Friday, March 09, 2007

Relativist scum defend cunt-cutting

Following on from my post about female circumcision, a commenter has pointed out that there are, in fact, scum in the West who defend this practice on the grounds of cultural relativity.

Thankfully, like most pig-ignorant, primitive fuckheads, they are unable to make a coherent argument in this regard. The lecture is summarised on Patchwork.
Robert Daniels, professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, took part in a lecture on Female Genital Mutilation on Thursday, April 7. He applied the concept of cultural relativity to the practice female circumcision.

How nice that a man feels happy to defend this practice.
"Cultural relativity involves suspending one's own judgments when looking at the practices of others. It does not say that all cultural practices are equally valid or just," said Daniels.

What it actually is is a product of colonial, Western guilt; it is a morally bankrupt and cowardly position that allows people to turn away from condemning the barbaric practices of others. There are, as I said previously, some things for which there are no excuse: FGM is one of them.

Perhaps you'd like to email Professor Daniels and tell him?
Conversely, cultural relativity involves recognizing the autonomy and responsibility of others.

And being civilised means recognising and defending those who have no autonomy. I would consider that young girls of under 10 (to whom FGM is most likely to be applied) do not have autonomy; they are held down and cut. As civilised people, it behoves us to help the helpless.
"Female Genital Mutilation is a prejudicial term," he said. "To speak of these practices only as operations or mutilations is like speaking of making the sign of the cross on someone's forehead on Ash Wednesday as 'soiling the face' or speaking of a fraternity branding as 'mutilating the upper arm,'" said Daniels.

Go fuck yourself, Daniels, you turdstick. Really, people like you make me want to vomit.

It is absolutely nothing like "making the sign of the cross on someone's forehead", which does no permanent bodily damage. And "a fraternity branding" is undertaken by two consenting parties, you fuck.

This isn't cultural relativism, this is moral equivalence.
Circumcision is a deeply embedded right of passage in Africa. It is a central ritual that defines social roles in families, communities, marriage-systems, a person's self-identity and self-worth, said Daniels.

No, it's fucking not. It is a permanent and unnecessary mutilation of the body inflicted on young children who are not capable of making decisions, even were they given any choice.

Does the girl in this video look like she's going through a process of "self-worth"? The only thing deeply embedded here is the knife in her clitoris and labia. Fuck you, you evil fuck.
We should object and intervene when some people are destroying others, as in Darfur.

Except that we aren't doing that either, are we?
There are more than enough cases of that within our own social and political system, and those in which we can have some effective influence.

Ah, I see. This just reinforces my contention above: you just basically can't be arsed to do anything about this awful practice, so you salve your conscience with explanations of cultural relativism.

Fuck you, you are scum.
"The cutting in each case removes our inherent androgynies, taking away the most feminine aspects of boys' genitalia and the most masculine aspects of girls' genitalia, so that we are truly made men and women," Daniels said.

Look, sunshine: I can accept that there is a small medical justification for male circumcision (although for it to be done under any religion, including Judaism, is quite wrong), but there is nothing to justify female excision.

Can you not see the difference? The circumcised male still has the main organ of sexual pleasure: the circumcised female has hers removed. This is deliberately designed to ensure a severe reduction of sexual pleasure for the woman.
Daniels referred to a feminist critique by Wairimu Njambi, a circumcised woman, to support his argument.

Oh, here we go...
"Anti-FGM discourse perpetuates a colonialist assumption by universalizing a particular western image of a 'normal' body and sexuality," Njambi wrote.

Look, you Njambi fuckhead, the normal body is the one that you were born with*, you shit. Once you start cutting bits off it, it isn't normal, is it?

Especially when that operation is to reduce the woman's "sexuality".
"This discourse includes not only a missionizing Christian bias, but also a Western sexist bias by considering women's issues as separable from men's," Daniels said.

Fuck off, you cunt; this is a separate issue because of the simple anatomical differences between the two.
Daniels critiqued the common feminist notion that the rituals are an extreme form of male oppression.

Really? How? It seems pretty fucking clear to me, sunshine.
"If one says they are examples of male oppression, does that mean that most or all the women in these societies are not only victims but agents in their own victimization?"

To an extent, yes. But when you are seen as property—as all too many women in these societies are—then you are lacking something that we hold dear: choice.
Cultural relativity does not say that all human behavior is just or justified, but it does say that we have to entertain the possibility that other ways of life may be equally valid ways to be human, that the "natives" are not simply ignorant and need our enlightenment, but that perhaps they know what they are doing as much as we do.

In the case of FGM, that is a pathetic argument, although I accept that many of them know exactly what they are doing (although that doesn't make them any less primitive, barbaric and ignorant).

And that is why they are guilty.

And perhaps the most defining characteristic of the "valid ways to be human" is common fucking humanity: watch that video, you awful piece of shit, and tell me where the humanity is there.

Justify that with your cultural relativism and your "equally valid ways to be human" argument, Daniels. Because, if you can, then you are lacking in common humanity and, if that is so, then you are not human.

And that would be great, because then we could hunt you down like the dog that you are.
Check out Njambi's critique in Colonizing Bodies: A Feminist Science Studies Critique of Anti-FGM Discourse.

