Sadly I believe that this happens in every insular comunity, I don’t believe for a single second that this is unique, I’ve heard of it (or at least similarly terrible things) happening in Muslim, Hindu, Christian and countless other comunities,particularly where that comunity is a minority group living among another ethnic comunity. Force marriages, insestual marriage, sexual abuse all go on behind closed doors and there is little help because of those doors.

What I find particularly sickening is that the US government is suspending the rule of law for certain groups or is looking the other way because of religious pressures being put on local comunities.

The US government is full of hypocrasises when it comes to religious comunities, and I know that you’re probably going to disagree with me on this one, but its the best example that I can think of right now, but it bans something in one comunity and allows it in another, including campaigning against female circumsision, even though it is a cultural/religious belief, yet it allowing male circumsision on infants for this very reasionwhich, while not as damaging, is still invasive.

You can’t have one law for one group and a different law for another.

December 29, 2004 @ 3:03 am | Comment

…campaigning against female circumsision, even though it is a cultural/religious belief, yet it allowing male circumsision…

While female circumcision is a cultural belief, its only purpose is to oppress women and make them compliant. Contrasted with the much more benign male circumcision, it is easy to see why the federal government makes a distinction in one case and not in the other.

You can’t have one law for one group and a different law for another.

While true, in a multicultural society, this should rarely be necessary, as laws should be made that all members of society are able to follow (there is no law making male circumcision mandatory). Will Kymlicka has written such interesting work on this topic. In Multicultural Citizenship, he suggests that immigrant groups (like those practicing female circumsision in the United States) have far less of a right to complain about oppression than groups like the Amish, because the former immigrated here by choice, knowing that they would have to conform to American laws. He also states that when insular cultures oppress their individual members, those members should be free to leave said culture if they wish.

However, that is not the issue here. Incest, sexual abuse, and the molestation of children are clearly not cultural beliefs of either the Amish or the American communities that surround them. I do not think that the prosecutors and judges consciously meant to impose a double standard. As seen in Richard’s post, there is a stereotype of the Amish as pious and humble. Since the American justice system allows for great amounts of discrepancy in determining punishments, bias for or against criminals can be very important.

December 29, 2004 @ 11:41 am | Comment

Marty, you said exactly what I was thinking, on all points.

Male circumcision in no way compares to female circumcision (which is rightfully referred to as female genital mutilation).

December 29, 2004 @ 1:37 pm | Comment

Richard! We are in 100% agreement again. That’s twice in as many days! What’s happening?

Bets regards,
Mark Anthony Jones

December 29, 2004 @ 11:25 pm | Comment

I know that circumsision probably isn’t the best example, but it was the only one that I could thik of at the time.

What I was trying to say is that both of them are medically unnesasary and both of them are done without the concent of the person being circumsised for cultural reasons. You are allowing the removal of part of sombody’s genitals without consulting them yet it is OK for men but not for women even if it is done under medical supervision. FGM is also not permitted in America even with concent (as far as I am aware anyway, please correct me on this if I am wrong here).

Suppose it was my cultural belief that I should cut the lobes off of my childrens’ ears. It doesn’t harm them in any medical way but the US government would still lock me up for doing it because it would constitute child abuse even if it was done be a certified doctor. US law would also prevent me from tattoing my children with cultural tattoes even though taotes held cultural significance to my ancestors.

As far as the law should be concerned, the operation is done without the individuals concent and without medical reason. It doesn’t matter that one is more or less harmful than the other.

On the other issues though, I agree with both of you in most areas.

December 30, 2004 @ 5:30 am | Comment

According to the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995, FGM is only prohibited when it is performed on females under the age of 18. Therefore, I assume if an adult female wanted to be circumcised, they could be.

As for earlobe cutting (or tattoos), I am pretty sure that the US government would not care. FGM is prohibited because it is “a harmful, traditional practice that threatens the health and human rights of women, and hinders development.” Assuming the removal of your children’s earlobes did not harm your children (i.e. by making them deaf, or something), it would be fine.

December 30, 2004 @ 1:18 pm | Comment

you should note The terminology from “female circumcision” to “female genital mutilation” was changed by the United Nations upon recommendation by WHO in 1991, after having been proposed in 1990.
there is a reason there is laws i’m not saying male circumcision is right but its not violent mutilation that removes all ablitly at plesure and it doesnt cause horrible scares and infections

May 13, 2005 @ 6:12 pm | Comment

This is an interesting subject! In the early sixties when I was born (And shortly thereafter circumcised) there was apparently a widley held secular belief that the prodedure would forstall later health problems. this was in bermuda and I often wonder if the same beliefe existed in the rest of the western world at the time. Can anyone offer any info?

August 23, 2005 @ 9:31 am | Comment

education

February 13, 2006 @ 6:37 am | Comment

Male circumcision is a cultural practice originating in the Middle East, primarily in Semitic cultures. The practice spread with other Judaeo-Christian practices and today is primarily performed in European cultures. The practice can hardly be described as non-invasive, typically a circular incision is made around the shaft of the penis (some doctors now use an electrical device) in most cases leaving a recognizable scar for the duration of the males life. The foreskin is then torn from the penis, not unlike scalping or skinning practices. The foreskin of a male typically contains approximately 70% of the nerves of the penis. The resulting wound is hardly superficial and requires dedicated parental care. Until recently the American medical community generally encouraged the practice for such reasons ranging from simplified hygiene to a decreased risk of certain cancers. Scientifically speaking the medical benefits of said practice are not statistically significant.

Though this practice is not legally required, I find it hard to not see such a practice as abusive to the child. Not only could the procedure easily be defined as mutilation (def. to cut off or alter radically in a permanent manner) but the psychological ramifications of amputating a significant portion of the genitalia within hours of birth (typically with no anesthetigia, as in without pain medication) cannot be overstated.

In summary FGM and Western male circumcision differ in the harm caused to the individual mainly as a result of the methods/tools employed and the care after the fact, not as a result of an innate difference in practice. I am not making a case for FGM but it does seem that the original point, that the US discriminates along cultural lines when defining what is or is not abuse, stands as valid.

June 15, 2006 @ 11:49 am | Comment