ourselves ‘multicultural’ or ‘multiracial’ makes no difference. Australian law makers make Australian laws and all citizens are obliged to comply. Where does this notion of 'unfettered cultures' spring from?

So I can’t see how it is logical or helpful, using this elusive distinction, to argue that a change in label from ‘multi-cultural’ to ‘multi-racial’ would bring about a change in the practice of genital mutilation?
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 4 August 2006 11:11:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When you get down to basics the old women support and perform FGM because it was done to them and the men are in favour because they are incapable of having a normal sexual relationship with a normal woman.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 4 August 2006 11:54:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is Mise, I'm not convinced that any of us really understand the individual motivations of those involved.

I'm guessing that much of the support is because the practice so woven into cultures that it becomes something that only the truly brave challenge. Those who do challenge it probably get the same howling down from traditionalists that reformers in our culture get along with social consequences.

Old women may support it because it is proper, moral etc - see the effort some old women (and some old men) put into keeping younger women in line in our culture. Others because it is "tradition" (add a trumpet fanfare in there to show how important tradition is).

Younger men may go with it for similar reasons, maybe marrying a woman who has not been mutilated is similar to the way marrying a woman with a reputation as a "slut" used to be seen in our culture.

A wife who enjoys sex and knows it is better for both husband and wife than one who either does not enjoy it or who insists on seeing it as distasteful but if social mores are strongly against it then few people will buck the system.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 4 August 2006 12:15:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Female and male circumcision; both involve surgery and changing of the genitalia and, especially, if performed without anaesthetic, are abuse and violence inflicted on children and adults.

I understand that many men see circumcision as an affront and mutilation, however, genital surgery is generally performed for different reasons for males and females.

Biologically it is not on an even playing field.

1. The penis is a multifunction organ. It eliminates waste, is used for insemination of sperm and induces orgasm.

2. The clitoris has only one function; it induces orgasm. The nerve endings in the tiny clitoris are more numerous and more densely packed than in the entire male organ. Without it, orgasm is virtually impossible.

Circumcision, if performed correctly generally has no or little effect on the male libido or his ability to urinate. The reasons include hygiene (no dick cheese) and initiation into manhood. The objective is not and has never been to subdue male sexuality. While male infibulation does occur (fastening the prepuce in males) it is very rare.

Whereas, removal of the clitoris and sewing together the labia is a direct attempt to manipulate female sexuality. The majority of women cannot have an orgasm without direct stimulation of the clitoris – it is very rare for women to achieve orgasm solely on vaginal stimulation. (Sorry, fellas).

Many cultures simply cannot deal with the fact of female sexuality. Female virginity is held in higher esteem, women who are chaste are considered ‘better’ than women who, well, behave in the same manner as men sexually and, finally, there is the issue of paternity.

Coach stated FGM occurs in childhood; therefore, no reason to grant asylum to the Sierra Leone athletes. Coach is making an assumption here.

Sometimes, this barbaric practice is not performed until adulthood.

Regardless, genital mutilation is wrong for both sexes.

Cultures where it is performed are in violation of basic human rights.

Granting the Sierra Leone women asylum is one way in which to protest this violation of female sexuality and autonomy.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 4 August 2006 1:47:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some more info on male circumcision:

http://www.norm-uk.org/

I regard circumcision as a fatuous superstition and wonder at the mentality of those who continue to do this to their male children. As for 'tradition', if this is the only reason which can be given for doing [or not doing] something, then it probably means that there is no reason.

I agree with Scout that the effects in almost all cases pale into insignificance compared to female genital mutilation.

My father's mother was Jewish, but for whatever reason my father was not circumcised.

My mother told me an interesting story in 1952, when I was eighteen. We were all [in England] being called up for the Korean war and I had just come home from my medical, prior to being drafted into the Royal Navy.

She asked me how I had gone with the medical. I told her grade one. She asked if there was anything needing doing. I told her everything was OK. She asked if I was sure that nothing needed doing. So I asked her pointedly what was on her mind.

Apparently, when I was born, the doctor just happened to be Jewish. He suggested circumcision and my mother asked him if it was medically necessary. Wise woman! When he told her 'no', she decided not to have it done. And then she worried if she'd made the right decision for 18 years!

Traditions change. For instance, my lady friend is Japanese. Until quite recently, a Japanese husband was the undisputed boss and could get away with just about anything and his poor downtrodden wife just had to put up with it. [I'm sure there were exceptions, but this was the norm.] But Emiko has told me that many young Japanese women will not accept this anymore.

