Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote:Medical ethics alone are sufficient reason to ban all deliberate genital mutilation except when done for ethical reasons such as the presence of cancer, or phimosis.

Re my ethics, including my medical ethics, it would be wrong to ban it. Instead, it should be a matter of individual choice. As long as an individual consents to the procedure, it should be allowed.

Specialist clothing for UV or jellyfish protection is unrelated to the problem of religious clothing. Women don't wear burkinis for physical protection, but they do wear them for perceived social protection.

Universal statements about why people do something, where we're talking about any sort of large population, are ridiculous. People do the same things for all sorts of different reasons. The larger issue, though, is that it shouldn't matter the reason that someone is wearing--or not wearing--whatever it is, as long as they're not being phyiscally forced or criminally threatened to wear or not wear the items in question.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Belinda wrote: Even so, male castration and male circumcision are generally less intrusive and less painful than female circumcision.

Really?

Yes, radical excision of the clitoris and vulva especially by an amateur cutter often causes inflammatory conditions of the genital and urinary tracts, leading in some cases to the woman being sterile. An African Muslim friend of mine was cut and she was sterile as a direct result.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Belinda wrote:Medical ethics alone are sufficient reason to ban all deliberate genital mutilation except when done for ethical reasons such as the presence of cancer, or phimosis.

Re my ethics, including my medical ethics, it would be wrong to ban it. Instead, it should be a matter of individual choice. As long as an individual consents to the procedure, it should be allowed.

Specialist clothing for UV or jellyfish protection is unrelated to the problem of religious clothing. Women don't wear burkinis for physical protection, but they do wear them for perceived social protection.

Universal statements about why people do something, where we're talking about any sort of large population, are ridiculous. People do the same things for all sorts of different reasons. The larger issue, though, is that it shouldn't matter the reason that someone is wearing--or not wearing--whatever it is, as long as they're not being phyiscally forced or criminally threatened to wear or not wear the items in question.

A child cannot consent to the procedure, and young women are often coerced. The school holidays are a danger time when young Muslim women and little girls might be taken abroad to be cut.This is illegal, but difficult to police.

It would be very unusual for a girl to wear a burkini for other than so-called religious reasons.

prothero wrote:

="Greta ]If the burkini is so great, why don't the men HAVE to wear it or fear ostracism, threats and violence? Why don't western women adopt it? Ditto the burqa. You are just apologising for oppressors. Why not allow female genital mutilation in respect of others' cultures too? After all, it's the elder women who tend to perform the practice, so one could say it's a female's choice to have it done.

According to the opposition's critics, the biological reductionism of the opposition to FGM, and the failure to appreciate FGM's cultural context, serves to "other" the people who practice it and undermines their agency – in particular when African parents are referred to as "mutilators." Africans who object to the tone of the opposition to FGM risk appearing to defend the practice.

Why distinguish between the right to force women to wear burkinis and the right to force women to have their clitoris cut off? The latter, you no doubt agree, is an abhorrent practice, not stemming from Islam but co-opted by especially oppressive Islamic subcultures.
PS. Look up "patriarchal bargain".

I am talking about the right of women to wear a covering bathing suit to the beach and you are talking about the genital mutilation of adolescents at the hands of others. I do not see the connection and it is not because I am dense. Freedom and individual choice are Western values and we do allow adults to modify their bodies if they so choose, anyway it does not seem like a reasonable comparison. Men can in fact wear women's clothes if they so choose, there is no law that I know of although there are cultural norms but we allow people to choose. I am not exactly a postmodern cultural relativist when it comes to murder, mutilation, rape or other such actions, but when it comes to beach attire, I suppose I am.

Yes, I'm not red hot on the issue for the reason. It's only clothes. However, I think it best to slow and discourage the rapidly increasing enforcement of Sharia Law in subcultures of our societies. As a woman, I find the obvious visual display of ownership and oppression of women threatening - which is what the burqa and burkini are all about.

