- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,132
- Reaction score
- 3
The section on FGM is quite short. They cite a couple of anecdotal books to support that women are the ones doing the procedures (with "a dubious or wrong justifications for it"), that mothers and fathers have a say in the matter, and 1 study in which they surveyed 300 polygamous Sudanese men (tiny sample size with more confounds than I can count, this is an inherent problem with these types of studies).
"Thus, subincision and infibulation do not seem conducive to male sexual pleasure. They might of course help ensure wifely fidelity by impairing the wife’s capacity to enjoy extramarital sex. Yet, men’s preference for sexually intact women speaks against the male control theory."
I don't think this conclusion is warranted from the evidence provided. Sexual pleasure is not the only determinant of male's attitude towards FGM, this is a red herring. The fact that a man would want to have sex with a more proceptive woman does not mean he wouldn't want a loyal FGM'd wife at home while he's out gathering scarce resources. Thus the society has a high prevalence of FGM to attract a desirable mate (it would fit your own resource explanation for the practice).
The practice also correlates with prevalence of violence against women, rape, degree of inequality between sexes, women's educational attainment, etc in those societies. And if you couple that with the research on reproductive control and intersex competition in sexually dimorphic species (like us), I don't think a survey on sexual preference of 300 Sudanese men is enough to validate toleration and justification of said practice.
The fact that women are the ones in control of the practice could just as well mean that they're trying to get the best outcome out of a very shitty hand dealt. Sort of like Southerners thinking slaves were jolly and content when they would sing during their labor.
"Sure enough, most observers conclude that the practices are most zealously defended by women (e.g., Boddy, 1989, 1998). Men seem generally indifferent (consistent with Greer’s impression that the men often do not even know). Some fathers object to having their daughters subincised or infibulated, but the men’s objections are overruled by the women in the family, who insist on having the operations performed (Lightfoot-Klein, 1989). Hicks
(1996) also reported several findings indicating that men argued for less severe surgical prac- tices but were thwarted by the women’s deter- mined support for the practices."
I'm on my phone, so I can't look up the cited studies, but you're saying they're all anecdotal? Comparing women to slaves is bizarre, but I come across your sentiment often. Men can willingly go to war. Men can willing work in coal mines. Men can willing fight in a cage, lynch black people, jump out of planes without parachutes. Men can do all kinds of self destructive, risky, or immoral things because they think it is best for their life or their community and yet there is no acceptable social theory that men do all this stuff because they are shackled by the desires of women (even though that is almost certainly what's going on). Male sacrifice is viewed as noble and daring.
Yet when women decide that cutting of their clits is for the better good, we literally are willing to throw out peer-reviewed research in order to find some way to blame men. It's bizarre, no? As if women have no thoughts or ideas or wants. As if women can't just, on their own, decide to do weird shit.
I did not call any culture retarded. I'm all for scholarship and explanation of peculiar cultural phenomena. I'm not arguing whether it serves a perceived function in social and reproductive dynamics (I'd bet that human sacrifice also served a perceived societal purpose at one time or another). I'm just looking for a bit of consistency on what should a culture strive for when it comes to gender equality, human rights, body autonomy, etc. Don't you think there are better mechanisms to increase female selectivity? Seems like you and the cited feminist Germaine Greer are using a more nuanced version of "different culture, hard to judge" to rationalize why this practice should be justified and left alone for culture X, while much milder versions of female reproductive control are condemned for culture Y.
The only reason I'm such a hardcore relativist is because I believe that humans are animals and that cultures are as governed by evolution as biology.
Are there better ways to manage female selectiveness? In other contexts, yes. There are also better ways to hunt animals than to chase them down, but cheetah use what they have. I would love to see these cultures adopted our ways in the same way I would love to see polar bears in South America. Realistically, though, they would wreak havok then wither and die in a different environment that isn't hospitable to them.
It's kind of like our failed attempt to bring democracy to Iraq. Isn't there a better way to govern people than a brutal dictator? Yeah, probably. On the other hand, maybe not in every situation. Evolution is a brilliant process. A modern homo sapien, as great as we are, wouldn't survive a week in the environment of our other homo ancestors. It isn't about one thing being better than another, it's about being adapted to one's environment.
It's less "different culture, hard to judge" and more "different sport, I don't know the rules." and you're asking me to condemn goaltending. It's right in some sports and wrong in others.
Last edited: