What do we call this?

[whatever]

I thought I'll follow the trend of starting offshoot threads from this topic about what words we are allowed to use so as to show respect to our debating partner that seems to have a life of its own.

As I read this story:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22228574-2,00.html
3-year-old girl dies during female circumcision
August 11, 2007 07:36pm
Article from: Agence France-PresseFont size: + -

A 13-YEAR-OLD Egyptian girl has died during an illegal operation to mutilate her genitalia, the Al-Masri Al-Yom daily has reported.

Karima Rahim Massud died as the result of problems with the anasthaesia in the Nile Delta village of Gharbiya.

Her death was discovered after her father sought a death certificate from another doctor.

The medical practice where the operation took place has been closed, and the doctor is being interrogated, the newspaper said.

Female genital mutilation, also known as female circumcision, is a practice that dates back to pharaonic times in Egypt.

It is common in a band that stretches from Senegal in West Africa to Somalia on the east coast, and from Egypt in the north to Tanzania in the south.

The practice, which affects both Muslim and Christian women in Egypt, was banned in 1997 but doctors were allowed to operate "in exceptional cases.''

Female circumcision can cause death through haemorraging and later complications during childbirth.

It also carries risks of infection, urinary tract problems and mental trauma.

In June, following the death of 12-year-old Bedur Ahmed Shaker, Health Minister Hatem al-Gabali issued a decree banning every doctor and member of the medical profession from performing the procedure.

snip.



It hits me: should someone decides to come in here and explain the merits of this practice, we can't call this pratice "female genital mutilation" since "mutilation" would decidedly carry negative connotation. Does "female circumcision" really bring to you the full impact of what the operation really is? Does that make sense to the moderators who insist that words like "superstition" shouldn't be used here? How do you garner respect for such an idea? :confused:

[Ethos]

I imagine if the forum were frequented by Egyptians supporting the practice, a proper level of respect would be required under the forum's "special rules".

Since this isn't the case, I don't expect an issue with denouncing the procedure as barbaric - negative connotation and all.

Ethos

[Atticus]

And a practice isn't an idea. And this practice is not related, at least in modern times, to a religion. It's a cultural practice disregarding religion.

[Sauniere]

Whatever, it's barbaric, and truly indicates the inequity of men v. women. There are two sexes. Why are they not equal? The hypocrisy of this planet and the abuse heaped upon women should make every sane person cry out in fanatical disapproval.

[whatever]

And a practice isn't an idea.

And while the operation is a pratice, why people would want to, and think that all girls should have, this operation is definitely a belief - i.e. "the merits of female geninal mutilation" is defnitely an idea, the merits is only in someone's head.

And this practice is not related, at least in modern times, to a religion. It's a cultural practice disregarding religion.

Are you saying that cultural (and I'll even venture to say this is a philosophical) ideas are not entitled to the level of respect you were asking for if it's not related to a religion? :confused:

[whatever]

I imagine if the forum were frequented by Egyptians supporting the practice, a proper level of respect would be required under the forum's "special rules".

Since this isn't the case, I don't expect an issue with denouncing the procedure as barbaric - negative connotation and all.

Ethos

Just want to be clear: did I detect a note of sarcasm?

[Ethos]

Just want to be clear: did I detect a note of sarcasm?

Not at all. If the rules are to be enforced in a consistent manner, referring to any ritual acts in an offensive context - whether they are directly related to religion or not - is prohibited. Since it is unlikely anyone on the forum will be offended by calling this particular practice "barbaric", the application of those rules is unnecessary.

Ethos

[whatever]

Not at all. If the rules are to be enforced in a consistent manner, referring to any ritual acts in an offensive context - whether they are directly related to religion or not - is prohibited. Since it is unlikely anyone on the forum will be offended by calling this particular practice "barbaric", the application of those rules is unnecessary.

Ethos

So we can dish any idea we want, so long as all of us agree on it, and no one is here to "get hurt" by the "disrespect", or to defend it.

Does anyone else see a double standard here?

[whatever]

The point I am trying to make with this thread is that when you take this political correctness (that's how I see it, but I suppose I shouldn't use that phrase either because it can be seen to have negative connotation?) too far, you limit our ability to express ourself properly. "Female circumcision" just doesn't have enough force to describe how I really see this practice. Sometimes that expression might involve disgust, frustration, and incomprehension. Sometimes that is essential to a debate. Personally, when people use strong, and sometimes quite unpleasant, words to describe my position, that allows me to judge their position better too. People has as good as called me a murderer on abortion related threads, overtime I learned to respond better. I don't agree with it, but I understand them better, because I know now that they have strong emotions about this topic. Sometime you need to know where the other party really stand. If I don't know that they think abortion is murder, then I lost a very important perspective. When all is said and done, this is not an academic place, it's a forum, we are here to exchange opinions, not academic findings, if you start censoring harmless expressions, then it'll be a lost to all parties concerned.

