Stop Violence Against Women
Jan. 12th, 2005 @ 01:47 am
Of all the Charities and Foundations that are going to be on our Donation Roster, Amnesty International tops the list- especially in their Campaign to Stop Violence Against Women.
I admit that I personally have a particular interest in aiding those that target "Honor Killings" in Islamic countries, as well as Female Circumcision, wherever it occurs- those two are my personal "most hated" issues- but domestic violence is where it hits closest to home for most of us here in the US- and I am avidly against all three- as well as any other form of violence against women.
Here is a link to Amnesty's Campaign site, for these issues: http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/issues-index-eng
Whenever we find a good Environmental Foundation, we will add them to our Roster, but as for now, Amnesty International (whose integrity is flawless, and whose good acts worldwide are well known) are at the top of our list.
Chorus: The Fourth Phase
Hm. Would some portion of funding go toward centers helping women recover from sexual violence?
Yes, thank you for mentioning this. It will be researched.
|Date:||January 12th, 2005 08:01 pm (UTC)|| |
First, I'm working on an MA in Religius Studies. Several years ago, I came across an article that delt with FGM in a tribe in Africa. While it pushed every button I had, I also realized that what these people were doing was Very Different from the FGM that most people are familiar with (using broken glass, stitching back up to be torn during 1st intercourse, etc). iirc, the concept was that the proceedure changed them from sexual/pleasure creatures to the more important repoductive/mother creature. The idea was not to curb female sexuality, but to strengthen female repoduction.
I don't have the source at hand as I'm at work. When I have a moment at home, I'll look for it again and post the book and author.
Second, what is your position on male circumcision?
I am personally against male circumcision. I know that most doctors have turned against it. It was begun as a religious practise, although I think that the ancient hebrews might have felt that it had some aesthetic value, as well.
It was emulated by the christian west, out of some vagrant notion of making themselves more like a distant culture of mythical judaic "chosen ones" and fulfilling some criteria for being "clean in the sight of god", again according to the doctrines that had been spread by christianity.
Mother Nature puts the foreskin on a man for a specific reason. It protects the sensitivity of the head of the penis, among other things.
Doctors tried for years to invent medical reasons why it was good- "cleaner" they said, which is silly- a man with a foreskin can easily clean it, like any other part of his body; "it has a potential to swell or tighten later in life" they said, which is even more silly.
The trauma it must put babies through may have a mental impact on them down the road; either way it is just cruel and useless, brutal and outdated. Doctors did it automatically for years, without even thinking about it. I'm glad people are thinking about it now.
Peace to you.
|Date:||January 12th, 2005 08:42 pm (UTC)|| |
circumcision of jewish males is a sign of their covenant with their god. that is fine and dandy for them, just US doctors (more so than European drs) almsot require it for "health" reasons. i've been told that for some couples who don't want to have their son circumcised, they have had to fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening. i'm sure this depends a lot on one's location in the US. it is also my understanding that it wasn't a common practice in Europe or US until sometime in the 1800s. (if i can find the source, i will)
I'm not even certain how fine it is for young jewish boys- it's not like such a young minor can give consent for or against the wills of their parents, or even culture. I don't think young jews are really shown the medical facts vs. the realities of what is about to happen to them, and given a choice. It's still genital mutilation. If a grown man wants to do it, that is fine and dandy, as you say. But I always wonder about youth.
|Date:||January 12th, 2005 10:27 pm (UTC)|| |
it is religiously mandated. it is part of their covenant with their god. (it would be like feeding pork to a jew or muslim, it is breaking one of their religius tenents). it is my understanding that if the jewish parents do not arrange a bris (sp?), then they are failing in their duty as jewish parents to raise their son in their religion. that uncircumsized boy will be chastized by his jewish friends for not participating in one of their main rituals, ie. bris. and therefore may be challenged to his jewishness.
the academic side of me says: it is part of their culture and religion that's been going on for for well over 2000 years. no judgement. (many religius groups do some thing that make the seperate from the rest of society or the "tribe over there". identity is important)
the non-academic side says: its wrong and should be the choice of an adult. but that is judging them based on my standards.
as i was writing this a thought occured to me: we have ana-baptists who practice adult baptism. i wonder if a sect of jews might practice ana-circumcison?
You have little choice BUT to judge the world by your own standards. That's part of being human. The trick is to have fair and dignified standards by which to judge
. That's the best we humans can do.
I personally don't care what has become "traditional" to a culture- if kids or women or ANYONE is being hurt, or if a threat to dignity is there, It has to be addressed. A single ray of light can part a darkness that has persisted for thousands of years. Cultures and Traditions change- even the Judaic culture didn't *always* circumsize- something started it. A change swept through, and become traditionalized. The same thing can happen again.
I'm not saying its our job, but if it is put before me, I will respond as my heart, my reason, and my code direct me.