What Does the Liberal Acceptance of Female Genital Mutilation Mean?

Jill Stanek has a good column on "Female Genital Mutilation," which is an extreme and barbaric practice in many streams of Islam designed to deny women sexual pleasure so as to keep them from being tempted by sexual sin. It is painful and it goes against natural law because it mutilates the body God created and called good. Sin, according to Christianity, arises not from the body alone but is a matter of the rational will, which is weakened by original sin and which fails to direct the body in the way that is best for the person. The body itself is not evil.

As Muslims migrate into the lands of the West and become larger and more powerful communities, they bring practices foreign to the Christian-influenced West with them. This particular one ought to be a thing of horror to all civilized people and ought to be rejected out of hand. There is no reason to tolerate it any more than ritual killing of women who were raped or any other evil.

Yet, the weakness of a morally relativistic culture that pretends to find it extremely difficult to say what is right or wrong except when it is asserting its individualistic, hedonistic "rights," makes compromise and appeasement attractive.

Stanek writes:

FGMs are supposed to curb sexual appetite, thereby increasing the odds of virginity until marriage and fidelity afterward. Understandably, FGM often renders sexual intercourse painful.

Also understandably, victims of FGM often suffer from "recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections, cysts, infertility, an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths, and the need for later surgeries," according to the World Health Organization.

"For example," states WHO, "the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening [infibulation] needs to be cut open later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth. Sometimes it is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing ... both immediate and long-term risks."

She notes that the response of both doctors and feminists is increasingly limp:

Traditionally, feminists have strongly opposed FGM, along with all of Western civilization.

But in this new age of cultural sensitivity, attempts are being made to bridge the divide, not necessarily end the barbaric practice of FGM.

For instance, there is a call to stop using the offensive term "mutilation" in favor of "female genital cutting" or "female circumcision," both utterly inaccurate.

There is also the recent suggestion by the American Academy of Pediatrics to barter a compromise, recommending that pediatricians offer the gentler, kinder form of FGM, Type 4: pricking, piercing, or incising. In a new policy statement on April 26, AAP recommended:

Some physicians … advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing. …

[T]he ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC.

I should note this recommendation is currently illegal in the U.S.

And it is the morally relativistic response to FGM, seeking to ameliorate the practice and not end it.

Physicians offering to inflict this painful and completely unnecessary medical procedure on a female child would legitimize FGM rather than stigmatize it. They would also undermine attempts by mothers to end FGM with their own generation.

What flummoxed me was the response by some feminists like Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon, who wrote, "I have to say that I don't really see the problem with the AAP advising doctors to offer a 'ritual nick' in lieu of the more serious forms of female circumcision."

Of all groups I would expect feminists to fight hardest against misogynist practices of all forms at all levels. This is cultural sensitivity run amok.

But these are the same people who endorse abortion, and well over half of those aborted are girls, sometimes because they are girls.

The idea that Feminists are on the side of women becomes more laughable every day. The rhetoric of victimhood and the faux rage are wearing thin. If you can't take a stand against female genital mutilation you are part of the problem not part of the solution. Case closed.

Mark Steyn, that supposed woman-hating, right-winger has a few choice words about female genital mutilation in an article called "Nicking Our Public Discourse." He writes:

Last week, the American Association of Pediatricians noted that certain, ahem, “immigrant communities” were shipping their daughters overseas to undergo “female genital mutilation.” So, in a spirit of multicultural compromise, they decided to amend their previous opposition to the practice: They’re not (for the moment) advocating full-scale clitoridectomies, but they are suggesting federal and state laws be changed to permit them to give a “ritual nick” to young girls.

A few years back, I thought even fainthearted Western liberals might draw the line at “FGM.” After all, it’s a key pillar of institutional misogyny in Islam: Its entire purpose is to deny women sexual pleasure. True, many of us hapless Western men find we deny women sexual pleasure without even trying, but we don’t demand genital mutilation to guarantee it. On such slender distinctions does civilization rest.

Der Spiegel, an impeccably liberal magazine, summed up the remorseless Islamization of Europe in a recent headline: “How Much Allah Can the Old Continent Bear?” Well, what’s wrong with a little Allah-lite? The AAP thinks you can hop on the sharia express and only ride a couple of stops. In such ostensibly minor concessions, the “ritual nick” we’re performing is on ourselves. Further cuts will follow.

Why is it impossible for liberal politicians to come out and say that certain teachings and practices of Islam are just plain wrong and won't be tolerated here? They certainly don't have any problem saying some aspects of Judaism and Christianity are wrong. What is going on here? Is is really just cultural relativism or something deeper? I think it is the beginning of surrender to a civilization that has been trying to conquer us for 14 centuries. I think it is a capitulation to Islam. I think that they, although they would vociferously deny it, are on the road to submission to Allah and Mohamed.

What else can explain feminists accepting the principle of female genital mutilation in the name of multiculturalism?