NYT scraps 'female genital mutilation' for being 'culturally loaded' term

[Slybak]

A) The New York Times at least got you to pretend to care about African women. That's a success of a sort.

B) This probably hasn't been the best month to take your feminist cues from Fox News. Just sayin'.

[GennGreymane]

A) The New York Times at least got you to pretend to care about African women. That's a success of a sort.

B) This probably hasn't been the best month to take your feminist cues from Fox News. Just sayin'.

/thread
/youwin

[alexkeren]

So what?
An institute decides to use or not use certain terms in their articles, is it something new to you guys?
Also I don't understand how you drew the conclusion that NYT believes FGM is not scary.
PS. love the fact that you used the term NYT prefers to use instead of FGM in your own post.

Your Sarcdar is failing. The first three words of his sentence should have set it off.

[Cybran]

The New York Times at least got you to pretend to care about African women.

It just sucks that the fear to offend barbarism trumps female rights.

[HumbleDuck]

Your Sarcdar is failing. The first three words of his sentence should have set it off.

I know the statement was sarcastic, but I don't see how the use of the word cutting contributes to the sarcasm.

[Damajin]

Makes me wonder how many Muslim employees/investors they have, I'm sure the usual suspects of CAIR and such are putting pressure on them but some of this has to come from in house.

[Deleted]

It just sucks that the fear to offend barbarism trumps female rights.

Yeah, your claim to be a supporter of women's rights is a bit weakened when you link from Fox News, quote Trump, and your avatar is a picture of the man groping the Statue of Liberty.

[P for Pancetta]

Are you fucking serious to even try and remotely compare the two?

Male circumcision is NOT "in effect cutting of the tip of the penis, the aforementioned foreskin being tip of the penis." Not even fucking close. You are talking abut foreskin that SURROUNDS the penis - not the penis itself. Sorry, but that is NOT the same - or even comparable - to removing the clitoris.

The female version is more "invasive"? INVASIVE?!!!!! What a horrible misuse of a word.

Haha you're mad, because reality crashed with your stupid opinions.

[Deleted]

Soon this thread will be about a brand new and never-discussed topic, sure to change the world: male circumcision. I wouldn't mind a discussion about the English language either, and its ridiculousness regarding how the letter "c" can be used as both "k" and "s" thus making some words fucking impossible to spell without a spellchecker

On topic, FGM should still be call FGM, because it is mutilation

And do you know why people will start about male circumcision? And why do we not call male circumcision mgm? You know, as it is still mutilation!?

I think you should read up on FGM. Not that I in any way approve of male circumcision but the girls do have it worse.

For someone telling someone else to "read up" you sure as hell do not have allot of knowledge of the subject. Firstly, if you take the worst case of MGM and the worst case of FGM then the severity of the MGM is worse. Because, yes, cutting something of entirely (the whole phallus) trumps sewing something shut. This isn't to say that girls do not have it bad because of this, they do, but this isn't something that only happens to females.

Secondly, if you where to put the two least invasive forms of the MGM and FGM next to each other then the male one will be worse yet again. As the pin prick (Jewish custom) is nowhere as severe as circumcision is, yet it is still illegal.

I didn't made this post to have a "who has it worse" competition, im merely trying to point out how depraved the situation actually is. While we find it not okay to preform any form of MGM, even when it is comparable to the male circumcision version. Yet in America it is no problem to cut up baby boys because "muh religion". At the same time in African mothers are doing this FGM to their daughters for the freaking same reason as MGM is done to boys in America, "its not that bad, i have it too" "but, insert bogus medical reason" "the other sex thinks it looks pretty".

Cutting up babies is medieval and should not happen, period. It should not matter what sex it is before it is considered to be "a bad thing".

[Elim Garak]

For someone telling someone else to "read up" you sure as hell do not have allot of knowledge of the subject. Firstly,

You should do some read up on the topic. The worst case FGM is not sewing anything, it's "phallus" removal and it isn't even considered a bad thing unlike MGM, if you cut a phallus during male circumcision - it's malpractice punishable by law.

[Deleted]

You should do some read up on the topic. The worst case FGM is not sewing anything, it's "phallus" removal and it isn't even considered a bad thing unlike MGM, if you cut a phallus during male circumcision - it's malpractice punishable by law.

