How often will the US decline to confront repressive, retrogressive regimes, regimes dominated by or leaning toward Islamism?
The area of human rights is gaining importance as a venue in which American national and strategic interests are threatened. This state of affairs arises from the increasingly robust efforts by Islamists and their sympathisers to hijack the field of human rights.
Islamists are not simply brutish gunslingers and suicide vest wearers. The Islamist camp is filled with politically sophisticated men who understand how to use propaganda, cultivate allies on the political left, form coalitions with non-Islamic countries which share a policy goal with the Warriors of Allah, and use the rhetoric and institutions of the US and the rest of the West for purposes hostile to the best interests of the West.
It comes as no surprise that the Organisation of the Islamic Conference is in the process of pirating the human rights arena for the purposes and goals of Islamism. The OIC announced on the eve of the Durban II meeting that it would form an "Islamic" human rights council which would set forth an agenda and processes seeking to guarantee human rights in a way which will be fully Sharia compliant.
Now, that is one scary thought.
Even if consideration of human rights is limited to one small but very important aspect of life, the notion of a Sharia compatible doctrine of rights is very, very scary.
This one, small but central area is quite simply the integrity of a woman's, all women's genitals. To narrow the matter more, is freedom from genital mutilation a fundamental right for any and all women?
The Geek must admit he is quite uncomfortable writing on this subject. Consideration of genital mutilation, no matter how slight in nature, constitutes a subject which is inherently revolting to him. The very idea of taking a knife to a lady's most intimate and sexually defining anatomical features frankly nauseates the Geek. (And, he notes for the record, the Geek has seen more than a few things over the years that the vast majority of people would consider high on the list of sights which produce vomit.)
When the subject of female genital mutilation (FGM) emerged in academic circles a little over fifteen years ago, the Geek recalls that most of his co-workers dismissed concern over it as being misplaced. They adduced four reasons for this questionable conclusion.
First, the practice was limited to a small area in Northeast Africa centering on Somalia.
Second, FGM was not inherent to Islam but rather was an African cultural practice grafted onto the imported faith.
Third, all cultural practices were equally good, so it was improper for a person of one heritage to judge the actions of those living in another.
Fourth, since women performed the FGM it was a matter for the society of women only and since they obviously accepted the practice, it was immune to criticism.
Of course these academics were wrong. Wrong on all counts. But, that is hardly an unusual affliction for academics in recent decades.
While data are hard to acquire and often very soft when they can be found, numbers and anecdotes alike point to FGM being widespread in nature. The World Health Organisation reported in 2005 that some ninety-five percent of women between the ages of fifteen and forty-nine in Egypt had undergone some form of FGM. More recently human rights groups have claimed widespread FGM in Iraq, Pakistan and the Arab Peninsula states.
Attempts by governments either to collect hard data on or regulate the practice of FGM have met with significant resistance on the part of Muslim clerics and the population generally. Egypt is an excellent example of this. The conclusion is inescapable: while ashamed of the prevalence of FGM so that attempts to quantify it are resisted, the population or at least a sizable part of it, including leading clerics, oppose any regulation or limiting of the right to take a knife or needle and thread to women's sexual organs.
Occasionally non-clerical students of Islam will note the justifications for FGM which are found in the sacred writings of Islam. Some of these same students will also mine the vast corpus of Sharia based jurisprudence to find examples of Islamic judicial authorities supporting FGM and justifying its employment as a means of insuring social stability through controlling the presumably rampant randiness of "unfixed" women.
The widespread, not to say pervasive, existence of FGM throughout Islamic dominated countries falsifies the oft-repeated claim that the application of knife to clitoris or labia is limited to Somalia and nearby areas of Africa. The existence of a body of Islamic law condoning and justifying FGM underscores that the practice is inherent to the faith. It is not a culture graft originating outside Islam.
The third argument made by the Geek's former academic co-workers is that of cultural relativism. Without making an assessment of the merits of the cultural relativist position, suffice it to note that the basic concept of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserts that there are rights equally applicable to all people regardless of cultural context. Even academics should be capable of seeing the difference between cultural trivia such as costume or diet on the one hand and basic, life affirming rights on the other.
It is quite true that, even today, the primary wielders of knife, needle and thread are women. This would seem to imply a basic agreement within the society of women that FGM was, at the least, harmless. It could even be argued from this basis that women approve of continuing the sexual mutilation over generations. After all, without their performing the procedures, the procedures would not be performed. Right?
The rather recent field of evolutionary psychology would say, "Wrong." Evolutionary psychologists like their colleagues in the cognate fields of social psychology and anthropology would point out that women live on the razor's edge between the ancient requirements of effective cooperation and the even older impetus of competition over resources for the benefit of self and progeny. Far more than men experience (or even often can understand, even imagine) women for thousands of generations have worked under twin, conflicting biologically driven imperatives.
As humans, and, before them, the proto-humans emerged in a harsh and risk ridden environment, women have needed to cooperate effectively so that food could be gathered, children borne and raised, clothing fabricated and the myriad of other tasks accomplished great and small without which survival would have been impossible.
At the same time women have had to keep a man around--exclusively for the benefit of the woman and her children. Competition to get and keep this guy, this access to resources, has been at the top of the priority list. Women have fought with a single minded ferocity to get and keep the guy compared to which the fiercest combat between men pales into insignificance.
We can see (and experience) the delicate balancing act between horizontal relations and fierce competition which is and always has been a central feature of the society of women all around us. You do not have to get a PhD in anthropology or evolutionary psychology to get the picture. All you have to do (if you are a guy, women already know it all in the back of their brains) is go to a singles bar on Friday night or a cocktail party at any time.
