My RSS Feeds
Western governments trying to act smart?
Western governments trying to act smart?
(example: female circumcision)
Recently I have been reading a few articles on "circumcision", which made me wonder.
In this entry I just want to refer to the more controversial circumcision of girls and young women.
There are actually several distinct practices to circumcise a female.
In some cases it has very little effect on the recipient "as no genital surgery occures at all, but is simulated with a knife as part of a ceremony". Then there are other incidents, which is "the most complete form of female circumcision, which is also referred to as infibulation or pharaonic circumcision. It consists of a clitoridectomy, the removal of the labia minora, the cutting of the labia majora and then sewing together the cut labia majora to cover the vagina, leaving an opening to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through. The sewn-together labia majora are opened by the woman´s husband before sexual intercourse."
A certain type of female circumcision known as sunna circumcision "is most comparable to male circumcision. When practiced for non-religious reason, it is usually an elective surgery intended to enhance the sexual sensitivity of the clitoris".
What I found very interesting was, that from the "late 19th century until the 1950s, it was practiced not to enhance but to control female sexuality, and was advocated in the United States together with more invasive procedures such as the removal of the clitoris and infibulation by groups like the Orificial Surgery Society until 1925", which might sound like centuries ago, but it´s been just 80 years. Not that long ago really.
"Specially, doctors performing or advocating the procedure were concerned that girls of all ages would otherwise engage in more masturbation and be "polluted" by the activity, which was referred to as "self-abuse".
"Through the 1950s some doctors continued to advocate clitoridotomy for hygenic reasons or to reduce mastubation". And I am sure this view would still be rather common, if there hadn´t been the so-called "sexual revolution" in the 60s.
Nowadays we hear of activists trying to rally support against female circumcision and also trying to encourage governments to introduce laws forbitting such practices.
Often western governments like portray themself to be on the "ethically/morally correct" side and want to put pressure on other governments to support their stance.
Do you think that these governments have any right to do that, presenting themself to be morally/ethically superior to other nations?
Female circumcision just serves as an example here. You can replace it with any other moral or ethical issue.
If a society is ready for change, then that change should come from within the effected society itself, or should it not?
~peace~
PS: For more info on female circumcision you can check out this link. It was also my main source for this entry.
