Monday, May 17, 2010

QOTYear

Mark Steyn in the National Review (links added):
Last week, the American Association of Pediatricians [NOfP note: actually, the American Academy of Pediatrics] 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.
(via Power Line, Ed Driscoll)

4 comments:

OBloodyHell said...

An excellent find, Carl.

I'd also suggest voicing your opinion, politely but firmly, to this barbaric practice being "acceptable EVER" to the idiots themselves (note that Steyn got the exact name slightly wrong)

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

Carl said...

Yes, OBH, which is why I corrected it (and added links to the original paper).

Assistant Village Idiot said...

About time you got back, you shirker.

This is a natural extension of the same reasoning applied in other settings: needle exchanges, condom distribution, methadone, subsidising illegitimacy. It is called a harm-reduction strategy, and I am not entirely opposed to it. The first problem with it, however, is that advocates consistently underestimate the negative outcomes. They try to paint it as a guaranteed improvement of an already miserable situation. But there are always unintended consequences.

Campaign Finance Reform would be a good example of a harm-reduction strategy gone awry.

Secondly, look at the settings that this is consistently not applied to: concealed carry to reduce violence, school vouchers, rights for terrorists. On those matters, we must maintain an ideological purity.

OBloodyHell said...

> This is a natural extension of the same reasoning applied in other settings: needle exchanges, condom distribution, methadone, subsidising illegitimacy. It is called a harm-reduction strategy, and I am not entirely opposed to it.

AVI, I disagree. The things you describe are different in that:

a) They are people screwing up only themselves (except the illegitimacy issue)

b) They relate to self-imposed behavioral limits which society can only partly encourage (and should be thus limited in their approach towards), not enforce.

I will grant you there is a fine line between enabling and reducing harm, and I, too, advocate some care in the latter while avoiding the former.

This is one person harming another, however. Worse -- it's harming a helpless innocent who has no power to resist.

This is "Well, these people took their kids to country 'x' where they could kill them with impunity as religious sacrifices", so, well, what the hell, "let's give them bullets to just do the job with here".

Hey, they're going to do it anyway... *right*?

It's not just a difference in degree with those situations you describe -- it's a difference in kind.

And that is why the "harm reduction strategy" argument fails, and fails badly.

You want a harm reduction strategy?

Require a gyno exam for any children within the correct age range prior to issuing an exit visa for the minor. And a gyno exam on return. Any evidence of change suggesting mutilation leads to prosecution of the parent for child endangerment, abuse, or something of the kind... Gynos will be provided at government expense if desired.

I dunno what, if any, restrictions there are on gyno exams for young girls in Islam. I'd assume that a female is allowed to perform such actions, so it can be allowed that the gyno be female.

THAT would be a "harm reduction strategy" that actually reduced the harm.

:-/