My colleague in the philosophy department here at UMM, Tamler Sommers, has a couple of interesting interviews online, one with Frans de Waal and another with Jonathan Haidt. de Waal is good — there's some cool stuff in there about altruism and politics. Haidt … well, again, I find myself with mixed feelings about his work. The "social intuition" model, where people make emotional judgments and then makes intellectual rationalizations after the fact, sounds reasonable to me. But then, he goes on to make these arguments about "four pillars of morality" — harm, fairness, purity, and duty — that sound like intellectual rationalizations after the fact, too. He justifies some behaviors, such as female genital mutilation, because within a particular culture they may well be supported by a moral pillar like purity or duty, and suggests that people who lack those particular pillars (as many in the West do) cannot then criticize those behaviors.
I can almost see his point as an abstraction…but then he claims that some awful behaviors, like child slavery, cannot be justified, because they are only for personal monetary benefit. That seems arbitrary to me. What's to stop someone from declaring that "monetary benefit" is a fifth moral pillar, and thereby remove slavery from academic criticism by people who lack that particular value? It's like a game, where tagging a behavior with an emotional/moral label is sufficient to put it in a place of privilege. and whoever is in charge of defining the labels becomes the gatekeeper for what is right.
Sommers does a good job of grilling Haidt, and brings up this same issue. Haidt's answers aren't very satisfying. It amounts to saying that if the subjects of a practice, such as veiling, don't complain about it, then it's OK. It seems to ignore the fact that these individuals are imbedded in a culture that may provide some pervasive rewards and punishments to keep people in line — that these unpleasant practices have a context, and people may profess support for ugly practices not because they like them, but because they like to maintain the cultural framework that surrounds them.
I get the distinct feeling that Haidt is exhibiting an "academic intuition" model. He's got a couple of ideas that are emotionally appealing to him, and there's a fair bit of post hoc diddling to justify them … but the arguments don't ring true to anyone who lacks his attachment to them.
- Log in to post comments
How can anyone begin to justify female genital mutilation and still think of themselves as moral?
You obviously lack the purity pillar.
What's to stop someone from declaring that "monetary benefit" is a fifth moral pillar
Not sure, but if I'm understanding him right, he's not saying that the "pillars" are declarative at all, he's saying that they're the products of subconscious agents or moral modules or however you want to put it that cue us to disparage certain behaviors (or not), for which we then must construct declarative reasons for why we feel the way we do.
So my take is, cool idea, but until you've done some empirical work to identify and delineate these putative modules, or agents, and find out how much and what kind of work they do for us, it's pretty arbitrary. There was a decent write-up of the idea in Science Times (NYT) on Tuesday, which is what I'm going on. I won't have time to read these interviews until later.
I cannot believe that someone would even try to use any kind of logic to justify or accept the incredibly evil practice of female genital mutilation (shameless plug for my blog, but the issue is really very serious). It is a cycle of repression and culturally-pressured acceptance that needs to be broken, and that is not possible till someone like Haidt keeps on providing contexts for such practices.
Haidt is an immoralist enabler! It is not ethnocentric to declare genital mutilation wrong: we see the baleful effects on females.
Purity is so often used to justify the most disgusting oppression of women by misogynistic fuck-wads. That Haidt uses it as a pillar of morality calls all his reasoning into question for me. Throw in the love of duty by authoritarians everywhere and I think an argument can be made for knocking out the last two pillars of Haidt's morality. Harm and fairness seem sufficient to me.
To see whether you are in Haidt's liberal or conservative moral camp take the test he offers at www.YourMorals.org. According to the test I am very liberal.
So, if I staff my sweatshop with not just children, but mute children who are likewise unable to write, sign, or otherwise communicate, I'm off scott-free?
Seriously, Haidt needs a better criterion than whether or not people complain about a certain practice.
Haidt said:
I'm going to risk Godwining myself here, but let's imagine a system of brutality and apartheid based on PURITY and DUTY... would we be allowed to criticize that?
