Julia is so right about GQ...

I love this interview with one of my all time favorite actors...

Infidel

Well, since everyone enjoyed Larry's post on female genital mutilation, I'd thought I'd recommend a book that gives and interesting look into the subject.  Infidel  by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a very interesting and engaging memoir about a Somalian woman who grows up in 
Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia, eventually ending up in Holland to become a member of parliament.  
She details her experiences growing up Muslim, her own genital mutilation, arranged marriages,  
integrating into Western culture, and finally giving up on Islam.  She does not hold back on detail or 
her opinion.  This works to create a very interesting read, but can be frustrating when it seems as 
though she generalizes her own experience to represent the experiences of all Muslim women in Africa.  
Either she or her editor wanted to use her experiences educate Westerners on "what happens" 
to women where she's from, but she's not writing about a group of women, she's writing about herself.  
Considering that most Somlian women don't leave the country and those who do don't end up as 
members of parliament, I would say her experience is anything but generalizable. If you can get past 
the "let me educate you Westerners about the horrors of the rest of the world" subtext, it's an exceptional
book about an exceptional person.  I definitely recommend it.

Whoopi Goldberg....Celebrity Apologist

So let me preface this post saying that I am a HUGE fan of Whoopi's acting (Celie in Color Purple is perhaps the most brilliant and touching character ever conceived in literature and film) and from what I can tell I'd probably enjoy sharing some green tea and biscotti with her...I, knowing she doesn't like to drink, show up to her house with some fabulously italian biscotti assuming we were having coffee and then she offers me green tea and politely puts out the biscotti I brought and then we'd laugh and joke about our slightly mismatched pairing and enjoy a simply  marvelous hour of chit chat about what a wonderful person Patrick Swayze is.   LOVE IT!  Anyhoo...with all that being said, I'm not sure about Whoopi's place on the View.  She is definitely supposed to represent liberals, but I also feel she is put into the role of apologist for people's actions.  Her first day on the show, she confusingly explains that she didn't think Michael Vick understood that dog fighting was bad because he is from the deep South and apparently that's what people do here.  She later explains that she doesn't agree with what he did, but that she sees WHY he would think it was OK.  When the group was discussing Roman Polanski being arrested in Switzerland for a crime he never served time for in the US, she feels very passionate about being clear that he didn't commit "rape rape".  She claims later that she was clarifying that she was trying to point out that it was not rape in the sense that he had sex with someone who didn't consent, it was sex with a minor (However the law clearly states that someone on drugs cannot legally consent nor can a minor consent...so for someone so focused on getting the facts straight missed the mark on what the definition of rape is).  Most recently she claims that despite using terms such as "nigger" and "wetback" and blaming all the wars in the world on Jews, Mel Gibson is neither racist nor anti-semitic.  He's just a bonehead, an asshole, and a drunk.  She knows this because he's been in her house with her children. To me it's just like the excuse that someone cannot be racist because they have a black friend.  Now perhaps throwing around phrases like "nigger" and "wetback" or blaming all the worlds wars on Jews does not a bigot make, but I also haven't seen Mel take any action other than going to Whoopi's house for dinner that empowers him to use such words.  The fact that he's using them in a phone call that is pretty much the definition of misogyny, does not lead me to believe he has thoroughly analyzed the power structure of the US that makes all of the things he says so hateful.  I know that Whoopi has her role to play on the View, but I wish she were more thoughtful in how she defends people who have done some pretty bad things.  I also added a Michael Jackson defense clip, not particularly because I disagree with what she says, but because it's another example of her defending someone's actions/behaviors on the basis of him being her friend. (Michael Jackson is the only person she defends who was not proven guilty).

Hey Jess!

Tiger Beatdown did a review of Twilight. I don't know if you want to read it before you finish the books so I'm putting the link here so we can go back to it.

Love you and looking forward to your take on Twilight (and even more, Infinite Jest!)

FGM in the United States

I was sharing this article with Jessica, and she invited me to post in on the FBC blog (does that make me the first male contributor?) It's an interesting follow up to the article just posted about FGM in Iraq.

Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement reviewing its stance on Female Genital Mutilation. While the Academy concluded by condemning the practice in general, it did make a controversial suggestion. It recognized a problem in the US with immigrant families who have a strong cultural tradition of female circumcision wanting to take their daughters abroad, or sometimes perform the operation themselves. The Academy suggested that maybe doctors in the United States could be allowed to perform a “ritual nick”, a small cut to draw a drop of blood but not damage the genitals, in order to dissuade families from taking their daughters abroad and performing a more extreme form of mutilation.

The author of this article believed that this was an example of multiculturalism gone too far. He believes that religious freedom and cultural tolerance has gone too far in America. He argues that allowing any form of FGM only legitimizes it, and that it could easily be a slippery slope to allowing full circumcision.

In an interview for NPR, Prof. Dena Davis, consultant to the Academy, defended the policy statement.

She defended it as a choice of the lesser of two evils, and explained that in a public health setting sometimes unsavory choices needed to be made (i.e. providing clean needles for heroin addicts to prevent the spread of HIV). She claims that in Indonesia, this “nick” has now completely replaced traditional female circumcision, and has become totally ceremonial.

She also says that the “ritual nick” is much less extensive than male circumcision, which is completely accepted in our society. According to the Economist article, she claims that it is a double standard to accept western religious ceremonies but forbids Islamic ones.

Prior to reading these articles I did not know a lot about FGM. I was amazed that it had actually only been outlawed in the US in 1996, and that the Academy and others were arguing for this compromise. I think the greater good argument (i.e. heroin needles) is interesting, but I agree it does not justify condoning this practice. Giving addicts needles, or young children condoms (her other example) simply seeks to remove risk from a self destructive activity. FGM is especially horrific because it is something forced on a young child who has no choice in the matter.

I believe in religious freedom, and that women should be allowed for instance to wear a veil if they so choose (provided they are not forced or in any way coerced into wearing it). If adult females under no pressure chose to undergo a religious circumcision, that would be a different matter.

I think a very important difference exists between male and female circumcision. The purpose of the male circumcision is to prevent disease, and it is generally assumed to increase sexual stimulation. The purpose of the female circumcision is to force women to be pure by removing sexual stimulation. Even if this new ritual nick does not actually cause physical harm, it is still a “ritual” focused around the idea that women shouldn’t enjoy sex because that makes them impure.

This is the article

This is Dana Davis defending the policy

This is another good analysis in the economist

following the scary doctor: women and their damn sexuality

How to be be godly, clean and pure, and defend the honor of your family all in one?! just slice!!

SCARY doctor giving steroid to pregnant women to avoid lesbianism

For a recap of this article go here

For the original source go here

Basically an ethically inept physician is performing her own "clinical trial" without IRB approval (Institutional Review Board...required for ANY type of clinical trial/research ).  She is giving patients a steroid nick-named "dex" that has been suggested at preventing unambigious genitalia in fetuses of certain women who have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (apparently a condition that can cause such things in utero).  However, she's not JUST doing it for this reason.  Apparently she believes it will "cure" homosexuality and bisexuality.  It could also make these fetal females more "girly" and willing to do "girly" things like raise babies and marry husbands (because obviously someone with masculine features male or female is incapable of any of these things).  Here's a sampling of the original article:

Pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Florida International University, and her long-time collaborator, psychologist Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, of Columbia University, have been tracing evidence for the influence of prenatal androgens in sexual orientation. In a paper entitled “Sexual Orientation in Women with Classical or Non-Classical Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia as a Function of Degree of Prenatal Androgen Excess” published in 2008 in Archives of Sexual Behavior, Meyer-Bahlburg and New (with two others) gather evidence of “a dose-response relationship of androgens with sexual orientation” through a study of women with various forms of CAH.

They specifically point to reasons to believe that it is prenatal androgens that have an impact on the development of sexual orientation. The authors write, "Most women were heterosexual, but the rates of bisexual and homosexual orientation were increased above controls . . . and correlated with the degree of prenatal androgenization."

They go on to suggest that the work might offer some insight into the influence of prenatal hormones on the development of sexual orientation in general. “That this may apply also to sexual orientation in at least a subgroup of women is suggested by the fact that earlier research has repeatedly shown that about one-third of homosexual women have (modestly) increased levels of androgens.” They “conclude that the findings support a sexual-differentiation perspective involving prenatal androgens on the development of sexual orientation.”

Scary stuff!