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

[Belize]

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.

NYT is doing very well with its online subscription. So. Eh.

[Deleted]

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

P.S. try google next time.

I didn't know that its legal in Britain to practice FGM, the more you know.....

[Deleted]

I didn't know that its legal in Britain to practice FGM, the more you know.....

It isn't, but some people, presumably White Christians!, do so anyway.

[Deleted]

It isn't, but some people, presumably White Christians!, do so anyway.

Yea, those scummy Brits /s

But really i do not understand how it is not a no brainer to just not cut up babies genitals.

[Extremity]

I'm sorry, I don't want to cause any sort of cultural/religious/whatever issue or something if that is a genuine concern, but from what I can gather they are saying they don't want to use the term basically as to not offend any groups of people that practice this... this "procedure"?

The one reference to this I remember the most is some tribe or group of people somewhere in Africa or the middle east or whatever that would take the women of their group and cut off their clitorides in order to dramatically reduce any pleasurable sensations from intercourse, as they "weren't meant to feel pleasure" or because they wanted to "discourage any urges to be unfaithful to their husbands" or something. I don't recall it being for a genuine religious purpose or anything of the sort, but I could be wrong

The NYT doing this in order to avoid any sort of cultural insensitivity claims that could result from using the term seems a bit ridiculous to me. Is there really a legitimate argument condoning this act? I understand that certain cultures can be wildly different and I do not want to be outright dismissive or condescending towards other peoples' beliefs if there is a legitimate group/religion/whatever that practices this in general or as some sort of rite, but is there really a group performing this that is "legitimate" enough to warrant a genuine concern regarding political correctness?

From my perspective, obviously influenced by my "western" culture, the act is.. well, heinous. I can't imagine it ever NOT being done against the woman's will, and I feel like even when that's not the case, it's because the woman has spent her entire life thinking it's the normal thing to do and she's effectively obligated to go through with it and is in the wrong otherwise. This seems entirely misogynistic; it seems very clear that it was a decision made by men and enforced upon women to ensure control in what is, at least to me, one of the most horrible ways to do so. Again, I know this is difficult to discuss as I need to take into consideration systems of belief other than my own... but that's just the thing, is that really what this is? Something being a ritual or a tradition does not make it a "belief". It just makes it something that's gone on for a while. Are there genuine religious implications or purely traditional ones? I'm pretty sure a religious angle has never been brought up, right?

All I know is this -- if I started taking every little boy born in my home town and cutting off the tip of his nose, then somehow convinced everybody in my area to do the same, how long would it be before it was considered normal in my area and was a part of every day life? How long after that would it take for people to be worried about referring to the act in a potentially "degrading" way because it's now a core tradition in my community?

The fact that something has gone on for a while, that this action against women has taken place for an extended period of time and has become a tradition or whatever you want to call it, shouldn't automatically make it right. This is like the most literal example of physical-misogyny that will ever exist, and I don't know why the conversation EVER started to be about being politically correct in their favor rather than trying to fix this. I'm not saying we have the right to tell people they can't do it if they genuinely believe in it for whatever reason, but I think the women deserve a chance to be legitimately educated about what is being done to their bodies and should have a chance to decide on their own, but unfortunately that won't happen.

Let me end this by just saying one thing, because I don't want any issues to come from this: I absolutely respect other cultures and systems of belief and do not believe mine is better than anybody else's. I'm not saying that if somebody adheres to this "tradition" (or whatever you call it) that they are inherently evil, and from a technical standpoint I'm not saying one person is right and one person is wrong. What I'm saying is that, purely from my perspective and as my OPINION, the physical act in question is revolting and I believe there should be genuine concern regarding these women having this decision made for them, along with the reasoning behind the procedure being done in the first place. While I respect the fact that other people are free to believe in and do what they want, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it; I think the fact that so many different groups have put so much thought into ensuring we use a politically correct term demonstrates a certain level of acceptance, through indifference or not, and that it's just an inevitability we can't control; that is very frustrating to me.

[satimy]

Someone from the New York Times should volunteer to be culturally enriched by FGM

[zenkai]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/24...aded-term.html



Words are scary, cutting girls gentials is not scary.

I don't blame them for wanting to offend radicals, but at the same time NYT is a joke.

[Themius]

I don't know why it's called mutilation at all and isn't called circumcision.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Infracted

Because it is comparable... there are boys who are horribly scarred from circumcisions. There is such a thing as female circumcision dont right.

[Jotaux]

It disgusts me that genital mutilation is still practiced on young children throughout the world and they should call it what it is, mutilation.

[niil945]

I think the practice is horrific but do we call circumcision male genital mutilation? Of course not. Why? Because there are a lot of people who live in the U.S. who think the practice is fine. Trying to convince them otherwise by calling it male genital mutilation would result in them outright dismissing anyone who uses the term. There are a lot of things people do outside the U.S. that seem odd or horrifying that are normal to the cultures that do them. Toning down the language so that a dialogue actually stays open isn't a bad thing and doesn't in any way diminish the position of people who are against the practice.

[PosPosPos]

Liberals using sensationalist terms: Trumpets rush to manufacture outrage.

Liberals stop using sensationalist terms: Trumpets rush harder to manufacture outrage.

[Jotaux]

From my perspective, obviously influenced by my "western" culture, the act is.. well, heinous. I can't imagine it ever NOT being done against the woman's will, and I feel like even when that's not the case, it's because the woman has spent her entire life thinking it's the normal thing to do and she's effectively obligated to go through with it and is in the wrong otherwise. This seems entirely misogynistic

I wouldn't say its mysogynistic. You see this in the US with male circumcision being considered the norm and I wouldn't call that misandristic.