[Sgt Schultz]

So we can dish any idea we want, so long as all of us agree on it, and no one is here to "get hurt" by the "disrespect", or to defend it.

Does anyone else see a double standard here?

I do and agree with the point you are trying to make.

[Atticus]

The point I am trying to make with this thread is that when you take this political correctness (that's how I see it, but I suppose I shouldn't use that phrase either because it can be seen to have negative connotation?) too far, you limit our ability to express ourself properly. "Female circumcision" just doesn't have enough force to describe how I really see this practice. Sometimes that expression might involve disgust, frustration, and incomprehension. Sometimes that is essential to a debate. Personally, when people use strong, and sometimes quite unpleasant, words to describe my position, that allows me to judge their position better too. People has as good as called me a murderer on abortion related threads, overtime I learned to respond better. I don't agree with it, but I understand them better, because I know now that they have strong emotions about this topic. Sometime you need to know where the other party really stand. If I don't know that they think abortion is murder, then I lost a very important perspective. When all is said and done, this is not an academic place, it's a forum, we are here to exchange opinions, not academic findings, if you start censoring harmless expressions, then it'll be a lost to all parties concerned.It's an interesting point you want to make here, but look at it from the other side. What you would probably accomplish is simply to make anyone else leave the forum. Certainly I won't debate my pro-abortion ideas with someone who calls abortion murder, regularly in a debate--it's simply a waste of time. The R & P forum should be a place where we don't give dominion to one point of view over anotherWere there someone here to defend the ideas behind the practice, we'd need to give them a safe place to talk about them or they simply wouldn't.

Two analogous cases for comparison:

1) What about MALE circumcision? Many consider that practice "barbaric" and would call it "mutilation." It's medically unnecessary, even if lots of Western hospitals practice it as a matter of course. It's painful and may even prevent someone from having as much sexual pleasure in later life as they might. My wife and I have two daughters, but if we'd had sons, we'd probably have stood physically in the way to prevent such an outcome (I say this even though I had one). In any other forum, calling it mutilation would be perfectly reasonable. But in this forum, debating with a rabbi or other observant Jew about the spiritual necessity of the practice, I'd be more circumspect--simply because there's no reason for my opponent to go on if I don't.

2) A few years ago, two young Muslim men in Nebraska were betrothed to two young women (the girls were 13) according to their practice. The two men did as they were taught they should--they took the girls by force and consummated their nuptials. They were charged with statutory rape and convicted. Do we call their actions "rape?" In the context of Nebraska law--yes. In the context of traditional Islamic practices--no.

Yes, I know this can seem "politically correct," but the R & P forum should be a place where we do not privilege one set of idea constructs over another. Otherwise, it ceases to be a "religion and philosophy" forum.

[whatever]

It's an interesting point you want to make here, but look at it from the other side. What you would probably accomplish is simply to make anyone else leave the forum.

I have to disagree. What I observe is that the threads that get most responds are those where the debaters can take a strong stance, they are often divisive, yes, but it's certainly more interesting. Has a lot of people told you that they are leaving the forum because the people here are too rude and aggressive? I think what you are trying to do will drive people from a debate faster than by allowing us to express feelings, negative and otherwise.

Certainly I won't debate my pro-abortion ideas with someone who calls abortion murder, regularly in a debate--it's simply a waste of time.

That's your prerogative. But I learned something from those people. It made me try to look at abortion from their point of view, and now whenever I consider the issue, that is one of the thing I think about. That's why I like coming to WS, and that's what I don't want to see lost.

The R & P forum should be a place where we don't give dominion to one point of view over anotherWere there someone here to defend the ideas behind the practice, we'd need to give them a safe place to talk about them or they simply wouldn't.

But how do we prevent them from doing just that when we use words like "superstition", "cult", or call a practice how we see it? That's the part I don't understand. They can always respond to our comments. It certainly didn't impede me when they called abortion murder, neither would it impede you if you choose to respond. When Lumprenpold called traditional medicine, especially the use of tiger parts, a superstition, his use of the word, and other negative characterisations of traditional medicine, certainly didn't impede my ability to respond and tell him exactly where I think he is wrong. If we were to follow the rule as you interprete it, then both of us would not be able to have a debate at all.


