No Compromise With Fascism Or Mysogyny, Clerical Or Secular.
Why do we worry so much about alienating people who hold down screaming little girls and butcher their vaginas? Why are we so keen to be friends with the Taliban? Why do we allow the voices of the misogynists bearing the instruments of torture to drown out the voices of their victims?
- Comrade Lauryn Oates, in today's edition of The Propagandist.
In other Propagandist news, for levity: Naomi Klein and George Galloway Appear In Public Unveiled, Drive Cars Without Male Relatives Present, Wear Decadent Frilly Underwear Like Whores.
Do add The Propagandist to your various lists, alerts, rolls and circulars.
- Comrade Lauryn Oates, in today's edition of The Propagandist.
In other Propagandist news, for levity: Naomi Klein and George Galloway Appear In Public Unveiled, Drive Cars Without Male Relatives Present, Wear Decadent Frilly Underwear Like Whores.
Do add The Propagandist to your various lists, alerts, rolls and circulars.
posted by Terry Glavin at 12:00 PM
12 Comments:
Multiculturalism is a farce.
I found this article helpful in understanding the sort of perversions described in the post:
"Scruton argues that a “culture of repudiation” has gripped the West, making it unable to defend the values that make secular Western civilization worth defending, leaving it unable to offer the meaning and fulfillment that its great rival, Islamism, is able to offer its adherents. At the heart of Western civilization are the freedoms of citizenship, which can be contrasted with the consoling submission to brotherhood offered by faith, and specifically by Islam (a word whose literal meaning is precisely “submission”). Underpinning the freedoms of citizenship, Scruton argues, are forgiveness and irony, which constitute our greatest weapons against Islamism and offer the possibility of a reconciliation with Islam."
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=211
Indeed. No compromise with the barbarians who mutilate little girls. There should be no compromise with those who sexually mutilate non-consenting little boys either, just because Allah or Yahweh told them to. It's still going on in Canada.
Disgusting not-so-veiled moral- equivalance mongering between male circumcision and vaginal mutilation.
Thanks for proving Lauryn's point, Colvin.
Damn straight the ritual sexual mutilation of male children is qualitatively equivalent to that of girl children. It is revolting hypocisry to suggest otherwise. Quantitatively, MGM lies somewhere between the most horrifying practices of FGM (infibulation) and "milder" practices such as "merely" removing the labia. Either is barbaric and by any rational ethics or judiciary should be considered child abuse.
"Quantitatively, MGM lies somewhere between the most horrifying practices of FGM "
Some would agree. Others - won't:
http://contentious-centrist.blogspot.com/2009/02/on-circumcision-saint-and-other-animals.html
Centrist: infant penile mutilation may protect against HIV. So what? Ever heard of condoms? If I could show that women subjected to the barbarism of FGM were less likely to get Aids or STDs (and some studies have shown this..probably because it makes sex so unpleasant), that would make it OK? Let's say the sky-ghost I worship has a dislike of girl's nipples. So I lop the nipples off my baby girl in infancy, and I don't even bother to use anesthetic. Perhaps it reduces breast cancer or something, so it's all OK? No, I'd be in jail before you could say "cultural sensitivity". Yet the equivalent happens to baby boys day in and day out; it's not even illegal in Canada (unlike FGM, which is illegal and rightly so). A charter case went to the Supreme Court about precisely this discrepancy in protection between infant boys and girls, but they were too chickenshit to examine it because of exactly the misplaced religious/cultural sensitivity that Lauryn Oates writes about. Talk about hypocrisy.
To anyone not blinded by hypocrisy, the only ethical course of action is to have a ritual symbolic "nick" or "prick" of the prick in infancy/youth, and then when the boy reaches the age of consent (and it's pretty unlikely he will catch HIV before this point), if he wants to have his foreskin hacked off he will be perfectly free to do so.
As for the argument that mentioning FGM and MGM in the same breath somehow "diminishes the cruelty of FGM", what a bogus argument. Sure, MGM is not as bad as carving out a little girl's clitoris with a rusty razor blade. But since the foreskin has been show to be the most sensitive part of the penis, it is certainly worse than hacking off her labia. Concern that children not be subjected to sexual mutilation is not a zero-sum game.
Uhu... it rocks, why didn't you point to it earlier? Thanks.
Er... I meant to thank Terry for the link to Propagandist, not JC for that fascinating (not really) discussion on cut/uncut dicks.
JC's completely off the rails on this issue -- as he is on so many others. If MGM were anything like as damaging as FGM, males (like me) who experienced it would be up in arms. Female genital mutilation affects women's sexual life and performance; MGM doesn't. How's that for a qualitative difference? And you have to wonder why JC is so interested in actually trying to create this false equivalence?
Post a Comment
<< Home