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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?