Maybe I will; at least I will know the evil that we are up against.

* Yes, I am aware that this is a slightly simplistic argument and there are always exceptions. But these people are bastards who should be shot in the face and I see no reason to go to the trouble of expounding any further for these arseholes.


AntiCitizenOne said...

Maybe we should start a cultural tradition of feeding intellectuals their own genitals whenever they spout this sort of crap and demanding they apologise whilst we do it to them?

This idiots continued breathing is an affront to my autonomy.

Anonymous said...

There is no justification for infant genital mutilation of either males or females on cosmetic grounds.

Male and female foreskins are there for a good reason, they keep the tackle clean.

JPBSD said...

Actually, I think this Daniels character has got something with this Cultural Relativity stuff. More power to his elbow.
Didn't the Ancient Brit's have a custom of cordially greeting visitors to these Isles - and then eating them? I'm sure they must have. If he or his Njambi bint show up at Heathrow maybe we should slap on some blue woad and toddle down to the Arrivals Lounge. Spear 'em by the baggage carousel. Any suggestions for recipes or maybe as the guests they should choose the dish of the day.

Bill said...

I lived for a couple of years in a territory - Djibouti - where female genital mutilation ('disinfibulation') was practised; at the time it was a French overseas territory and despite strenuous efforts by the French authorities they were unable to stamp out the practice. One aspect of this barbarity that I don't think you mentioned is that it is normally carried out by elderly females within the community ('matriarchs' if you like) who will themselves have been subjected to the same procedure in their younger years. From friends who worked at the local hospital I know there were frequent cases of blood poisoning, sometimes fatal, because the mutilations had been carried out in much less than sterile conditions. You are aware, are you not, that after the mutilation has been carried out the vagina of the young woman is sewed almost completely closed so that the menstrual secretions each month are unable to exit freely, frequently leading to further infection? In Djibouti they had a particularly extreme version of the practice in that after each occasion when a women conceived after sexual intercourse with her husband (who would cut the stitching for the occasion!), the stitching would be renewed until nearer the time when birth was due. Utterly, utterly barbaric. However you need to be aware that the practice long pre-dates the spread of Islam to this part of Africa (the 'Horn of Africa'), not that this is any excuse for its continuation. I believe there are parts of Africa (and the Caribbean) where Christianity has accommodated itself to practices which would be found at best bizarre or at worst gruesome in Europe or North America, indeed most other places where the practices did not originate.

Prodicus said...

The antiquity of this horrific practice underlines its essential barbarity. That it is carried out by female elders is neither here nor there. They, themselves, are conditioned, by its very antiquity, to require and enforce it. Millennia have entrenched all the associated female behaviours. None of this negates the propositions that (a) it is done primarily for the benefit of men and (b) compliance with the social requirement is - but as a secondary matter - of social benefit to the women of the society concerned but, critically, at the sacrifice of the essential human dignity of the individual females (children and adults) who are subjected to it. The worth of the individual female is entirely subordinated to the habituated group-wish to perpetuate the social structures which they (following their ancestors) have built upon the practice of FGM. Aside from the ghastliness of the physical procedures and all their associated health risks, the total negation of the individuality of the female subjects of FGM ought to occasion outrage among all people outside the communities who maintain these practices. The likelihood of ending the practice in short order is vanishingly small because old societies do not change their ways quickly, and almost never in response to external pressures. That does not mean the protests should cease - quite the opposite. The louder the protests, the quicker the end of it, even if 'quicker' is a relative term. As for a man who defends this practice on grounds of the sort of (marxoid) cultural relativism I thought had withered away, he deserves to be circumcised himself, without benefit of anaesthetic, with a rusty hacksaw, by a drunk, on a Waltzer, in total darkness, while an invisible throng of ululating onlookers hymns the sociological benefits of his suffering and fights off any do-gooder who attempts to rescue him.

Bag said...

DK, I think you need to control yourself. I'm beginning to think that we need to respect cultural relativism and let's just let people get on with their lives and their cultures.

Now we have that sorted out I seem to remember my culture was interested in invading other countries killing all those that resisted and enslaving the rest. Now we have cultural relativism as an excuse we can get back to that. Africa is ripe for the taking.

Alternatively we could do what we do best, invade, annex and then arm both sides to keep them tied up so the don't battle us. Working in Iraq and once we remove the troops keeping them topped up with weapons and ammunition should be a lot cheaper. As we are looking at reducing our nuke holdings perhaps instead of going through that expensive decommissioning we should just detonate half of them on some worthless land and start again with our own immigrants.

But sadly, cultural relativism, as with all things only works one way in our mixed up society. So I'm forced to look at alternatives. And those alternatives are we just don't buy anything from these countries or provide them aid. Let them fall further down the evolutionary ladder until they exist no more. Let's stop supplying them with food and financial aid and effectively subsidising them in their savage ways. If they did not have enough to live on without working 23Hrs a day then they won't have time or the strength to kill each other. Our aid should have conditions attached and we should make sure that those that don't conform don't get any. Change and get help or stay as you are. Freedom of choice.

