UN Continues Attempts To Justify Its Existence
Latest is calling for a ban on female circumcision. Phew! Well, that will for sure stop the practice!
(Male circumcision, however, is no problem for them.)
Baruch Ben-Chorin writes at NBC News:
On Thursday, in a major victory for that campaign, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a global ban on FGM.The resolution urges the 193 U.N. member states to condemn the practice, and to launch educational campaigns to eliminate it. It urges all countries to enact and enforce legislation to prohibit FGM, to protect women and girls "from this form of violence" and to end impunity for violators. Although not legally binding, UN General Assembly resolutions carry considerable moral and political weight.
Yeah, I'm sure all the toothless illiterate lady witch doctors in backward, Islamic countries are quaking in fear.
Its a tough situation and I don't think its as simple as saying that toothless illiterate lady witch doctors are quaking. It goes deeper. Many of those governments are corrupt and yes, there are very slanted gender views. You can hate male circumcision all you want but it isn't the same as what they are doing to 13 year old girls in some countries in the name of keeping them pure. Two different things. Completely.
While, the UN prohibiting may not eradicate it, many agencies that work with the UN are in those countries on the ground educating and raising awareness. My son just came back from a volunteer mission in Ghana. Not everyone in those countries is backward, illiterate, or horrendous. There are many that want more for their country and while we can't fix the world's problems, if we could raise awareness and educate, is that so terrible?
Kristen at December 21, 2012 9:11 AM
Meanwhile, vaginoplasty surgeries are very popular....
Jay R at December 21, 2012 9:18 AM
You can hate male circumcision all you want but it isn't the same as what they are doing to 13 year old girls in some countries in the name of keeping them pure. Two different things. Completely.
I agree, as they do it to male at birth it has far more impact neurologically and infants are far more likey to wind up dead from blood loss
lujlp at December 21, 2012 9:51 AM
Luj, I'm not supporting male circumcision, just saying there is a huge difference as far as the issue goes and why the UN got involved. As much as I disagree with male circumcision, I still wouldn't compare it with holding down a 13 year old girl and forcibly cutting her clitoris without pain meds or even sanitary conditions as a religious ritual. Of course with the female circumcisions go so many other forms of gender discrimination that we are aware of but I hate to say please spare the little girl the horror of being mutilated for fear of sounding like a feminazi.
Kristen at December 21, 2012 1:42 PM
But holding down an infant without pain meds as a religous ritual is ok because the conditions are sanitary?
Keep in mind that all forms of FGM are banned in the USA, even if preformed in sanitary conditions, with pain meds, and even if they are one of the several versions which cause less physical damage than male circumcision.
Also every argument to be made for circumcsion can be made jsut as easily as for FGM
lujlp at December 21, 2012 10:58 PM
Luj, you can continue to purposely misunderstand my point. Never did I say it was ok, just that I can see the difference when it comes to intervention and the cultural climates. Its two different issues that come with different arguments. Its not the same in any way.
Kristen at December 22, 2012 7:18 AM
Leave a comment