No, not threatening in a practical sense, but in a symbolic one. In every other circumstance I'd agree with you, but women's rights are not negotiable IMO. Allow one group of women to be oppressed and it opens the door for scope creep. In historical terms we only recently achieved suffrage so forgive us if we seem a little insecure about our position, living as we do, in oases of decency in a largely patriarchal world. It would only take the wrong kind of nudge to see us moving back towards our former status as chattel.

As I said before - yet to be acknowledged - is we have a battle of rival goods. Cultural tolerance and women's rights. When the two clash, I favour women's rights first. You, in this instance, favour cultural tolerance to women's rights. Whether we want to admit it or not, all of politics is a game of selling out - who do you sacrifice for the sake of peace and order?

Belinda wrote:A child cannot consent to the procedure, and young women are often coerced.

So if one feels that children cannot consent, and one doesn't count coerced agreement as consent, either, then under my view, we don't need to worry about those situations--I'd not ban circumcision, but one would need to consent. If one is not capable of consenting, then obviously one cannot consent.

This should only be a problem for someone if they (a) believe that children etc. are not capable of consenting, but (b) want children to be circumcised anyway.

Otherwise, the only reason to disagree with my view on this is if one feels that there are people capable of consenting (so not children, not the coerced if one feels those things preclude consent) who nevertheless should not be allowed to be circumcised for some reason.

Terrapin Station wrote:

This should only be a problem for someone if they (a) believe that children etc. are not capable of consenting, but (b) want children to be circumcised anyway.

Yes, I agree. The belief that individuals not be coerced or forced to have their bodies or minds harmed is part of the dominant culture in all developed societies. Burkinis don't harm anyone much if at all. The problem with burkinis is that they symbolise and signal that the social status of women is inferior to that of men. Although inferior ascribed social status is unlikely directly to kill a woman , it certainly doesn't help women who are in danger of the other actually harmful symbols and signals of women's inferiority.

The short term solution for the problem is adequate policing in the short term as the law to protect women is already in place. In the longer term social constraints regarding dress , and mutilation of other people's bodies, are addressed by better and more education for both sexes.

So tell me,
Is THIS also banned?



What's the difference?

No doubt all these do-gooders drivelling about 'tolerance' think it's fine for muslim countries to have their own strict dress codes and rules that 'Westerners' have to adhere to when they visit (or else). But then, do-gooders are notoriously patronising, racist, and hypocritical-- I mean, no one expects 'brownies' to behave decently anyway. We are sooo much better than that.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:-- I mean, no one expects 'brownies' to behave decently anyway. We are sooo much better than that.

So you are allowed a bit of irony, but not me.
For Fuck's sake!

Banning the burkha or the burkini is against our finest notions of personal freedom.

France is way off beam on this issue. I can agree that is is wrong to enforce any woman against her will to demand that they wear a burkha, but that is no different from having a law that bans its use.
Especially when the wearing of a Catholic Nun's habit is much the same, but receives no sanction in law.
We can only conclude that the law against religious garb is racially motivated.
The approach is wrong. By all means enact a law which ensures a woman's right to wear one or not if SHE chooses.

Why is this carb legal?

Oh right. Exactly the same. And one of them is a profession.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:b.jpg

Oh right. Exactly the same. And one of them is a profession.

If those women want to wear those stupid clothes then that is their right.

I can't help but think that the real position favoring human rights, individual rights, religious rights and yes even women's rights, is to allow the individual woman to decide what she wishes to wear (or not wear) to the beach. Arguing that these women are really oppressed (and do not know it) and thus should not be allowed to wear what they think they choose is fraught with far more difficulty.