Yes, I know this can seem "politically correct," but the R & P forum should be a place where we do not privilege one set of idea constructs over another. Otherwise, it ceases to be a "religion and philosophy" forum.

I don't know how you can conclude that we are asking for one idea to have priviledge over another. It seems to me that is what you are asking from us. What we are asking for is to not have our hands tied. Even argueing from the perspective of someone whose idea have been attacked, I would not like to be treated as if I do not have the skills/ability to fight for what I believe in, and if their characterisasation of my position is wrong, to tell them exactly where. That is the nature of debate. If they are not even allowed to put their position to me in their own words, how could I do that? While I understand that the rule is meant to protect people who normally get the shorter end in a debate, I just don't think that when an adult comes to a forum to debate, s/he should be protected to the extend that it cut into another debater's ability to express his/her view. Let's remember, we are not talking about wilful rudeness, we are talking about common words, they are sometimes negative, yes, but then the feelings that promt the use of those words are negative too. And surely, there's nothing wrong with feeling negatively about an idea? It's because you feel positively about a stance, while I feel negatively about it, that give rise to a debate in the first place.

[whatever]

Two analogous cases for comparison:

1) What about MALE circumcision? Many consider that practice "barbaric" and would call it "mutilation." It's medically unnecessary, even if lots of Western hospitals practice it as a matter of course. It's painful and may even prevent someone from having as much sexual pleasure in later life as they might. My wife and I have two daughters, but if we'd had sons, we'd probably have stood physically in the way to prevent such an outcome (I say this even though I had one). In any other forum, calling it mutilation would be perfectly reasonable. But in this forum, debating with a rabbi or other observant Jew about the spiritual necessity of the practice, I'd be more circumspect--simply because there's no reason for my opponent to go on if I don't.

If that's how you feel, I think you should use the words that would describe your feelings about it accurately. I actually think that any rabbi or devout jews or muslim who are serious about learning what other thinks (which is why I assume we are all here) would appreciate that knowledge. That might even change how he looks at the practice. If he doesn't even know that people have such strong feelings about circumcision, how could he?


If you have read about female genital mutilation, it's in the article above too, you would know that the danger from it is far more serious than male circumcision. Alot of time in Africa, it is done on girls as young as 5 or 6 years old, sometimes without anesthesia still. Even writing this make me cringe. How do I bring across that revulsion with respect? I don't want anyone who come in here talking about the merits of female genital mutilation to go away thinking that his ideas are valid, and deserve respect as much as any other idea. I want him to go away knowing that there are people who find the practice barbaric, and his ideas disturbing and backward, and why that is so.


2) A few years ago, two young Muslim men in Nebraska were betrothed to two young women (the girls were 13) according to their practice. The two men did as they were taught they should--they took the girls by force and consummated their nuptials. They were charged with statutory rape and convicted. Do we call their actions "rape?" In the context of Nebraska law--yes. In the context of traditional Islamic practices--no.

In the context of common sense, and correct usage of the word "rape", yes.

By defnition (http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1047634) "Rape" is any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

You aren't really saying that we should not use the word "rape" if someone come in here trying to defend those two men, are you?:confused:

[whatever]

I do and agree with the point you are trying to make.

:thanks:

[dittohead not!]

Just so you know, this (http://www.4women.gov/FAQ/fgc.htm#7) is what we're talking about:

What are the consequences of FGC?
The potential physical complications resulting from the procedure are numerous. Because FGC is often carried out without anesthesia, an immediate effect of the procedure is pain. Short-term complications, such as severe bleeding, which can lead to shock or death, are greatly affected by the type of FGC performed, the degree of struggle by the woman or girl, unsanitary operating conditions, and inexperienced practitioners or inadequate medical services once a complication occurs. There is a very high risk of infection, with documented reports of ulcers, scar tissue and cysts. Female genital cutting may also interfere with a woman's pregnancy or labor. Other lasting effects that commonly result from FGC procedures include urine retention, resulting in repeated urinary infections and obstruction in menstrual flow, which may lead to frequent reproductive tract infections, infertility1,2,3 and chronic pelvic pain.3 FGC is also thought to facilitate the transmission of HIV through several mechanisms. Significant psychological and psychosexual consequences of FGC exist, but these factors have not been adequately studied.

Backwards, barbaric, unnecessary, unhealthful, cruel, and uncivilized.

But, then, that's a value judgement of a cultural practice, and so isn't PC. Too bad.

[Mickey Shane]

Male circumcision is believed to enhance sexual pleasure. Female clitoris mutilation destroys sexual pleasure. It's not a circumcision. It's mutilation. Period.

