From: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org (Steve Hayes)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Millions of girls brutally mutilat
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:59:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: catpe.2752.2AF9657D
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7101/22.5 - Novell User Group, Pretoria RSA

On <01 Nov 1992 14:38> Jim Rosenfield (5:7104/2) said to All :

 JR>From: Jim Rosenfield <jnr>
 JR>Subject: Millions of girls brutally mutilat
 JR>
 JR>/* Written  8:16 pm  Oct 30, 1992 by jnr in cdp:hr.child */
 JR>/* ---------- "Millions of girls brutally mutilat" ---------- 
 JR>*/
 JR>Please keep eyes open for material on infibulation, clitoridectomy
 JR>and ritual female circumcision as a children's rights issue.  
 JR>My
 JR>understanding is that millions of girls are brutally mutilated
 JR>every year, especially across africa and asia and more recently in
 JR>the u.s. among immigrant populations.  It is probably also true
 JR>that many, many of these girls die from infection, along with
 JR>other dire health consequences for those who survive.
 JR>
 JR>If anyone has more information on this condition, please post it
 JR>here or to "hunger.general" if you like.  Thank you.

I don't want to discuss these practices, but I do want to query the way in 
which the question has been put, which sounds like US cultural imperialism to 
me.

People in the USA seem to make a habit of exporting their moral indignation 
all over the world, but seem to take it amiss when others question their 
cultural practices.

The USA has just elected as president a man whose avowed policy is to give the 
mother an absolute right to decide whether a child shall or shall not live, up 
to a certain age. Is that not a children's rights issue? Is it not ageism?

Of course it is not as simple as that. It is actually a CULTURAL issue, and it 
depends entirely on the cultural perception of the age at which a child 
becomes a human being. The dominant culture perceives the child as becoming a 
human being as a later age than the minority culture does, and so the dominant 
culture gets its way. 

Clitoridectomy and similar practices are also closely linked with cultural 
perceptions. And they do a heck of a lot less damage to children than killing 
them does.

So perhaps people in the USA should take the forest out of their eye so that 
they can see clearly before trying to remove a speck of sawdust from someone 
else's eye. Maybe, as your dominant culture defines "human" in such a way as 
to exclude those whom it wishes to kill, the cultures that practice 
clitoridectomy define "human" in such a way as to exclude those upon whom that 
operation is performed. I don't know. But your posting makes it pretty clear 
that you don't know either. 

I'm not saying that the question should not be discussed, or that it is not a 
children's rights issue. But I think starting the debate with a little less 
cultural arrogance might be a good idea. And the cultural arrogance begins 
right there in the subject line. And, as I said before, it comes from 
someone in a culture in which it could be said, by those whose 
cultural perceptions are different, that millions of children are brutally 
murdered.




--  
INTERNET: Steve.Hayes@p5.f22.n7101.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.