Bigot? Racist? Something Else?

It's based on the reasonable assumption that the mothers who do it to their daughters have some sort of rationale for doing so, however wrongfooted, that it's not just pure sadism or tradition.

The question I want answered is how anyone can tell whether their passionate beliefs are "morality" or "ideology". I don't see how to make any objective distinction. The relevant issue... that makes a great counterpoint to the other issue we have spent so much time discussion... is abortion.

Anti-Abortion activists are just as passionate about their cause as Glennn is about hers. They make the same arguments about how barbaric the practice is. They claim it ends a life. They describe abortion in crude terms. They talk about whether it is even necessary. I bet if we simply replace the word "clitoris" with "fetus" in Glennn's posts, no one would be able to tell the difference between the two issues.

Are anti-abortion activists acting out of morality, or are the acting out of ideology? The difference between the way these two issues are approached is that one has majority support in modern Wesetern culture.

Comparison is usually a ploy used to prop up an unsupportable position.

Immediate complications include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage, tetanus or infection, urine retention, ulceration of the genital region and injury to adjacent tissue, wound infection, urinary infection, fever, and septicemia. Haemorrhage and infection can be severe enough to cause death.

Long-term consequences include complications during childbirth,  anaemia, the formation of cysts and abscesses, keloid scar formation, damage to the urethra resulting in urinary incontinence, dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse), sexual dysfunction, hypersensitivity of the genital area and increased risk of HIV transmission, as well as psychological effects.

http://www.unfpa.org/resources/female-genital-mutilation-fgm-frequently-asked-questions
______________________________________________

From the same link:

At what age is FGM performed:

It varies. In some areas, FGM is carried out during infancy – as early as a couple of days after birth. In others, it takes place during childhood, at the time of marriage, during a woman's first pregnancy or after the birth of her first child. Recent reports suggest that the age has been dropping in some areas, with most FGM carried out on girls between the ages of 0 and 15 years.
___________________________________________

Comparing females who willingly choose to abort a fetus to females who are subjected to genital mutilation because of cultural tradition does not serve to put female genital mutilation in a better light.

From the same link:

Why is FGM performed?

In every society in which it is practiced, female genital mutilation is a manifestation of deeply entrenched gender inequality. Where it is widely practiced, FGM is supported by both men and women, usually without question, and anyone  that does not follow the norm may face condemnation, harassment and ostracism. It may be difficult for families to abandon the practice without support from the wider community. In fact, it is often practiced even when it is known to inflict harm upon girls because the perceived social benefits of the practice are deemed higher than its disadvantages.
________________________________________

You just made that up . We had 10 pages responding to your obsession with FGM.

I think abortion is a good comparison. It is an illustrative example of something argued as a moral absolute that is a current issue in modern society.

No I didn't. It's a tactic used by alcoholics who insist that they have no problem so long as they can point to someone who is just a little bit worse off than they are. They support the denial of their condition by comparing themselves to someone else.

Don't kid yourself. We had ten pages of your obsessive defense of people who see fit to cut the clitoris off girls. You've made it quite clear that while you condemn the practice, you nevertheless defend the right of those who commit the act to continue committing the act.

Hardly. The issue of abortion concerns the issue of choice based on convenience. The issue of female genital mutilation concerns the issue of non choice, and is based on nothing tangible.

I take it you raced right by glitterbag's post, so I'll dig it up for you to peruse:

https://able2know.org/topic/394259-14#post-6457959

Before you jump at me, I'm not in any way for female genital mutilation, and years ago changed my mind, after some reading, about male circumcision, which I'd been raised with as ordinary for boys.
I do get it that there are cultural reasons for this stuff.

lol

No, I didn't. But I did notice that no one responded to it. And it isn't difficult to understand why.

Sure, but cultural reasons don't equal good reasons. In this case, there is no reason for the practice.

Hardly. The issue of abortion concerns the issue of choice based on convenience. The issue of female genital mutilation concerns the issue of non choice based on nothing tangible.