You should learn to read, the worst case of MGM (that includes circumcision, but this isn't the only form of MGM) is worse then the FGM version. I do not mean a surgery gone wrong, i mean cutting of the phallus because that is exactly what they wanted to do. And that is worse then sewing a girl shut while cutting of some parts. Luckily this doesn't happen allot, but it does happen.

The point is that with the whole MGM vs FMG discussion is dishonest. If you want to compare MGM to FGM then you have to compare versions that are alike. What is happening here is comparing the least worst version of MGM with the worst version of FGM.

[Elim Garak]

You should learn to read, the worst case of MGM

It's ILLEGAL in civilized countries and no one cares what camel-herders do in the desert, so there's no point to even bring it up. We are not comparing what CAN be done to ones genitalia. The ACCEPTABLE practices of FGM (clitoris removal) are FAR worse than acceptable practices of MGM (foreskin removal).

[Revi]

ITT MRA idiots trying to compare female genital mutilation with circumcision.

Being opposed to parents forcing surgery to reduce sexual pleasure or for cosmetic reasons on infants hardly requires you to be associated with a specific gender-rights group.

How about nobody cuts into baby genitals unless medically necessary, regardless of gender?

[Deleted]

It's ILLEGAL in civilized countries and no one cares what camel-herders do in the desert, so there's no point to even bring it up. We are not comparing what CAN be done to ones genitalia. The ACCEPTABLE practices of FGM (clitoris removal) are FAR worse than acceptable practices of MGM (foreskin removal).

Yea, so what is your point, as FGM is ILLEGAL IN ALL THE CIVILIZED WORLD. So if we do not care about what "camel-herders do in the desert" then all that is left is western civilization cutting up baby boys for no apparent reason.

[Elim Garak]

Yea, so what is your point, as FGM is ILLEGAL IN ALL THE CIVILIZED WORLD. So if we do not care about what "camel-herders do in the desert" then all that is left is western civilization cutting up baby boys for no apparent reason.

Now you should read the OP. The horrible FGM that is still practiced in CIVILIZED world, albeit recently made illegal, is a problematic term for PC crowd and they want to soften it to be like "male circumcision" which is not illegal. And the intricate nuances of male circumcision legality are irrelevant in this topic.

[Sinyc]

"The Failing NYT"?
Hows your own newspaper doing?

Technically every newspaper is failing compared to 10+ years ago. The Internet tends to do that to outlets that don't get with the times.

[Deleted]

Now you should read the OP. The horrible FGM that is still practiced in CIVILIZED world, albeit recently made illegal, is a problematic term for PC crowd and they want to soften it to be like "male circumcision" which is not illegal. And the intricate nuances of male circumcision legality are irrelevant in this topic.

There isn't a civilized place where they cut up baby girls, unless you want to include the same people you excluded in your last post, but i wouldnt call that the civilized world.
Those places you speak of are the same places that also still practice slavery to some degree or another and still practise the horrible forms of MGM too.
The fact that you think that male circumcisions legality doesn't enter into this discussion is laughable, you can not condone one without having to condone the other. Well of course you can but it would make you a very big hypocrite. Cutting up babies is bad, no matter what gender they are.

[Aggrophobic]

Technically every newspaper is failing compared to 10+ years ago. The Internet tends to do that to outlets that don't get with the times.

Indeed. But in the OPs world it's "failing" becuase it doesn't push his agenda.

[Elim Garak]

There isn't a civilized place where they cut up baby girls, unless you want to include the same people you excluded in your last post, but i wouldnt call that the civilized world.
Those places you speak of are the same places that also still practice slavery to some degree or another and still practise the horrible forms of MGM too.
The fact that you think that male circumcisions legality doesn't enter into this discussion is laughable, you can not condone one without having to condone the other. Well of course you can but it would make you a very big hypocrite. Cutting up babies is bad, no matter what gender they are.

I didn't know Britain is a desert and they practice slavery there, the more you know...

P.S. try google next time.

[Deleted]

You should do some read up on the topic..

No, you should.

The worst case FGM is not sewing anything, it's "phallus" removal and it isn't even considered a bad thing unlike MGM, if you cut a phallus during male circumcision - it's malpractice punishable by law

No, its not punishable by law, that would imply that its not a civil matter.