I would tell to the face any man who believes in that barbaric tradition that they are evil.

[Lumpen Prole]

Male circumcision is believed to enhance sexual pleasure. Female clitoris mutilation destroys sexual pleasure. It's not a circumcision. It's mutilation. Period.

I would tell to the face any man who believes in that barbaric tradition that they are evil.

It is also hypothesized that the forskin is analogous to a ribbed condom, and so enhances female pleasure. That aside, there are minor health benefits to male circumcision. Off hand I know that uncircumcized males are more likely to pass infection to females, such as HPV (which causes cervical cancer, I believe).

I think one important question is whether or not the females in this culture accept this practice as a legitimate part of their culture. Do they usually partake in it willingly, or are they forced against their will? Either way my personal view is that this tradition is one that should be done away with. It serves absolutely no benefit whatsoever. It is simply a tradition, and traditions that are around for no other reason other than the fact that they are traditions have no real legitimacy. This is especially true for traditions which have negative consequences, such as genital mutilation.

And just for the record, I would not alter any of the language in this post if every other user here was in favor of upholding this tradition.

[Atticus]

I have to disagree. What I observe is that the threads that get most responds are those where the debaters can take a strong stance, they are often divisive, yes, but it's certainly more interesting. Has a lot of people told you that they are leaving the forum because the people here are too rude and aggressive? I think what you are trying to do will drive people from a debate faster than by allowing us to express feelings, negative and otherwise.I would ask you to note how many people who actually profess a religion participate in this forum. They don't tell us they are leaving--they just do. And the ugliness we saw earlier that brought on the rules was unacceptable at WS.
That's your prerogative. But I learned something from those people. It made me try to look at abortion from their point of view, and now whenever I consider the issue, that is one of the thing I think about. That's why I like coming to WS, and that's what I don't want to see lost.And there are many forums where you can still do that. This forum is for the discussion of particular kinds of ideas, not policies.
But how do we prevent them from doing just that when we use words like "superstition", "cult", or call a practice how we see it? That's the part I don't understand.Then you clearly don't understand how people who profess religious belief feel. They can always respond to our comments. It certainly didn't impede me when they called abortion murder, neither would it impede you if you choose to respond.In my religion, we have a saying: "Cast not your pearls before [those who will mock you], lest they trample them under their feet, and turn on you and rend you." Again, we're talking about ideas here in this forum. If you respond to my ideas by simply mocking them, there's no reason for me to continue. That's what has happened in this forum. When Lumprenpold called traditional medicine, especially the use of tiger parts, a superstition, his use of the word, and other negative characterisations of traditional medicine, certainly didn't impede my ability to respond and tell him exactly where I think he is wrong. If we were to follow the rule as you interprete it, then both of us would not be able to have a debate at all.We did follow the rules as I've interpreted them. You never debated the ideas that backed those practices with someone interested in defending them.
I don't know how you can conclude that we are asking for one idea to have priviledge over another. It seems to me that is what you are asking from us. Then you haven't been paying attention. Repeatedly--in th e past-- people in this forum have behaved as if their ideological constructs are the only ones that matter. We have had Christians insist that any other construct is illegitimate; we've had secular positivists interrupt the discussions of Christians to insist that all religion is superstition.

If you're problem is that the rules of this forum don't give you an opportunity to tell someone how disgusted you are by their faith, perhaps you should find another forum where there might possibly be someone sitting around waiting to hear from you how vile or stupid, or backward they are. Frankly, I don't think you'll find one.

What we are asking for is to not have our hands tied. Even argueing from the perspective of someone whose idea have been attacked, I would not like to be treated as if I do not have the skills/ability to fight for what I believe in, and if their characterisasation of my position is wrong, to tell them exactly where.The problem with this argument, and this is the reason for the special status of this forum, is that PROVING things is not likely to happen when we talk about religion and philosophy. Again, your just setting things up for rational positivism to push out all other ideas. There are literally dozens of other forums here where you can have that kind of discussion. That is the nature of debate. If they are not even allowed to put their position to me in their own words, how could I do that? While I understand that the rule is meant to protect people who normally get the shorter end in a debate, I just don't think that when an adult comes to a forum to debate, s/he should be protected to the extend that it cut into another debater's ability to express his/her view.Again, no one will share their ideas with you if you insist on being able to use pejorative language to them. Let's remember, we are not talking about wilful rudeness,We can't judge someone's will--we can only observe their language. we are talking about common words, they are sometimes negative, yes, but then the feelings that promt the use of those words are negative too. And surely, there's nothing wrong with feeling negatively about an idea?No, but something tells me that an articulate adult can find other ways to express himself.