Of course, it's different when things are done to babies and young children, but I hope that the time is not far off when some young adult in Australia successfully sues the parents and perhaps also the doctors for a medically unnecessary genital mutilation which the mutilated person did not consent to.
Posted by Rex, Friday, 4 August 2006 3:32:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It appears that male circumcision was originally introduced into English-speaking countries as a way of suppressing masturbation. <http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&amp;task=view&amp;id=16>
<http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/shorthis.htm> <http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=31&amp;Itemid=54>
Posted by mg1333, Friday, 4 August 2006 10:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much has been written about genital mutilation. However no one has covered something which is practised in this country.

As part of the initiation ceremony for young aboriginal males. The urethra is spilt from the glans to the scrotum, creating what is medically known as hypospadias.

Sure there is no doubt that female genital mutilation practiced in other countries is abhorrent. Yet the genital mutilation practiced in this country does not rate a mention. Perhaps that is because it happens to males!
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 5 August 2006 5:43:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH

Thank you for bringing this latest barbarity to our attention. I do not believe that this practice has not mentioned because the victims are males. If you have been following this thread you would notice that even though the topic is about female genital mutilation - male infibulation and circumcision has received debate as well.

However, I would like to clarify what hypospadias actually is.

"Hypospadias is an abnormality of the penis. It affects about one in 150-350 boys and is usually detected at birth. There are different types of hypospadias.

* The opening of the urethra (where the urine comes from) is not at the end of the penis but is somewhere else along the penis (see the diagram below).
* The foreskin may be all at the back of the penis (“dorsal hood”) and may have none on the undersurface.
* The penis may not be straight (has a bend in it and this is called a “chordee”)
* There is not a straight stream of urine"

This condition is remedied by surgery and is essential for the wellbeing of boys afflicted with this condition.

Perhaps you meant male infibulation? It is not as common as female infibulation (the topic of this thread), however, it is practised in some cultures - I am not aware of its practice within the aboriginal community.

Perhaps, JamesH, you could enlightened us with a factual contribution by submitting an article to OLO on male genital mutilation.

MG1333

Both male and female circumcision have been used in the belief they reduce masturbation. Perhaps, some circumcised male posters to this thread could inform us if this works.

For women, removal of the clitoral hood, results in an unprotected clitoris - as previously stated the clitoris is packed full of nerve endings and unprotected by the hood, it becomes painfully sensitised before eventually the skin toughens to an insensitive lump. It is still possible to reach orgasm, but greatly reduced.
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 5 August 2006 8:50:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So let us all urge the Government(s) to ban genitle mutilation for males as well as females.

Legislate to stop the Jews, Christians, Muslims and our Aboriginal people from carrying out their cultural cuts.

We might then also ban the piercing of other body parts as well.

Surely it is also an assult a young girl to have her ears pierced, even if she screams 'blue murder' for her mother to get it done?
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 5 August 2006 9:14:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, in answer to your question, no it doesn't.

Without minimising the significance of the debate on male circumcision, I don't think it can really be compared to FGM, except from the point of view of being (in the male case) often unnecessary and a result of poorly examined cultural traditions.

Male circumcision doesn't in any way impede sexual functioning (and in some cases, eg phymosis, actually improve it. There are some medical arguments for routine male circumcision - reduced susceptibilty and transmission of sexually transissible infections such as herpes, wart virus and HIV (the last two being the causes of lethal disease - AIDS and cervical and possibly penile and anal cancers); reduced risk of urinary tract infections in young boys, and almost total elimination of the incidence of thrush.

My opinion, and that of most paediatricians, is that those benefits probably aren't enough to justify routine use of the procedure. But from a medical point of view, the outcomes of circumcision for men and FGM are just not in the same ball park.
Posted by Snout, Saturday, 5 August 2006 9:37:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This country and many others have banned female genital cutting but male circumcision is both legal and is subsidised by Medicare. Most would agree that if a boy is born with a genital anomaly such as an undescended testicle or the like, it should be corrected. However, the foreskin is not a birth defect, but a normal part of male anatomy. Why, then, should the taxpayer subsidise its removal?
Posted by mg1333, Saturday, 5 August 2006 9:48:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps it is a good idea as the books may balance on the credit side, in later life, by avoiding the consequences to Medicare.

