We can say have a doctor perform the surgery, which would more than likely be rejected, but wouldn't it be an insult to have an outsider make
THe process itself is an insult. REmoving a woman's clitoris is the equivalent of removing a man's penis. No culture does that.
The closest anyone comes to that is sub-incision, this is practiced amoung some aboriginal australian cults, the men go out away from the women, the
young boys have their penises grabbed, pulled, and then a pointed stick is used to peice the bottom of the base, then dragged along the base of the
penis, splitting it open. The boys are now "men". Sometimes they repeat the ritual.
Some anthropologists have theorized that circumcision and sub-incision are actually attempts by men to reproduce the changes in a woman's anatomy
that occur, in association with the profoundly moving "mystery of birth". Women have 'power' in that they are able to create new humans, this is
something normally consider a power of a god, and also in association with the generation is the sex act, during which the hymen of the woman is torn,
and certainly, after giving birth, completely obliterated, a profound change in the anatomy as a result of a highly powerful and mystical act, giving
birth, a mark/consequence of mystical power and connection.
So the men have done these things to change their anatomy too, to cull some of that mystical union.
THen, ironically, its thought that female circumcision is a repetition of all that, the men are circumcised, so they decide that the women must also
go through this process.
Unfortunately, female genital mutilation is simply not analagous to male circumscision, the removal of the clitoral hood, perhaps, would be
acceptable, as its produced from similar progeny tissue.
But the excision of the clitoris, rending off of the labia, stitching whats left almost shut?
Absolute brutality. There is no men's group anywhere that does the equivalent, removal of the penis, flaying of the scrotum (again, the same
primordial tissues as the labia), and then this ridiculous stiching business.
Absolute barbarism. Doesn't matter that people choose to do it, keep it illegal.
This calls to mind a story, possibly apochrypal, of a britishman in colonial india. An indian man is telling him that, suttee, wherein the wife of a
deceased man throws herself, and is even often thrown onto, alive, her husband's funeral pyre, is a tradition of great import to the hindus, that
their cultural values it greatly. To which the britisher replies something like 'and stopping this kind of action is of great cultural import and
value to us'.
So, not mutliating women and brainwashing them into thinking its ok, its of great cultural and moral importance to us.
This very much is mutilation, and no mutilation should be a part of any society or cultcher.
Mutilation is a common practice in all cultures, especially in the US, what does anyone think having a girl's ear's peirced is all about? Its
mutilation, just very low grade.
Mutilation is acceptable, its taht this is enforced mutliation, and brainwashed mutilation, that is the problem.
We don't, for example, have a problem with men having their genitals removed bceause they want to be women
. Its the issue of choice and force
that is radically different here.
Mummy did not notice...yeah right.
I rolled my eyes when I read that too. This is a two year old, and somehow I suspect that the mother is the one allways dealing with the kid, since
this is clearly a 'traditional family', where that's 'women's work'.
To inflict piercing or any other mutilation on a child should be punished severly.
I think that the egregious thing here is that its the removal of organs
, not 'mere mutliation'. Circumcision is the cultural norm in the US,
and lots of parents have their infants get ear peircings. Heck, we even glue peices of metal to kid's teeth, then crank wires tight between them to
force their teeth into a prefered position. Not quite mutliation, but its body modification that we see as going from what is the natural form to
something 'asthetically prefered'.