BMJ defends FGM

Yes I have said many times that it is about the creep of language. Obviously this sort of thing doesn't start with someone saying oh yes fgm is a good thing, they tend to be more subtle than that.

I don't think many have actually read the article, so it's rather difficult to discuss it. Most reactions are a result of people's response to what has been written in the media and tbh I personally don't have an issue in discussing that but isn't that a rather different topic??

^A recent paper in its Journal of Medical Ethics (JME) critiqued the global anti-FGM campaign for potential harms like stigmatization and cultural insensitivity, but it did not endorse or defend the practice itself.
^

I have trouble with this.

Many many things can be dismissed using "clever" words.

Like saying, go ahead and do what you want if it is your "culture".

Iam64

FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985. Health and social workers have clear safeguarding responsibilities. They walk the tight rope of attempting to work with communities where if a girl isn’t subjected to this barbaric practice, she and her parents, siblings may be ostracised.
This academic article adds to the existing debate on reducing with the aim of ending it. Children may be taken ‘on holiday’ where the FGM takes place

Of course the BMJ isn’t approving. It’s easy to jump up and down condemning the practice, more difficult to stop it.

I hadnt realised that - ie being ostracised for refusing to be cruel/primitive like that.

Now wondering if anyone will explain why the heck anyone would be bothered about being ostracised? Who wants to know anyone that would be like that anyway? If someone who goes in for such bad acts went "Shut up and do what we say - or we'll ostracise you" = why wouldn't anyone/everyone reply to that threat with "Go right ahead....I'm not bothered whether anyone with views like that never speaks a word to me again. Off you toddle then....'Bye".

If the whole world decides to ostracise someone for being in the right = why would it bother that correct person? As long as they manage one way or another to have a roof over their head and food on the table = they're sorted then. They can manage without people if the only ones available are not suitable company for them.

From what you have seen of the article, do you think the BMJ is defending the appalling practice of FGM?

No we are mostly being told that we can't possibly critically think about the article because of the newspapers it is in. It is fine the discussion us happening elsewhere.

We are talking about the article? Have I missed something?

David49

Cultural suppression, there should be a lot more suppression of some of the culture of some migrant groups. We can do little about what goes on overseas, come to Britain you accept our standards.

Quite! "When in Rome....".

Reminds me I was going to go back and have a good look at that article later...though my first thought was/is "You do know you are Western or living in the West do you?" about anyone (academics or otherwise) saying anything other than total/outright condemnation of this awful practice. You don't do intellectual discussions about evil.

Anyone's position on this should be "How awful? How to help the victims of this heal their bodies as best they can - and DEAL WITH anyone they know that helped cause that to happen to them". There should be no forgiveness - ever - for anyone who played a helping part in doing this to anyone. If it was your own mother = same applies....ie if she is still in the life of a victim = chuck her out of it....she's not fit to be your/anyone else's mother.

There are some really interesting discussions on feminist forums happening at the moment, I do recommend people looking at them, it appears not possible to talk about the article here.

Daily Mail click bait by the sound of it.

DaisyAnneReturns

Just out of interest, has the OP apologised for not checking the report before upsetting others?

I would expect the OP to ask for the thread title to be amended, because it is clearly incorrect and misleading.

Galaxy

I don't agree with circumcision but I view it very differently to fgm.

I only support it for medical reasons, but it doesn’t reduce sexual pleasure.
Fgm does.

Just out of interest, has the OP apologised for not checking the report before upsetting others?

I don't agree with circumcision but I view it very differently to fgm.

I know of two little boys who were circumcised (at different times) for medical reasons at ages 4 and 7. I'd hate for them to be regarded as 'mutilated'. Medical circumcision is quite separate and different to girls undergoing FGM that is done to prevent 'immorality' and to deny women sexual pleasure.

This is being widely misreported; the original source is far less extreme. If a story makes you angry instantly, that’s usually a sign to double-check it.

Surely we all do that notSpaghetti?Couldn't agree more Maremia

. It’s religious and cultural

Do you mean both?
Or separately?

Discussion of this in my work setting led me to seriously question circumcision as practiced in some religions. Infant boys can’t give consent so should it be banned ? It’s painful mutilation. It’s religious and cultural.

petra

Grandmabatty

I think the article is more nuanced than The Mail, Telegraph and Times would have you think. It doesn't defend it, but discusses the difference between cultures and the lack of trust in medical professionals. It opens with commenting on the health risks as well as human rights failures.

I have read a lot of articles on this issue. It’s not as black and white as the OP suggests.
I support 2 charities who fight this barbaric practice.

Which charities please

FGM has been illegal in the UK since 1985. Health and social workers have clear safeguarding responsibilities. They walk the tight rope of attempting to work with communities where if a girl isn’t subjected to this barbaric practice, she and her parents, siblings may be ostracised.
This academic article adds to the existing debate on reducing with the aim of ending it. Children may be taken ‘on holiday’ where the FGM takes place

Of course the BMJ isn’t approving. It’s easy to jump up and down condemning the practice, more difficult to stop it.

That's what I thought, fancy. It is against the law in tbe UK .
Also, some years ago 'alerts' were put out, at specific times of the year, known as 'the cutting times', when airlines, to specific destinations, were asked to be on the lookout for groups of girls of the vulnerable age, travelling.

Rude posters eventually get banished by GN, it seems to me.
If they have too many deletions.

Points of view work better when what has been said is not misinterpreted, don't they?

Or we could actually read the original paper, Nannee49
(Link above)