[MikeD4o7]

I understand where you're coming from on this whole debate Atticus, but don't you think it may be extreme? The word "superstition" is not a word that's dripping with hatred. I'd say it has less of a negative connotation than half of the words thrown around regularly on other parts of the board.

Where can you possibly draw the line though without just coming out and claiming that there's no such thing as a superstition? If a person truly believes that God helps their favorite football team win when they wear their lucky hat... is that off limits to be labeled as superstition just because that person might stand up and say "hey, that's real!"?

Should making an analogy like the one I just made also be against the rules? Afterall, I'm sure plenty of people may feel a little offended if their religious beliefs were compared to somebody thinking God sways the outcome of a football game based on whether or not somebody's wearing a particular hat.... but then again, why should that man's belief which is not based on reason be held in less regard than others beliefs that are not based on reason?

If you think about it, isn't the only reason people are offended by the word "superstition" because they can't believe anyone would have the audacity to compare their religious beliefs to beliefs that THEY recognize as completely unfounded beliefs?

[whatever]

I would ask you to note how many people who actually profess a religion participate in this forum. They don't tell us they are leaving--they just do. And the ugliness we saw earlier that brought on the rules was unacceptable at WS.
And there are many forums where you can still do that. This forum is for the discussion of particular kinds of ideas, not policies.
Then you clearly don't understand how people who profess religious belief feel. In my religion, we have a saying: "Cast not your pearls before [those who will mock you], lest they trample them under their feet, and turn on you and rend you." Again, we're talking about ideas here in this forum. If you respond to my ideas by simply mocking them, there's no reason for me to continue. That's what has happened in this forum. We did follow the rules as I've interpreted them. You never debated the ideas that backed those practices with someone interested in defending them.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Repeatedly--in th e past-- people in this forum have behaved as if their ideological constructs are the only ones that matter. We have had Christians insist that any other construct is illegitimate; we've had secular positivists interrupt the discussions of Christians to insist that all religion is superstition.

If you're problem is that the rules of this forum don't give you an opportunity to tell someone how disgusted you are by their faith, perhaps you should find another forum where there might possibly be someone sitting around waiting to hear from you how vile or stupid, or backward they are. Frankly, I don't think you'll find one.

The problem with this argument, and this is the reason for the special status of this forum, is that PROVING things is not likely to happen when we talk about religion and philosophy. Again, your just setting things up for rational positivism to push out all other ideas. There are literally dozens of other forums here where you can have that kind of discussion. Again, no one will share their ideas with you if you insist on being able to use pejorative language to them. We can't judge someone's will--we can only observe their language. No, but something tells me that an articulate adult can find other ways to express himself.

I'm coming to realise that what you are asking for is a double standard like Ethos was describing; that religion has a special status because it's hard to defend and prove, and it's on our shoulder to bow to it, instead of the believers to defend it. Like you said before, it's your forum, so case close.

[Mickey Shane]

Superstition in and of itself is not derogatory. It only becomes derogatory when it is used in reference to someone's deeply rooted faith.
It hurts their feelings. That's always been the gauge, that I learned from my Mother, that I use to tell when I've said something wrong.

[dittohead not!]

What is superstition?

I see it used a lot on this thread, so let's see a definition:

Main Entry: su·per·sti·tion
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'sti-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supersticion, from Anglo-French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand -- more at STAND
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

( Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, URL doesn't show)

It seems to me that we see a lot of superstitions expressed on this forum, especially given definition #2, some of them in the guise of religious belief and others not.

Tell me the difference, for example, between superstition and the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old and that man and dinosaurs co existed, or the belief that global warming is a myth, or that evolution does not explain how life came about on planet Earth.

Anyone?

[Demon of Light]

As I understand this is not practiced in any major religion and is largely practiced in Africa. However, while it can be quite harmful and fatal, there is a limited form of female circumcision called hoodectomy which is essentially male circumcision only for females. This version also involves removal of foreskin, but not removal of any other genital area.

I think it is inappropriate to identify all practices as female circumcision. The other practices, likely the one practiced in this case, are analogous to castration in a woman.

Here's something specifically about hoodectomy:

http://www.clitoralunhooding.com/

I think there are obvious benefits to the more radical procedures, but the potential dangers to the life of the woman are far too great to allow for such procedures. I don't think there's anything wrong with calling those procedures mutilation. The problem comes when anything associated with religion or a practice in a traditional society becomes part of it and is thrown out for being barbaric.