Why is it our politicians and do gooders think that providing aid to these sort of people will benefit mankind in the slightest? God seems to have left them in a precarious situation. Who are we do change that? Their own God doesn't even seem to want to help them. I'm all for helping people but they need to behave in a civilised way before we do so or at least be prepared to make the change. These people have no intention of doing this and they also hate us. Why should we be helping them at all?

garypowell said...

Where is a good old fasioned feminist when the worlds women need them?

Answer: in good paying state jobs having all the sex, money and freedom they want.

Feminism is exposed for what it always was. Selfish people trying to impoove their own lives, and not giving a shit in reality for the rights of others.


Larry Teabag said...

I think you let him off lightly DK.

The Remittance Man said...

What rally gets me about cunts like this is that they exactly the same arseholes who sit around nice dinner tables pontificating how the government must do something (ban) smoking, drinking, eating what we like, driving big cars, saying what they think, etc etc etc.

I guess this shithead would say the local SAPS shouldn't have arrested the bunch of villagers from about 30 miles where I sit. It was a small matter - they kidnapped small children, killed and dismembered them. But it's really ok - it was for muti (magic potions) so it was cultural. They shouldn't have interferred by imposing their adopted, western values, should they.


Andrew Field said...


You clearly didn't look too far to find a "good old fashioned" feminist response to this problem. How about simply googling feminism and genital mutilation, which leads you to this article amongst many others:

"Women's International Network is distributing free CBPBs to local Community and Women's Groups, Clinics, Midwifery Schools and Training Programs all over Africa to all who are willing to work for the eradication of FGM[female genital mutilation]. This successful grass roots program, which is regularly reported in WIN NEWS, urgently needs sponsors and support. Contributions to WIN are tax-deductible in the USA."

Now from this I can only conlude that either you're a catatonically stupid bastard with ground zero understanding of how to search the web, or that you're lazily grasping for a stick with which to beat feminism when in actual fact you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Either way SHAME ON YOU.

james higham said...

I can accept that there is a small medical justification for male circumcision (although for it to be done under any religion, including Judaism, is quite wrong), but there is nothing to justify female excision.

That seems to be the crux of the argument.

kris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kris said...


Gary Powell is right- to an extent. American feminists used the "concept" of cultural relativism to explain why white women could never understand, nor be qualified to comment on "african" practice. Australian and British feminists tend to view genital multialation as child abuse- end of.

Some of us feminists have been railing against cultural relativism for some time- and apply the principle to the "liberal" bending over backwards to appease islamo-terrorism- only to be branded "Sun readers". Were are the feminists against terror? Their silence in support of their muslim sisters is deafening.


A Stoke Newington lesbian with a moral compass.

Trixy said...


Why does one have to be a feminist to speak out against terror? The difference between that and FGM is that terror attacks aren't carried out according to gender and FGM, by definition, is.

And why is being 'branded' a "Sun Reader" a bad thing? I read the Sun, it's a good newspaper.

Gary Powell: Fuck off. Prick.

(I'm well aware this is not a well thought out argument to counter the claims by Mr Powell, but to be perfectly honest, his argument is so bigoted and prejudicial that anything more than 10 seconds of my time on this is a waste.)

Myrddin Wen said...

The methodology of cultural relativism allows one to understand other ethno-cultures, setting aside ones' own cultural and moral biases.

Having understood some of the practices of other ethno-cultures, one is forced to admit that yes, some of them are indeed, barbaric bastards.

How nice it is to realise that multicuntural practices are probably taking place just down the street; voodoo, sexual mutilation, slavery, gang rape, ritual murder and satan ( allah ) worship.

Anonymous said...

The truth is that some people are better than others. For whatever reason. Our culture is better than theirs. We can put men on the moon. We will one day protect the Earth from being struck by a Killer Meteor. Spear-chuckers in loinclothes won't get the job done folks. One day the Sun will blow up into a Red Giant that will destroy the Earth. We will solve that problem also. Spear-chuckers won't be of much help there.

The Remittance Man said...

One day the Sun will blow up into a Red Giant that will destroy the Earth. We will solve that problem also. Spear-chuckers won't be of much help there.

Well it will mean that my descendants will have someone to wave goodbye at as they depart for galaxies new. Not much use, I agree, but kind of symbolic all the same. I find that pleasing.

kris said...

"Why does one have to be a feminist to speak out against terror?"

You don't. My point is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Not that any of the "liberal" middle-aged white men that flip me shit think so!

Bag said...

'One day the Sun will blow up into a Red Giant that will destroy the Earth. We will solve that problem also. Spear-chuckers won't be of much help there.'

But we won't be any better. Long before that time comes these barbarians will have taken over Western Society and there won't be anyone looking at space ships. We will all be back in the dark ages. Spear chuckers will be the ultimate again.

kisarita said...

supporting local grassroots efforts to eradicate the problem IS respectful of cultural autonomy.
but educational and economic empowerment is even more important. If these were adequately addressed you'd see, the practice would disappear on its own.

Heather Child said...

This whole thing makes me incredibly angry. I try to channel that anger into fundraising for charities such as Forward and Equality Now, which are fighting to spread awareness of and eradicate FGM.

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...