Purity comes from the magical thinking arising from taking cleanliness metaphors literally, so that while dirty hands should be washed clean of filth before handling food, it makes no sense to have ritual washing of people in the open sewer of the Ganges, and even less than zero sense to have purification rituals that cast spells somewhere in the unseen realm to cleanse spiritual nonsense of uncleanliness.
You're right, PZ, he's talking shit, or words to that effect.
The pillar metaphor is when a milkstool (3 legs) or table (4 legs) don't have enough legs. Once you get to five, you'll want pillars instead of legs, but then there's no limit to the number of pillars that can follow. It helps to keep asking, 'and pillars are a metaphor for what?'. Demand that they abandon metaphors and speak plainly.
Yes thank goodness i do live in the west, because those moral pillars make me want to vomit. I'm literally gagging on the pillars. And i'm definitely not swallowing.
Basically cultures dominated by misogynistic men hide behind that "purity" pillar because it makes them feel powerful. There is nothing moral about it.
Its all about rationalizing their misogyny.
Anyone read "Chimpanzee Politics"? It's wonderful, so if you haven't, pick it up!
I think there is something to Haidt's pillar concept: I particularly agree with his stance that our moral positions shift depending on the population density of where we live and communication options available (i.e. rural vs urban morals)
That said, he presents his pillar theory as a lot more solid than it actually is.
What happens if I declare there's a single pillar -- long-term self-interest?
I tune out at the first mention of the word "purity". Total BS concept.
"I'm literally gagging on the pillars. "
Can you literally gag on metaphorical objects?
ah, and thus we start our double standard (which I know that you PERSONALLY don't hold, PZ) because everyone in the west KNOWS that female genital mutilation is horrific and MALE genital mutilation is the good, wholesome, normal and healthy thing to do.
Is there a POSSIBILITY that right and wrong are NOT social constructs (or should not be social constructs) that relativism AND god-given morality are both a load of crap, and that we have to start thinking about what's good for us as a species instead of defining ourselves by all these artificial abstractions?
dorid, circumcision is not even ion the same league as female genital mutilation and does not even come close in the damage it causes. Oh and no I do not support the practice of infant circumcision.
"What happens if I declare there's a single pillar -- long-term self-interest?"
Then you're what moral philosphers call an ethical egoist.
But then, he goes on to make these arguments about "four pillars of morality" -- harm, fairness, purity, and duty -- that sound like intellectual rationalizations after the fact, too.
well, at least you can say he's consistent. obviously he considers himself a data point supporting his own hypothesis.
Please, please don't let this digress into a circumcision argument...
I think Haidt is conflating the evolved moral modules with the cultural "paramter settings" of those modules that occur as a person grows up. So his pillars are not really fundamental at all; it's as if he said a pillar of grammar is: "a noun takes an ending to indicate two-or-more," but you'd get much more explanatory power if you make the relevant pillar: "the brain's language engine represents nouns and nouns can be marked for number." My opinion is that there are at least three (and not many more) moral modules, which are something like: 1. Punish those of us who cheat. 2. Don't hurt those of us who don't cheat. 3. Obey the king. Obviously, what constitutes "us" "cheating" "hurt" and "king" are parameter settings. Also, those three modules have no particular heierarchy; they compete with each other in producing moral judgments. But those modules explain an awful lot that's otherwise puzzling about people's moral feelings (once you plug in the locally relevant parameters); and given my particular parameter settings, they certainly lead to the feeling that FGM is just plain wrong.
and that we have to start thinking about what's good for us as a species instead of defining ourselves by all these artificial abstractions?
bloody group selectionist!
:p
Ha. This is classic cultural relativist tripe. The only moral "pillar" that can remotely be justified is harm. Fairness has been used to justify communism. Purity and duty are pillars of fascism, religious and otherwise. This guy is so dumb it's dangerous.
According to the YourMorals.org test, I am a raging psychopath... But before I could rejoice in that fact, this proviso caught my eyes
Yeah, way to go to mar someone's little enjoyments...