A snip in time.....
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 5 August 2006 3:13:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Snout

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

I agree with your point about hygiene and the lowered incidence of spread of some STD's.

Anecdotally, my experience confirms that, male circumcision if done correctly, has no deleterous effects on performance.

Provided male circumcision is an informed choice made by adult males I see no problem with this form of surgery.

Also, Snout, I appreciate that you (and some others) are able to see the distinction between male and female circumcision. I have no doubt that if male circumcision resulted in the same amount of pain and reduction in sexual response as it does for women, then it would be banned.

Where cultural practices are in direct violation of human rights, then I do not see granting the Sierra Leone athletes asylum as being paternalistic or imperialistic - which, as I understand it, was a concern raised by the author of this article.

Finally, infibulation for either sex is a violation and requires direct action such as supporting those who are in threat of such a barbaric practice.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 6 August 2006 9:17:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite opinions to the contrary, it is not clear that circumcision is cost effective. This is what the Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney says:

"Circumcision may be done for cultural or religious reasons.  It is rarely needed for medical reasons. The risks of routine circumcision are believed to be greater than the potential benefits (see the Royal Australasian College of Physicians guidelines)."

http://www.chw.edu.au/parents/factsheets/circumj.htm

Perhaps it's time to snip the Medicare subsidy for this procedure and use the money saved on evidence-based medicine.
Posted by mg1333, Sunday, 6 August 2006 5:50:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mg1333

I am interested in your opinion of the topic of this thread.

1. Do you believe that the Sierra Leone athletes be granted asylum, as they fear genital mutilation?

2. Are you not at all concerned that children (and adults) are abused and their lives ruined by genital mutilation?

Your point about male circumcision being funded by Medicare may have some foundation, however it is not on topic. Safe male circumcision is available in this country, in some cases it may be medically necessary (as in foreskin that doesn't fully retract); one of the benefits is that is does provide better hygiene. However, IT IS done safely and humanely - the issue is that genital infibulation is a violation of human rights and we, as a free and democratic country, need to take action on this obscene practice.

Do you have any thoughts at all on genital infibulation?
Posted by Scout, Monday, 7 August 2006 9:54:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe it's easier for many of us to have opinions on male cicumcision, because we're more likely to have personal or close anecdotal experience of this. And it was virtually inevitable that this off-topic subject would be commented on. But of course male circumcision almost always pales into insignificance compared to the horrible situation of female genital mutilation.

As I said previously, I wholeheartedly support the female athletes being able to stay in Australia, rather than the possibility of having this mutilation forced onto them.

In an endeavour to find out more about the horror which many females have forced onto them, I found this website:
http://www.members.tripod.com/~Wolvesdreams/FGM.html
A collection of ridiculous superstitions which is almost beyond belief. Although the operation is usually done on young girls, it's sometimes left until they are young women.

In regard to male circumstition, we can't excuse unnecessary genital mutilation on the grounds that it's not as bad as what happens to females. Just because a baby boy's foreskin will not easily retract, this does not necessarily mean that he requires circumcision. In almost all cases, this situation corrects itself. As for hygiene, it's no problem at all to wash behind the foreskin. I suppose that if I was bald, I would not need to use shampoo and if I was toothless, I would not need to clean my teeth. The same principle applies.

Removal of the foreskin results in one of the most naturally sensitive parts of a man's body becoming desensitised. This doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I suppose it could be said that no-one misses something which, to all intents and purposes, they never had. But all sorts of unnecessary bodily modifications could be falsely justified by saying that, couldn't they?

And why should Medicare, ie the taxpayers, subsidise superstition?
Posted by Rex, Monday, 7 August 2006 5:22:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia is leagally and morally obligated to offer asylum to any one with genuine fear of persecution or oppression. It is a no brainer that female genital mutilation is a babaric form of persecution and oppression.

An interesting side line to this discussion is the fact that there is a refugee living in australia who is a victim of female genital mutilation she has been granted a bridging visa (D) that permits her to live in the community but does not provide her with medicare or entitle her to work consequently she is unable to see a gynocologist.

Consequently legislative change is necessary to ensure refugees on a bridging visa D are entitled to healthcare education and employment. While a morally accountable australian government is needed to insure a more humane and compassionate immigration policy.
Posted by Tieran, Monday, 7 August 2006 5:31:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Female genital mutilation and male-circumcision are not the same game. They are not even in the same ball-park.

