According to the Iraqi government, 41% of Kurdish women have undergone female genital mutilation. The figure is based on a recent survey conducted by the Ministry of Health in Kurdistan.In other news, police have searched a house near the Islamic center in Corvallis, Oregon that was set on fire not long after the failed “Christmas Tree Bombing” in downtown Portland. A young man who lives in the house has a previous criminal record. There’s no official word whether the young man is thought to be connected with the arson at the mosque.
To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.
Thanks to C. Cantoni, DF, DonVito, Fjordman, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.
Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.
Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.
10 comments:
Iraq: Government Says 41 Percent of Kurdish Women Are Circumcised
Remember, Kurds are supposed to be the "good" Muslims.
Guess again.
Even if Islamic terrorism did not exist, the abject gender apartheid practiced by Muslims would be reason enough to permanently do away with Islam.
According to the Iraqi government, 41% of Kurdish women have undergone female genital mutilation.
Wow. That's almost as bad as male genital mutilation in the US. Genital mutilation is a backward, gruesome crime. How did it come to be the norm for newborn males in the US?
@Tanstaafl: circumcision is a misnomer with regards to women: their clitoris is cut off and their vagina sewed up. This is to prevent women enjoying sex or having extramarital sex. This is for the husband to be the first to rape his wife, as there is no other way for him to enter her.
Do American men suffer like this? I think not!!
Do American men suffer like this?
You can minimize the suffering, but genitals get mutilated. Why?
Tanstaafl: Wow. That's almost as bad as male genital mutilation in the US.
Bzzzzzt! ... Thank you for playing, please try again.
ADVISORY: Explicit medical terminology regarding reproductive tract anatomy follows.
The traditionally accepted Western rationale for performing male genital circumcision has, at least, some sort of valid medical reasoning behind it.
In case you are unfamiliar with well-established male sexual hygiene, the formation of smegma beneath the prepuce (i.e., foreskin), is just one of many nominally justifiable reasons to perform male circumcision. To wit:
Newborn circumcision diminishes the risk for cancer of the penis and lowers the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners. It also decreases the risk of urinary tract infections and lowers the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including especially HIV.
A circumcised male enjoys better airflow over his pudenda which can significantly reduce the ability of various STDs to thrive on otherwise moist and warm tissue surfaces of the genital region.
Genital mutilation is a backward, gruesome crime.
Yes it is. However, THERE IS A MONUMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALE AND SO-CALLED FEMALE "CIRCUMCISION".
As JitD has already noted, FGM is an abhorrent and barbaric practice whose specific intent is to eliminate all sexual pleasure for women. This unbelievably cruel and brutal procedure has NOTHING to do with reproductive hygiene or any other remote semblance of an excuse for such vile misogyny.
How did it come to be the norm for newborn males in the US?
There once persisted the rather benighted notion that infants did not feel pain in the same manner as more developed children and adults. Therefore, the otherwise expectable levels of agony and trauma were not typically attributed to post-partum male circumcision. This is slowly changing but religious edict and entrenched medical practice help perpetuate this questionable procedure.
Improved hygiene, due to widely affordable indoor plumbing and inexpensive soap, has begun to undermine what were previously explicable reasons for this practice. There will probably come a time when any form of involuntary circumcision is viewed as criminal abuse.
I wouldn't choose those dubious benefits. You might get appendicitis someday, so why not take out every newborn's appendix? What you've buried in your comment is that it's genital mutilation backed up by "religious edict". Who's "religious edict"?
How did circumcision get "entrenched"? Wikipedia describes the practice as starting in the US in 1900, based on notions of controlling germs and masturbation. But male circumcision grew from 32% of newborns in 1933 to 77% in 1971, just as benighted notions were being vanquished and hygiene was improving. Your rationale doesn't square with this rise.
I think maybe it's really mostly "religious edict", backed up by "religious" zealots freaked out by a recent fright that made them fear standing out, who didn't mind dictating to everybody else what to do, who held positions of authority in medicine, and had the mental and verbal ability to spin whatever rationalizations they found necessary to achieve their goals. Couple that with a majority too deferential, shamed, guilt-tripped, and just plain afraid for their livelyhood to complain about anything those "relgious" zealots wanted and... viola!
That explanation may not be perfect, but it's more plausible than hygiene and STDs. If controlling STDs were really important we would be doing whatever we could to separate ourselves from Africans. And imagine how hygiene would improve if we could have clean, plentiful public restrooms again. But then we all know separation is forbidden by "relgious edict", and the story behind that is similar to the one in the previous paragraph.
Just ran into this. Anyone who's concerned about zealots pushing female genital mutilation somewhere else should get to know who the zealots are pushing male genital mutilation in their own backyard.
Mensch Health - Ignorance is Bris:
There is a growing movement against male genital cutting (circumcision) worldwide, most notably in America where the harms of male genital cutting have only recently been publicised. As Uncle Semite sees it, most Jews - a healthy number of doctors and journalists among them - wish to retain their tradition of male genital cutting, and know that as long as circumcision is practised by enough parents (both Jewish and Gentile), it will be difficult to outlaw in any particular country. Going further, Uncle Semite believes that many Jews promote circumcision so that Jewish boys and men will not “stand out” in the event of any future Jewish Holocaust, and Jewish paediatricians have volunteered as much to Uncle Semite in person.
. . .
In their zeal to protect genital cutting of their own non-consenting children, far too many Jews strive to preserve this mutilation for ALL children, often by Jewish reporters / doctors / organisations over-reporting the "benefits" of circumcision or by withholding information on its harms. Here are just a few examples: . . .
Go see the examples.
There is a good link I inadvertently omitted from the text above:
NORM - Lost List, What is lost due to circumcision?
SF May Ban Infant Circumcision | NBC Bay Area:
"Although some studies indicate that circumcision reduces the risk of STD transmission, others have indicated that the procedure is not worth the associated risks and diminished sexual function.
Several Jewish organizations have weighed in against the ban as well, pointing out that circumcision rituals play an important historical role for many Jews. Schofeld counters that under his proposed law, adults would be free to opt-in to circumcision, but infants would not be allowed to have the procedure until they reach 18."
In Will San Francisco Ban Circumcision? | Culture | Religion Dispatches, Shalom Goldman writes:
"Negative reaction to the San Francisco initiative was not limited to local politicians and Jewish groups. Jews represent only two percent of the American population, but over sixty percent of American males are circumcised—and Jews are not the only religious group that practices circumcision. American Muslims do as well. Six years ago, in a similar challenge, the Association for Genital Integrity, a Canadian advocacy group, sought public funding to initiate a campaign to outlaw circumcision in Canada. As the Canadian press reported, “In a rare display of unity, Canadian Muslims and Jews have joined together.” The Canadian branch of CAIR, the now embattled Council on American-Islamic Relations, argued that banning circumcision “would impose undue hardship on both faith communities who see circumcision as a requirement of their religion.”"
Post a Comment