Fuck you, ma'am.
In the societies where female genital mutilation is practiced, they use the same excuses to justify the practice as we do here to justify male genital mutilation.
Certainly it's not equivalent. It can't be equivalent, because men and women are wired differently sexually, and as a result it's far easier to cripple female sexuality than male. Very few women can have orgasms without major genital stimulation, while most men can be brought to orgasm by visual stimuli alone - or even just thought, which only a tiny percentage of women can manage.
That does NOT make male genital mutilation less abhorrent or less shameful than female. Just how damaging does a pointless cultural practice have to be before you'll condemn it? Or is the real problem that it's performed on males, which you don't have an interest in defending because it's outside the narrow bounds of your cause?
In the West, outside the USA, only Jews and Muslims think of male circumcision as "normal". Or rather, only they are circumcised.
Isn't male circumcision based on the "purity pillar" too? That's a further complication to his argument (although, as David pointed out, you Americans seem to have an extra thick purity pillar when viewed from elsewhere in the West)
If he thinks genital mutilation falls fine under the purity and duty roles... then so must stoning women for showing their wrists, or honor killings for women who have been raped. He must surely have no problem with that (not having read the paper, apologies). Seems to me that if we make these things outside the bounds of discussion, then it doesn't matter what religion and what form of hatred it is, we have to say hands off. And does it matter that these things directly contradict our moral pillars of harm and even fairness?
Funny, isn't it, how conservatives only trot out this horse excrement when we have a Republican President (or a SCOTUS about to install a Republican President).
"What about the harm to our social order" pearl-clutching sure took a nice long hibernation while they were lynching the President over a blowjob. I predict it will fade away again (like the "budget deficits are harmless" claim) on the very day Chimpy is finally dethroned.
Ditto @ David (#26)
Truly male circumcision is NOT seen as a good practice outside the US. The idea of unnecessary surgery based on superstition and tradition is really alien to me. And it's not like parents are allowed to have their children operated for any other reason without a medical condition?
So, stripping the sexuality from a person and causing them pain and suffering throughout their life is equivalent to a largely cosmetic change, because? Yes, it is less abhorrent because it causes less harm, just like repeatedly punching a person is less abhorrent than setting them on fire.
Dismissing a horrible maiming on grounds of what sounds suspiciously like blaming women for their 'inferior' sexuality and biology, and making unsubstantiated claims does not garner respect for you or your ideas.
In my onion the conservative purity and hierarchy pillars are fake. They are based on manipulating others for your own ends. In the case of hierarchy it is maintain your own position vis-à-vis others, unless you are at the bottom, in which case you do not have it. But it probably is based on the behavior of our ancestor primates. The purity one is all about control and subjugation of women. The purity meme is a rationalization for keeping women under (it rarely applies to men). As for that despicable idea of "honor killing" there is no justification for it.
Also culture and lives are not static - you learn as you go along. And yes the Yuk factor is a significant but subject to learning. I remember Dean when he put through the civil union legislation in Vermont said he was quite uncomfortable with the concept though intellectually he thought as civil rights it was right. A few years later when he was standing for president he was quite comfortable with the gay unions issue. He was asked "why?" "Because I have learnt a lot since then".
Moral behavior like any other is subject to learning and being rewarded or punished for certain kinds of behavior.
I can't believe that people on here actually think that male circumcision and female genital mutilation are on par with one another. What is WRONG with you? Look, when you have your foreskin removed, at least your penis STILL FUNCTIONS (and guess what? There are a lot of good reasons for getting it removed). What about these females that have their entire clitoris removed? Yeah, and I can totally see how circumcision is *exactly* like having ones labia permanently fused together.
*rolling of eyes*
Please, please don't let this digress into a circumcision argument...
well, at least you tried, Rey.