And so to the reasons I had my (now-19-month-old) son circumcised....

1. As pointed out by Snout, he will be less likely to contract and pass on STIs like genital warts (which has been shown to cause cervical cancer) and HIV.

2. In the event that he lives to an age where he cannot care for himself any longer, hygiene will not be such an issue. In a previous incarnation I worked with demented elderly people, whose daily hygiene was done by nurses or care-attendants. In most instances, when a proper wash was done beneath the foreskin, I found that it was probably the first such wash for a long while. Neglect to the point of stinking thrush and weeping infection were quite common.

3. The issue was sealed by discussion with our obstetrician.
First he provided a topical anaesthetic cream to apply before the procedure. He injected a small amount of local anaesthetic. A small plastic dome was placed underneath the foreskin, and a ligature tied around to block the circulation. The foreskins' end was then cut away. No tears at all, and no sign of distress. The ligature and plastic dome fell off four days later, all clean and neat.

I am not blowing the trumpet for routine circumcision. The stories of what happens when the job is botched are a staple of current affairs television, so I suppose I am destined to remain in the minority. My decision was in no way cultural or religious. And, as an aside, I harbour no malice toward my own foreskin. It has done me neither good nor harm thus far.
Posted by big dave, Monday, 7 August 2006 5:38:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite beliefs that the genital modification of males and females are different, one commentator has noted the similarities in the arguments used to justify both procedures http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html . Female genital cutting has been rejected in the West and is increasingly rejected in Africa http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143956429 . Even so, there is a long way to go before the custom is eradicated, as can be seen by the fact that some athletes asked for asylum because of the prevalence of FGM in their country.

Despite the belief that circumcision reduces the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, the Westmead Children's Hosptial http://www.chw.edu.au/parents/factsheets/circumj.htm says that the risks of circumcision outweigh the risks and the British National Health Service says that the advantages and disadvantages of circumcision are controversial and unclear http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=649 . Certainly people will push a barrow one way and the other, but the Australasian College of Physicians says:

“The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit.” http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm

It also says “there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate”.

Interestingly, a court in Finland has convicted a Muslim mother of assault for having her 4 year old son circumcised http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Court+rules+circumcision+of+four-year-old+boy+illegal/113522095883
Posted by mg1333, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 3:46:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep, fair point. I believe there has been some reservation in health professionals in Africa to recommend male circumcision, because people may misunderstand that recommendation to apply to females also.

The science is really still in the pipeline regarding medical benefits of male circumcision. For every paper proposing its' protection against HIV, there are two to highlight the studies' errors and point out the biases of the research.

There has been some interesting stuff of late though. A trial done in South Africa by Auvert and Puren published last October, known as the Orange Farm trial, was prematurely stopped on ethical grounds. They recruited young, uncircumcised men, who were then circumcised or not as part of the trial. When it was noted that the control (uncircumcised) group were HIV seroconverting at more that double the rate of the others, the trial was stopped so that the control group could also be offered circumcision.

Current trials are taking place in Kenya and Uganda to see if this is replicable, and they are due to report next year. The current position of WHO is that safe circumcision should be provided where people want it but that a policy decision on whether to promote it should wait until the results of the Kenya and Uganda trials are available. I suppose the catch there is the safe bit. Certainly less of an issue if Plastibel-type ligatures are used rather than unsterilised sharps.

Certainly this is a decision I have taken for my son, but that is a parents role. I have also decided to have him immunised and to give him Flouride for his teeth. It is a decision I didnt take lightly. And if I had to take it again, the decision would be the same. He will not have to worry about phimosis (like 10% of his uncircumcised mates will) or thrush, or aged care attendants who dont do their job properly.

And, getting back on topic, female genital mutilation is not OK in this usually-more-enlighted age. It really is probably good grounds for seeking asylum.
Posted by big dave, Thursday, 10 August 2006 4:11:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Love your posts, big dave.

With regard to male circumcision, unless there is a problem with the foreskin, I agree, it is not really necessary and should remain a choice for men if they wish to be circumcised.

For women, circumcision is simply and horribly a violation of their sexuality. As with men, only rarely is it required to repair congenital abnormality.

On the subject of a higher incidence of spread of disease there would not be any problem at all if men would take better care of themselves by retracting their foreskins and washing thoroughly! Simple hygiene is far safer and easier than circumcision.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 11 August 2006 10:17:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy