The official voices of the women of the fevered brow would rather you not mention clitoridectomies.
This is mutilation for a cultural purpose, to rob women of sexual joy and render them as breeders.

All of this -- the application of a politically correct filter by The New York Times, the avoidance of the issue by the left, even the destruction of female sexuality by ancient cultures -- is political.

And who suffers? Political wits and activists don't suffer. Girls suffer.

The number of women worldwide estimated to have been subject to female genital mutilation has reached 200 million in some studies. Many thousands of young girls develop infections and die.

"The decision of The New York Times illustrates the terrible trade-off they've made," said [Aayan] Hirsi Ali. "They're concerned about politics, about protecting a group versus the individual rights of the child or the woman."
Margaret "University Diaries" Soltan is having none of the sensitivities.
[I]n many pro-mutilation cultures, it’s not just removing the clitoris and tying up the labia of three year old female bodies; it’s about hiding those bodies under burqas and punishing their misbehavior with honor killing.

Honor killing is too brutal a term for it, though, isn’t it? It will only alienate these communities.  UD proposes honor cutting.
Plus, at the comments, a proper response to anybody who says "what about the Crusades?" or "what about high heels?"

No comments: