back to the feminism - success wiht copy and paste!

another perspective on the whole FGM thing:

“Imagine an African mother living in the United States who holds the following convictions. She believes that her daughters a well as her sons should be able to improve their looks and their marriage prospects, enter into a covenant with God, and be honored as adult members of the community via circumcision. Imagine that her proposed surgical procedure (for example, a cut in the prepuce that covers the clitoris) is no more substantial from a medical point of view than the customary American male circumcision operation. Why should we not extend that option to the Kono parents of daughters as well as to the Jewish parents of sons, for example? Principles of gender equity, due process before the law, religious and cultural freedom, and family privacy would seem to support the option.

Or imagine a sixteen-year-old Somali teenager living in Seattle who believes that a genital alteration would be “something very great.” She likes the look of her mother’s body and her recently circumcised cousin’s body far better than she likes the look of her own. She wants to be a mature and beautiful woman, Somali style. She wants to marry a Somali man, or at least a man who appreciates the appearance of an initiated woman’s body. She wants to show solidarity with other African women who express their sense of beauty, civility, and feminine dignity in this way, and she shares their sense of aesthetics and seemliness. She reviews the medial literature and discovers that ht surgery can be done safely, hygienically, and with no great effect on her capacity to enjoy sex. After consultation with her parents and the full support of other members of her community, she elects to carry on the tradition. What principle of justice demands that her cultural heritage should be “eradicated” and brought to and end? "

from Richard Schweder, "What about “Female Genital Mutilation”? And Why Understanding Culture Matters in the First Place."