I had the chance to attend a Frans de Waal lecture a couple of years ago, he is an excellent speaker! I don't fully agree with him on all of his views, although I think he has many insightful ideas, but he is a very entertaining lecturer. Even if you completely disagree with his main ideas, his analysis of Bush's body language in comparison to other primates was definitely a gem. ;)
Could you point out the post number and sentence(s) where that argument has been made in this thread? Could you do it even once?
To clarify:
Male circumcision is EXACTLY THE SAME as what's referred to as "type I female circumcision." All the other kinds of female circumcision are WAY worse.
Look, when you have your clitoris removed, at least your vagina STILL FUNCTIONS.
Except that reproductive function isn't the issue. And no, there are no good reasons for circumcision. The past claims have all been debunked.
"Please, please don't let this digress into a circumcision argument..."
That would be one involving particularly cutting remarks?
Honestly, where do these people come from? Y'know, the 'you must talk about male circumcision if you're going to mention FGM!!! It's so horrible!!' crowd . . . or the 9/11 troofers, or any of those folks who jut get triggered and go off on these highly stereotypical and weirdly coy.manipulative rants? It's very strange.
" most men can be brought to orgasm by visual stimuli alone"
Er . . .really?
_____
Just to reprise my comments from the Mary Midgely brain-rot thread - to some degree, I thought, Haidt's 'four pillars' were based on anthropological and psychological data; that is, in a strictly descriptive sense, they're the things that have come up again and again in terms of how people think/have thought of what we'd call 'morality' - that seems quite reasonable, and why 'monetary gain,' for example, doesn't really make the cut. When he gets into the political or cultural comparisons, though - ie, how liberals only care about two of the four pillars, and are kinda morally impoverished - I think he's missing the mark somewhat. My guess is that there's a lot less difference between liberals/conservatives or the West/the Rest at that level; rather, some of us decadent individualistic Westerners (rootless cosmopolitans?) just conceptualize them differently enough that his questions and such miss them, an error of phrasing/fr*ming.
For example, take purity/sanctity. The 'conservative' version is often driven by group concerns - in-group loyalty & hierarchy (esp. gender hierarchy). The 'liberal' - most noticeably, but not only, culturally lefty - version . . . well, visualize (except for Caledonian, if that's alright - albeit possibly mis-specified) some nice young woman, adorned with no-animal-testing cosmetics, hiking to some place of pristine & specially protected natural beauty in non-sweatshop clothes, where she stops to eat a sandwich with organically grown vegetables on whole-grain bread (and if animals were involved, it would be, say, dolphin-safe tuna, perhaps). A bit overdrawn, maybe, and only one type, but this is sanctity/purity up the wazoo, and it doesn't simply reduce to that first pillar (of (non)harm), any more than conservative ones reduce to the fourth. It also connects to (one) of the liberal versions of that fourth pillar - duty - which is similarly reconceptualized,, often in a way that my little picture just now points to - our intuitions about hierarchy, respect, and duty are very there, but very different: they're horizontal, perhaps, not vertical, a spreading ring of ripples rather than a chain ascending upwards (or descending downwards) . . . After all, as Haidt argues, these systems are internally coherent. But this also suggests that we can, even by those standards, critique other, 4-pillar groups; indeed, I take his work to raise some fascinating issues about how we would best talk about/critique other systems.
From the interview:
" JH: Well, OK, let's see. Catherine Zeta-Jones is beautiful--what makes that true? Um, her... shape, I suppose."
Strange, but true. Also, just thinking - it takes some work, but it can be done. Very, very few women can manage it, though.
Some fascinating but very peculiar research has been done in the field of human sexuality.
"That does NOT make male genital mutilation less abhorrent or less shameful than female."
Imagine you were reading about a culture where, soon after birth, boy babies had one of their little fingers amputated. That's kinda messed up, you might think. Eww.
Now imagine you were reading about a culture where, around puberty, girls had one of their arms amputated.
Is one more/less abhorrent, more/less shameful than the other?
Or perhaps the first culture, soon after birth, operates on the eyes of the boys babies, so that they're permanently somewhat nearsighted.
