Response to Ampersand comment #80

Ampersand says

1.    that a ban on female circumcision was sufficient to do the trick. Were there concerns about islamophobia?

"You’re implying hypocrisy, but – as seems to be your m.o. — not outright saying it."

I'm giving you an opportunity to discuss why banning a symbolic nick or prick of the vagina should be banned.  Ir was feminists that sought the ban.  Enough of them it seems to bully the government into infringing on the religious beliefs of muslims or islamophobia.  You opted not to defend your position.  I let your reply determine it and it looks like hypocrisy. 

"I reject the implied charge of hypocrisy. First of all, circumcision and FGC aren’t exactly the same thing, so there may be a legitimate argument for treating them differently."

It is becoming apparent that feminists equate rejection with untruth.  If you believe it's untrue than it is.  It must be a wonderful world you live in and if that doesn't work, you can always stick your fingers in your ears and go nah nah nah nah nah nah.

"But, second of all, I don’t treat them differently. Here’s a quote from one of my posts about FGC, for example:

…what’s most effective may be different from what seems most uncompromising and hardcore. It’s right that Western feminists feel anger and horror at FGC, but we have to be careful that our approach to FGC remains effective, aware of the problems of colonialism and racism, and serves women — rather than serving our own need to feel like we’re doing something. … There’s good reason to think that western pressure on the Egyptian and other governments to institute bans makes things worse, leading to more mutilation and death.

And from one of Mandolin’s posts on Alas (which I very much agree with):

But in the past 10 years of the ban on female genital surgeries, the number of circumcisions does not appear to have moved. A survey in 1995 shows the same rate of 97% that the 2000 study shows. In fact, the rate showed to be constant in 1997, 2000, and 2003. The ban has not had ANY effect on the practice of female genital surgeries. It has only made it unlikely that gilrs will receive adequate medical care — and soon it will be impossible for girls to receive it.

If these figures are accurate, supporting this ban seems insane. Our stated goal is to improve the lives of women. This ban does not improve the lives of women. It makes female genital surgeries, which are going to be carried out with or without the ban, more medically risky."

I suggest that you look into female circumcision in the United States where it is banned.  It is actually the U.S. that I'm referring too.  I'm still looking for stats, but I here that female circumcision was fairly widespread in the U.S. in the 50s.  It seems to have continued into the 80s.

"Even as late as 1979, Dr. James E. Burt was performing sunna circumcision on women in the United States. While Dr. Burt was stopped, the practice continues in the United States, having been reintroduced (or maintained) by immigrants. One report commissioned by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter estimates that more than 160,000 girls and/or women have been or are at risk of FGM in the U.S."

http://www.munfw.org/archive/50th/who2.htm

160,000 seems to be pretty wide spread though.  How many female circs are performed in the U.S. today?  Why aren't feminists demanding the bans repeal to save all those poor girls who are suffering botched circumcisions?  It's supposed to be more traumatic than male circumcisions.  How can they hide them so well?  It seems to be a problem with enforcement of the law instead of the law itself.