I think what that interview shows is that girls and women are culturally indoctrinated to believe the procedure is correct and proper - it's little better than brainwashing - consequently one generation perpetrates this on the next and so the process continues. However, this doesn't mean that it is correct. Why should any generation force another to accept pain and mutilation just to be accepted in society? If you went back far enough in the history of all those that engage in this practice there would have been a time when it wasn't done - Our biological development determined by natural selection that all those bits of our sexual organs (male and female) were necessary. At some point in time someone determined that that for whatever reason those bits should be actively sliced off. I imagine that there is probably a reason for it routed in whatever belief system those people have and it has since become a culturally accepted norm. However, that doesn't make it right these days - any more than we would condone someone suddenly reinventing the Aztec faith and deciding to slaughter thousands of people to appease whatever 'Gods' are flavour of the day. I know that societal development before scientific understanding led to beliefs that higher entities controlled people's destinies, but many people now question that viewpoint supported by scientific knowledge. These days it is no longer necessary to do what has always been done in the name of religious fervour. Though it is still free choice to do so, but that is exactly what it should be 'free choice' and is often what it isn't i.e. 'free choice' because there are so many culturally engrained historical norms to overcome. I think its entirely fair for feminists to try and share a more enlightened viewpoint so that women feel that they can object to these practices without fear of retribution within their societies - it would only take a couple of generations of saying 'no' before a new cultural norm that didn't include FGM would take root in my opinion.
FGM is forced on women by men. By that I don't mean it's men doing the cutting (as explained in may cases it's older women that do it) rather it's a whole male dominated societal structure where a girl won't be taken as a bride unless she has been cut. In such a society it's not an entirely "free choice" to choose whether to be mutilated or not because your very future can depend on it.
People fighting against racism should be expected to fight against racism, not to fight to reverse the balance of power. If they fight to end up with more rights than the other party, that means by default that they don't want equality. Rosa Parks wanted an end to segregation, she didn't want the white people to be the ones sitting in the back of the bus.
If they claim to be fighting for equality among races and effectively shrug off or downright deny the issues met by other minorities, then you bet I do. You didn't need to list that many for the argument to fall flat on its face, you know
greg1075 wrote@ Quote: Originally Posted by KarateMum However, there are still many situations where ladies struggle to get their view-point heard across a vocal male perspective ...................! Greg1075 responded: Such as? ________________________________ Greg1075 - just for you: [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI"]Picard's Epic Double Facepalm - YouTube[/ame]
And the Multiple Sclerosis Society or Parkinson's UK; are they hypocritical for "shrugging off" other neurological conditions? Should every advocacy or lobbying group fight for the rights of every person on earth on every issue?
Why is it? You are criticising feminists and feminism for not doing something you probably don't do either. Unless you are some sort of lawyer fighting for better child custody arrangements for men? Or you work for a men's disease charity? Maybe you help run a male domestic violence shelter?
So if the republicans are critisicing the democrats for not doing something, the democrats don't get to ask if the republicans are also doing it? Interesting.
You're missing the point - grossly and tragically I might add. That's without even mentioning the ad hominem fallacy. I'm not the subject here - move on.
Now if I may, I’d like to fuse this with the rape culture topic because the recent UVA debacle just can’t be overlooked as an illustration of how pernicious and morally bankrupt modern feminism is, and how rape culture hysteria coupled with moral fervor are driving flawed research and reporting as well as wrongful accusations. potentially ruining lives in the process. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/b...e-on-rape-at-university-of-virginia.html?_r=0 Rolling Stone Article on Rape at University of Virginia Failed All Basics (…) the magazine failed to engage in “basic, even routine journalistic practice” (…) After its publication last November, the article stoked a national conversation about sexual assault on college campuses and roiled the university. (…) The police in Charlottesville, Va., said last month they had “exhausted all investigative leads” and found “no substantive basis” to support the article’s depiction of the assault. Jackie did not cooperate with the police and declined to be interviewed for the Columbia report. (…) In a statement responding to the report, the University of Virginia’s president, Teresa A. Sullivan, described the article as irresponsible journalism that “unjustly damaged the reputations of many innocent individuals and the University of Virginia.” (…) In an interview discussing Columbia’s findings, Jann S. Wenner, the publisher of Rolling Stone, acknowledged the piece’s flaws but (…) that Ms. Erdely would continue to write for the magazine (…) Mr. Wenner said Will Dana, the magazine’s managing editor, and the editor of the article, Sean Woods, would keep their jobs. (…) Ms. Erdely first heard Jackie’s account in a phone conversation last July, the report said. Jackie told her she had been lured to a darkened room at a fraternity party in September 2012, and raped by seven men, the article said, led by her date for the evening, a lifeguard at the university’s aquatic center identified only as Drew. Ms. Erdely hung up the phone “sickened and shaken,” the report said. (…) Ms. Erdely did not seek to independently contact three of Jackie’s friends, who were quoted in the piece, using pseudonyms, expressing trepidation at the idea of Jackie telling the authorities that she had been assaulted. (…) Those friends later cast doubt on Jackie’s story in interviews with The Washington Post and denied saying the words Rolling Stone had attributed to them. The three told the report’s authors that they would have made the same denials to Rolling Stone if they had been contacted. (…) Rolling Stone, the report said, also did not provide the fraternity with enough information to adequately respond to questions from the magazine. Later, when the article had been published, the fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, said it did not host a function on the weekend Jackie had specified. (…) And the magazine failed to identify Jackie’s attacker, the report said. It was content to give him a pseudonym, Drew, when Jackie resisted Ms. Erdely’s request to help find him. (…) The reporting errors by Ms. Erdely were compounded by insufficient scrutiny and skepticism from editors, the report said. And the fact-checking process relied heavily on four hours of conversations with Jackie. (…) Rolling Stone’s fundamental mistake, Mr. Dana said, was in suspending any skepticism about Jackie’s account because of the sensitivity of the issue. “We didn’t think through all the implications of the decisions that we made while reporting the story, and we never sort of allowed for the fact that maybe the story we were being told was not true,” he said. (…) “Ultimately, we were too deferential to our rape victim,” Mr. Woods, the article’s editor, said in the report. “We honored too many of her requests in our reporting. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXCi0OdYi5M"]Andrea Tantaros: Rape culture is really a 'war on boys' - YouTube[/ame] [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFn63DBn_KA"]Rape culture hysteria on campus - YouTube[/ame]