[pateuvasiliu]

Either ban circumcision and female circumcision or ban neither.

Keeping only one is hypocritical and sexist.


( The obvious answer is ban both, since they're both barbarism )

[Extremity]

I wouldn't say its mysogynistic. You see this in the US with male circumcision being considered the norm and I wouldn't call that misandristic.

Yeah, except I don't consider the two to be related at "all". The fact that they call one "female circumcision" is a total joke, there's a big difference between removing a piece of skin and removing the clitoris, and the intent behind the two is dramatically different as well. I know somebody can argue "oh well men lose sensitivity from it too!" or whatever but, in my eyes, they aren't even remotely comparable.

[Deleted]

Page 1 Ctrl F Excision = 0
Page 2 Ctrl F Excision = 0
Page 3 Ctrl F Excision = 0
Page 4 Ctrl F Excision = 1 incoming, last word of my sign.

So basically, A top New York Times editor have no vocabulary, and none of the poster here so far, as well ?

What is the IQ level of this whole " New York Times " shat, depicting a childish expression, leading little by little to a complete occultism concerning this mutilation.

Is this related to the united arab emirates ISLAMIST state link into the women not so rights' adhesion ?

[Deleted]

Yeah, except I don't consider the two to be related at "all". The fact that they call one "female circumcision" is a total joke, there's a big difference between removing a piece of skin and removing the clitoris, and the intent behind the two is dramatically different as well. I know somebody can argue "oh well men lose sensitivity from it too!" or whatever but, in my eyes, they aren't even remotely comparable.

There are numerous types of FGM and MGM, comparing the worst from of one against the mildest form of the other is being dishonest at best.
Not calling circumcision what it is, namely MGM, is what is the joke here, because, apparently you do not have a problem with cutting up babies genitals as long as these genitals belong to boys.
The exact same reasoning that Americans give about circumcision is used in countries that practice FGM about FGM, "it was done to me too" "the other sex thinks it looks better" or the ow so nice, "but god".
If they aren't the same thing in your eyes it is ONLY because your culture finds it none objectionable. So im very sorry to inform you that mutilating the genitals of babies is outright barbaric, it should not matter what the gender of said baby is.

[Noradin]

I wouldn't say its mysogynistic. You see this in the US with male circumcision being considered the norm and I wouldn't call that misandristic.

I certainly would.

[Extremity]

If they aren't the same thing in your eyes it is ONLY because your culture finds it none objectionable. So im very sorry to inform you that mutilating the genitals of babies is outright barbaric, it should not matter what the gender of said baby is.

Yes, I agree. That's literally what I said, that it's heinous. I don't think one is any better or worse than the other, but I still don't think you can compare the two acts in terms of the actual physical implications outside of "both are messed up". I'm circumcised, I had no say in the matter, and while I don't really care about it in terms of it being done to me (and I'm sure mostly because I can't remember it; if I could I'm certain it'd be another story entirely) I understand why others would... and even *still* it's nowhere near being the same in my eyes.

[Deleted]

Yes, I agree. That's literally what I said, that it's heinous. I don't think one is any better or worse than the other, but I still don't think you can compare the two acts in terms of the actual physical implications outside of "both are messed up". I'm circumcised, I had no say in the matter, and while I don't really care about it in terms of it being done to me (and I'm sure mostly because I can't remember it; if I could I'm certain it'd be another story entirely) I understand why others would... and even *still* it's nowhere near being the same in my eyes.

There are different types of both MGM and FGM and they go from "not that bad" (the "" because, you know, its bad) al the way to god damned horrific. There are comparable versions, but mostly the worst kind of one is set off against the mildest form of the other. That is the reason that you think you can't compare the two.

The reason you give here for people doing it is the exact same reason given by females in countries that practice FGM, "i do not really care about it, it was done to me as well". And i understand that people might think this way because of the culture that they grew up in. But if you sit down and think about it i can not imagine anyone being okay with the mutilation of their own kids genitals. Even if its "only a bit".

[Deleted]

I mean, practically speaking, in cultures were FGM is practiced a female that was not so mutilated would likely never be married and considering that those cultures offer no financial support or independence for women, she would simply have to flee to survive. It's likely part of their beauty standards; similar to other torturous or simply dangerous practices like facial tattoos, the stretching of the neck or the deforming of feet. Within their frightening version of normality, not having been subjected to such mutilation would be a deleterious disadvantage to living any life within their communities.

So Jewish woman do not get married?

It is just as much "part of their beauty standard" as it is that woman from America to think that a circumcised male "looks better".
Its not like males in these places do not have the same strange "beauty standards". More often then not when a tribe elongates their necks then everyone will do so, same with tattoo's or that weird lip thing some do.
Yes, some places on earth are backwards as shit, but that goes for everyone that lives there, not just woman. Woman may have the shorter end of the stick there, but lets not think that living there is a party when you are of a different gender.

You just can not look at those places and judge them by our modern standards. It would be the same to judge history by today's standards, you just can not do that without being dishonest.
Remember that most of these places you refer to will not have jobs, social security, housing (at least not something that we would call a house) or most things that we take for granted like flowing water.
If you live in a tribe that lives in huts with rings around your neck's you will not have a 7/11 or anything like that. In these places gender roles are mostly still needed in order to simply survive. Females will have to bear the children that are needed for your old day, most of these children will not make it to an old age. When the females are baring children means that the males will have to provide and yadda yadda, you know how it works. This is a necessity out there, this is not something they can just scratch out, if they would do that they and their whole family will likely die out before not to long.
As i've stated before, the world has some shitty places, but to pick out one gender and say, "they have it the worst" is just ignorant in my opinion.