It would of course be a different matter if there were religious police patrolling the beach and flogging those whose garb they deemed immodest. Instead however what is being proposed is secular police patrolling the beach and harassing or arresting women who freely (so they think anyway) are wearing the burkini or whatever else they choose.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:No doubt all these do-gooders drivelling about 'tolerance' think it's fine for muslim countries to have their own strict dress codes and rules that 'Westerners' have to adhere to when they visit (or else). But then, do-gooders are notoriously patronising, racist, and hypocritical-- I mean, no one expects 'brownies' to behave decently anyway. We are sooo much better than that.

What's a brownie?

Have you not ever worn a real mask, such as during a holiday or a celebration? When wearing the mask, have you not observed the effects upon your thoughts? Try it and observe, you will see the difference the mask makes upon your mind from the inside out. Then look backwards to make a more informed judgement from the outside-in.

There are societal concerns about the creeping encroachment of change into the “soul of France,” which amount to losing the say of the way of things. Regulations for cheese are in the future. Wine too.

And, because of safety concerns in co-mingling with a culture that likes to blow things up using women and children for the fuse, for obvious reasons it isn’t particularly wise to have anonymous folks and their crafty little hands hidden by blankets.

Compromise should be in the form of a deal.

If there are no suicide bombings for a year, anywhere, then hot chicks in France can wear Burkinis.

Walker wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:No doubt all these do-gooders drivelling about 'tolerance' think it's fine for muslim countries to have their own strict dress codes and rules that 'Westerners' have to adhere to when they visit (or else). But then, do-gooders are notoriously patronising, racist, and hypocritical-- I mean, no one expects 'brownies' to behave decently anyway. We are sooo much better than that.

What's a brownie?

Have you not ever worn a real mask, such as during a holiday or a celebration? When wearing the mask, have you not observed the effects upon your thoughts? Try it and observe, you will see the difference the mask makes upon your mind from the inside out. Then look backwards to make a more informed judgement from the outside-in.

There are societal concerns about the creeping encroachment of change into the “soul of France,” which amount to losing the say of the way of things. Regulations for cheese are in the future. Wine too.

And, because of safety concerns in co-mingling with a culture that likes to blow things up using women and children for the fuse, for obvious reasons it isn’t particularly wise to have anonymous folks and their crafty little hands hidden by blankets.

Compromise should be in the form of a deal.

If there are no suicide bombings for a year, anywhere, then hot chicks in France can wear Burkinis.

And this is the way that terrorism and fear eat away at the soul of a free society.
People become willing to sacrifice their own and other peoples freedoms and privacy in the supposed interest of safety and security.
It only becomes a matter time before those in power use these same tools to stay in power and against their opposition and political enemies.
Then terrorism has done its job, The society is no longer free, nor is it really safer or more secure.

Why is it only yanks who blither on about 'freedom'? They are too illiterate and shallow to even consider what exactly they mean by the word. Burkas are a symbol of LACK of FREEDOM. Pretty much EVERY law encroaches on our FREEDOM. What about the FREEDOM NOT to wear anything? I'm sure many people thinks it encroaches on their FREEDOM when they aren't allowed to NOT wear clothes wherever they please: Teaching in the classroom, driving buses/taxis, serving at checkout... What about the FREEDOM to walk around in public wearing only faeces smeared all over your body? What about the FREEDOM of others NOT to feel intimidated, threatened, and outraged by apparitions in sinister black featureless tents? The freedom of doctors and nurses to do their job unhindered, without having to pander to bullshit misogynistic superstition? What about the FREEDOM of the French to want to protect their culture and way of life? If they really wanted to, they could deport all the muslims instead of having the biggest muslim population in Western Europe. Hmm. US: muslim population .9 per cent. France: muslim population 10 per cent. Easy to judge France when you hardly have any muslims yourself. Hypocrites.
Stop using 'freedom' as a bullshit political buzzword to get your own way. You should be more worried about the FREEDOM of black Americans to go about their business without being harassed by fat white racist cops.
Oh, and you might try stopping blowing up their countries. That sort of encroaches on muslims' personal freedom just a teensy bit.