It's a harmful practice with no upside, and you've made it quite clear that while you condemn the practice, you nevertheless defend the right of those who commit the act to continue committing the act. Such conflict.

Yikes!!! I never intended to normalize female circumcision as somehow an actual choice. In some areas it's carried out with instruments as crude as broken glass........Glennn's right about the complications, profuse bleeding, sepsis, either one could lead to death. Girls who actually survive the butchery are robbed of their ability to experience certain pleasures, suffer urinary and kidney infections.......and the practice has continued because women are beneath contempt if they have intact genitalia. Having a lazy eye, or cleft palate is all it takes to make little girls useless and unmarriable...
Honestly, I have not looked up complications or fatalities due to male circumcision.......probably because it didn't come up. All that being said, I really don't think these women who have been mutilated or subject their daughters to mutilation have many options. Not only are they compelled ( as in pressured) they are shunned (the whole family) by the village they live in. In many areas that means they can survive or expire.

Also, we shouldn't confuse Misogynists with racist or bigots.. All three of these things are great big gigantic examples of ignorance but they are not identical.

Apparently suggesting that we all should should step out of our bubbles, question our own ideologies, and consider other points leads to a rather hostile response from some. I think I might have upset them a little bit, and now they are lashing out.

I still think it is a good idea to look at these issues from more than one perspective. After all, this is a thread about bigotry,

Good idea! Might I suggest that you look at female genital mutilation from the perspective of the girl having it done to her?

Okay so we all agree very very much that infant genital mutilation is immoral and that we shouldn't do it to our children.... Good, I guess... But was anyone disagreeing?

People seem confused about what is moral sense.

It's not a tool to judge others. It's a tool to judge yoursef.

That's a good point but just above it you agreed that genital mutilation is immoral, so moral sense, for you and me at least, includes judging actions.

Under what circumstances, if any, can a person who intentionally commits an immoral act be be judged through our moral sense?

If we outlaw immoral acts, then I don't suppose it really matters if immorallity is considered our judgment because the actor will be punished as a law breaker, not an immoral actor (although, arguably, immorality is implied)

However there are acts we might each consider immoral that are not illegal, and our judgement of individuals informs how we interact with them or if we interact with them at all, so is our judging someone immoral any different than judging them ignorant, obnoxious, or incompetent?

At least in Western society (and perhaps in all societies) there seems to be an expressed aversion to judging others, although each of us does it on an almost daily basis, and I'm just wondering why this is so. Our Judeo-Christian foundation?

I am not quite sure what you are getting at Finn. If I understand what you are saying, I think I agree with it (or at least don't see how it contradicts my points).

There are a core set of moral values that all of us Americans agree on (in spite of the partisan divide). Equality, freedom, fairness, ownership of property, pursuit of happiness... almost all Americans start in the same place. Whether these values represent some universal truth is irrelevant.

I agree with you completely that for us to ban practices that we all agree are immoral in our society is perfectly valid. Being able to uphold moral values is required for a functioning human society, and we have a perfectly good legal mechanism for enforcing these values.

I don't see anything wrong with making judgments. I choose which of my neighbors I like, and where I want to work, and who I want to spend time with.

My initial argument on this thread was an intellectual one. I want to be honest with my self about the objective standards I use to make judgments (like everyone does). I am a White educated liberal. I don't have to acknowledge the biases that come with this demographic, but I choose to.

Perhaps the more important argument is about the partisan bubbles that are so much a part of American society. The fact that liberals think conservatives are bigoted, and the conservatives think liberal are bigoted is a problem in our political life. It makes it harder for us as a society to govern ourselves and to make progress (however we define progress).

In my subjective opinion, being about to admit your own prejudice and question your own ideology is a positive trait. It seems logical that if more people could listen to people who don't share their ideology, and admit when the other side has a point... we would all be better off.

Real quick...I didn't write these comments in response to anything you have argued or states

Sure Finn, my response was to clarify the issue you raised that I think is interesting.

I didn't mean to suggest you couldn't comment, just that it was more in response to Olivier than anything you had written