I still think the reason behind academic blind spots (if they exist) is a strong desire not to enable deplorables’ aggressive bigotry with your dry science. It’s the same with “radical Islamic terrorism.”
Unfortunately this just makes people search deeper and hang on every word until they find something that proves their point and the grand conspiracy that’s suppressing it. So round and round we go.
It’s a reasonable comparison in that it’s done to children with no capacity to consent, but there’s a qualitative difference in the amount of damage done.
I am a fan of relying on consenting adults to make decisions, but let’s not forget how much pressure parents have even after a child hits 18. Young adults will make terrible decisions under the pressure of their adult family members like, buying a phones for the family on a contract in their name because their parents have bad credit only to have their parents once again not pay and ruin their credit, when faced with the fact their parents stole their identity and opened accounts in their name, refusing to press charges because who would do that to family, or marrying someone because they got them pregnant. Do you really think mutilation is that far off?
This usage is grammatically incorrect.
People may use it in such a way, but they are making an error in doing so.
This was impressed upon me pretty solidly when I was in 3rd or 4th grade I think.
EDIT:
I stand corrected, by wikipedia!
I blame my 4th grade english teacher for apparently teaching us outdated rules.
Er you mean QUANTITATIVE rather than qualitative, right? Because qualitatively in both cases there is a lack of consent to an irreversible operation. But the amount of suffering as a result of circumcision is quite a bit less than FGM (by most accounts of FGM).
This is why there is some truth in saying the campaign against FGM is western colonialism: the “west” are still doing it to their boys, so who are THEY to accuse others for the “barbarism” of FGM? It is another case of “do as I say, not as I do”. The progressive position should be to advocate against BOTH circumcision and FGM.
But what is the chance of success against circumcision in say, US? It would be a loooong shot, and some people will be fiercely protective of their “rights” to harm their children. So why would anyone be surprised if practitioners of FGM are ALSO fiercely protective of their “rights”, by the same token?
I’d support a man on male circumcision if it meant female circumcision went away.
That said, the male process is a lot less barbaric, and isn’t primarily designed to make women not enjoy sex.
FGM should be outlawed the world over, and circumcision in general should be discouraged heavily.
Shouting “house nigger” at her and making her a prime attack target for years is not “keep distance”
If the principles of privilege and oppression were actually real the left would ally with a FGM victim, a forced marriage victim, a woman, a Somali, a feminist and a woman’s rights activist.
But it’s not, it’s always boils down to political tribalism, they don’t even practice what they preach. They are far more concerned with their allyship with the patriarchal majority. Utter hypocrisy.
That’s theory only. If you can find a single case of voluntary cultural FGM I’d be amazed. There might be someone with an extreme body mod fetish but that’s not for religious reasons.
The only cases I know among adults are the forced FGM procedures against Yazidi slaves and trafficked Westerners in the Gulf, or Indonesian craziness like this.
It is not FGM one would normally have in mind, but cosmetic operation on labia is voluntary mutilation.
So the two positions you mention here - one in favour of freedom of speech, one in favour of being fine with the Holocaust - seem equally defensible to you?
I must be missing something big, because frankly, that sounds obscene.
It does sound obscene, until you consider how often we don’t intervene in a genocide.
You think the left should ally with someone of a certain background regardless of what they have to say? Weren’t you criticizing this very approach earlier in the discussion? It seems to me that you should be congratulating the left for finally exercising some judgment.
All this is reminiscent of a common political tactic:
“Hey, [opponent]. You claim to love [group] dearly. Well, we found a member of [group], and [he or she] is here to tell the world that you are wrong.”
It is such an appealing argument, and yet it always goes over like a lead balloon. See Khan vs Trump for a recent example. Or, to call out another thread, Lieberman vs Obama.
Completely false choice. You can have freedom of speech and completely denounce any form of the Holocaust.
There is clearly coersion for FGM, and in some cases it’s done forcibly. We do have laws on the books against coercion of people, child abuse, and other such things. Just enforce those laws against FGM and other forms of radical religious coercion. (It’s not just radical Islam even if that’s the main offender)
Of course, but I wasn’t presenting the two positions as an either / or choice. As magnet laid out, they are two positions existing along the spectrum of tolerance, and I was surprised that it was argued the latter was no harder to defend than the former.
Well, about 30-40% of Americans think we should restrict hate speech, and that’s also about how many Americans think we should intervene militarily in Syria if non-military relief efforts fail.
Of course, sentiment is not a formal defense. But it does suggest that Americans find offensive speech at home to be roughly as tolerable as offensive action far away.
Cultural relativism rears its ugly head again.
Marrying children to adults and “to stop them being raped” is not progressive.
Raping children to stop them “enduring hardship” is not progressive.
“Family honour” is not higher on the progressive stack than child rape.
Economic burden is not justification for child rape.
Respecting cultures is not a reason to allow child rape.
No, fucking children is wrong, and if you are more afraid of being called a racist than calling out child rape YOU ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE.
This issue sums up everything wrong with identity politics.
Prejudice, power, privilege. Please explain to me how Ayaan holds this and why minorities can be called nigger because they engage with the only people who will listen to them.
You might also want to address why you ignored Maryam in this argument. Maryam sits on the General Committee of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran.
She doesn’t, so apparently she’s being judged on the merits of her opinions. A fine development, wouldn’t you say?
They shouldn’t. Please cite the mainstream leftist who used this language, and I will rebuke them right here.
I didn’t. You want leftists to accept her based solely on her background, and you’re annoyed that they are judging her based on her opinions. And as above, that’s what leftists should have been doing all along.
An article summing up the two pronged attack on ex-Muslims and Islamic reformers coming from the regressive left and their Salafist allies.
http://www.conatusnews.com/the-vilification-of-ex-muslims-and-islamic-reformers-.html
Yeah, I don’t love this particular trend. Was Shakespeare not allowed to write a play about a Moor, or to write female characters (some of the best ever written, btw), was Mozart not allowed to write an opera about Turkey (I’m sure he used all kinds of offensive musical cliches in his depiction of that culture…)
Granted, I’m a white male, so I suppose my opinion on all this is suspect. I’d be curious to see my reaction if the Chinese made a movie about Abraham Lincoln or something. I usually get to be on the easy side of these arguments.
I got into a rather heated debate with a friend over Michael Mann, of all things. She was complaining about Last of the Mohicans, and how it’s unfortunate that Native Americans aren’t allowed within the Hollywood power structure to make their own films. Which is a fair point, but does it invalidate white men making movies about Native Americans if they do it with care and skill? Of course, that particular movie derives from James Fenimore Cooper and is stuffed to the gills with Noble Savage cliches. But it’s also an effective drama that treats Indians as independent, intelligent agents making their own moves and triangulations amid a war between the French and English. It’s not either/or, it’s both/and, and a lot of other “ands” too, as any text of any size usually is.
Anyhoo. I guess where I come from on all this is as someone who does, or has, or may, aspire/d to be a writer of fiction, I don’t like the idea that the writer cannot lay claim to any and all things the imagination may grasp – and then let time and multitudes be the judge of it.
edit: Apologize if I responded to something old, just sorta stumbled into this thread while waiting for Trump updates.