"So, cut to the chase, Geek! I'm not getting three hours credit for this lecture, dude."
"Chill out, bucko," the Geekmo replies.
Here is the conclusion, the age old bottom line. Whatever is normative in the society of women will be followed generation after generation. If FGM is normative, it will soldier on grandmother to mother to daughter. No woman, particularly one who is older than the presumptive rival for a man, will cede a competitive advantage to the potential threat.
In the case of FGM, particularly any variant which removes the clitoris in toto or even in part, the advantage is sexual responsiveness. As any hooker (OK, for the politically correct, sex worker) can attest, a genuine commercial advantage accrues to the woman who can best feign a world beating orgasm.
Any (and all) man wants to believe himself to be Studly Hunkboy Without Equal. The greater his partner's response to his ministrations the more his ego is gratified. The combination of sexual responsiveness with sexual availability is the woman's ultimate weapon in the war to keep her guy exclusively hers.
Since the ancient misperception of Freud concerning the vaginal orgasm has been finally buried by research over the past forty years, we are certain that the fount of a woman's sexual pleasure and, thus, responsiveness is the clitoris. Removing or impairing the capacity of this small piece of nerve rich tissue assures a level playing field of low sexual response.
That's why women keep on plying the knife and other implements of personal destruction.
The inevitable question is not that of why do women endure this multi-generational alteration of personhood but why do men put up with it. The answer to this is found in the climate of fear which pervades Islam from its founding sacred writings down to the present day. Bluntly put, men are scared silly of the hidden depths of women. Their sexual depths in particular.
At the same time men are encouraged to both fear and displace responsibility for their own preoccupation with sex. As reams of research published by reinforced divisions of researchers demonstrates beyond all doubt, men spend a lot of time thinking about sex. They may not--in fact, do not--act on their thoughts often, but they do sure as hell think about what they would like to do with their wigglers a very great deal.
Religious beliefs do not alter the frequency or intensity of sexually oriented thoughts, feelings and fantasies in the slightest. However, religious beliefs can and do alter the individual's acceptance of his own sexuality.
Not unlike many other religions both past and present Islam tries to inculcate a sense of guilt over thinking about sex rather than the will of the Lord or some other approved topic. Islam is simply more successful in the guilt production area than most. It is also better than other faiths in providing a suitable displacement focus.
Hey, Abdul, it's OK. You aren't a dirty old man. It's the perpetually randy woman who makes you think that way. She is the provocateur. You have to control her rabid sexual appetite. Put her in all-concealing clothing, clothing that de-sexes completely. And, while you're at it, make sure she is a proper, faithful wife, make sure she is literally de-sexed--but still capable of having your children.
But, now, Abdul, my man, you got another problem. She doesn't want sex with you. Sure, the old FGM has made sexual contact about as enjoyable as a root canal, but she still owes it to you. You feed her, put a roof over her head. She owes you. And, even though there is a nifty away around it, Islam prohibits commercial sex. So, Abdul, you've got your needs. Whatcha going to do about them?
"Pass a law," Abdul replies sagely. "If she don't put out at least once every four days, then I don't have to feed her or something."
Fer sure, dude. That's the way to go.
But, the Geek suggests, why not look at the mutilation thing from a different perspective? Try this one out.
Neurophysiology and embryology have demonstrated that the same nerves serve the same function in both men and women. The sensory nerves which women have concentrated in the clitoris are found in and near the tip of a man's penis. The sensations these nerves feed our brains are the source of sexual pleasure for us guys.
With me so far, Abdul?
OK. Now, let's take the next step. In principle it is possible to sever these nerves in total or in part in the penis, kind of the guy equivalent of removing a woman's clitoris. The guy who has received this sort of attention will still be able of gaining an erection. He will still be able to ejaculate. Make a baby.
Now, the big question: Will he want to? Get it up. Pump away. Come like a gusher. Feel nothing. Think about it. Where is the reward for all the effort?
The Geek is entertaining the amusing picture of thousands of sex deprived Muslim women chasing nerveless men through the souk demanding sex--right now! It would be the women's turn to pass laws demanding the guys get it up at least once every so many days under penalty of going without eats.
Now to bring it home. To move from the ridiculously sublime to the real world and reality oriented international politics. Is it rational to believe, to think for even a microsecond that governments or international organisations with a majority who accept the insane barbarism of female genital mutilation as a normal and customary aspect of a religiously predicated society have anything to offer in the arena of human rights?
Islam and, even more, Islamism have only negatives to offer. They are, to quote the title of a Warren Zevon tune the "Mister Bad Example" of human rights. FGM allows, no, demands the domination of women through degradation, desexualization and objectification of women by a fearful, insecure and ultimately mendacious and hypocritical male population.
There is no justification for even listening to Islamist posturing about the rights of women, of human rights. They neither know nor accept either.
Leaving aside "honorcide," stoning women for adultery, which is often rape under another name, confining women to the harem, forcing them to dress as though they were Ninth Century pastoralists in the Arabian desert, omitting everything beyond female genital mutilation, Islamists and may observant Muslims put themselves beyond the pale in the human rights councils of the world. They have ruled themselves incompetent in the entire matter.
For us, for Americans, for people who celebrate life in all its many ways and diverse expressions the obligation is clear. We must stand in principled, continuous opposition to the Islamists and those others who align for whatsoever reason behind the Islamist banner. These anti-human, anti-rights, anti-freedom members of the Society of Fear and Hate must be opposed at every turn, in every venue.
There can be no surrender. Ever. For any reason, pragmatic or ideological. We must all remember those wise words of warning: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to keep silent."
Speak out, President Obama. Now. Loudly. Repeatedly. That would be a change we can all believe in.
No comments:
Post a Comment