And the second, around puberty, takes the girls and gouges their eyes out.
Is one more/less abhorrent, more/less shameful than the other?
"Strange, but true. Also, just thinking - it takes some work, but it can be done
Huh. The things ones learns here on scienceblogs.
"Some fascinating but very peculiar research has been done in the field of human sexuality.
That is certainly true. Although arguably not quite as peculiar as that done in the field of nonhuman sexuality . . .
I prefer Freud. And Nietzsche. They says everything that needs to be said about morality and politics. I could be wrong though *backs away slowly*.
"Look, when you have your clitoris removed, at least your vagina STILL FUNCTIONS."
Although, if one were to look at analogous structures between genetalia, the clitoris is analagous to the penis. So, in circumcision, the penis STILL WORKS. In FGM the clitoris is GONE.
The vast majority of females cannot orgasm after FGM. A) if the vast majority of men couldn't orgasm after circumcision, do you think it would still be a popular practice? Why? B) If the vast majority of men did not experience orgasm after circumcision, but were still unfeelingly able to deposit sperm in a woman, would you sanction it as being ok, because he could still reproduce? Why?
Clarification: I am against both circumcision and FGM. However, what people like Caledonian fail to appreciate is that there are VASTLY different contexts for the two procedures. One is an antiquated ritual which remains popular as a side-effect of strong judeo-christian background. The other is a deliberate attempt to control and remove all female sexuality. Different contexts, different routes needed to stop them, and different levels of outrage apply. And when FGM comes up, it's highly annoying to the rest of us when someone comes in whining "Dear GOD, what about the POOR BOYZ!!!1!11!"
Caledonian, you might have tried reading my whole post it was short. I did and do condemn involuntary circumcision. It just I got so tired of the 'But what about the mens' whine every time some vile misogynist practice is brought up.
Oh and by the by I am a trans-women so circumcision is not outside the 'narrow' bonds of any cause of mine.
Rey, I am sorry and promise this will be my last post on this.
Up the All Blacks! (obligatory Rugby reference)
'his analysis of Bush's body language in comparison to other primates was definitely a gem.'
Oh please tell me there is a video of this somewhere. Anne-Marie I am SO jealous, it sound hilarious.
I think there are some inconsistencies in Mr. Haidt's claims. For one thing, he says that our tendency to give justifications for moral views is to persuade people that we're right---which seems to imply that we all instinctually believe that at least some of the time we can persuade and be persuaded of moral claims by rational argumentation---which I think is born out by the historical experience of the shift of public opinion on things like slavery, race, gender, etc.
His comparison of aesthetic and moral values also rings false, because your opinion on whether a value is an aesthetic value or a moral value can be the same question as whether it is something that applies to others or not. I think that heterosexuality and homosexuality is an aesthetic question---different people are attracted to different things, but clearly many people believe that it is a moral question.
Lastly, the question of whether we can critique other's morality from the perspective of our own is itself a moral question. There is nothing, in principle, stopping me from saying that "my morality is subjective, but it's still better than yours". By even his own standard, such relativism is not a moral truth, since the vast majority of people seem to consider other moral systems subject to critique.
Well, it may be the case that people don't generally invoke personal monetary benefit as a moral pillar, and don't show a strong moral reaction to most monetary gains or losses. I'd like to believe that Haidt has some consistent way of identifying these foundational principles, a way which is robust against people randomly making up additional ones. (But I haven't read his papers, so I can't say for sure.)
That said, I suspect that he hasn't actually checked whether people justify Bad Things by reference to his existing list o' pillars. Child slavery could be justified by Fairness, since the employer deserves his monetary benefit, given the taxes and personal expenditures he's forced to pay by a cruel world; or by Purity, because it keeps the kids from going on the streets and lazing around and shooting up and making out with each other; or; or by Duty, since the labors of the children are strengthening the economy and producing valuable goods for the fatherland. Haidt probably wouldn't accept any of those rationalizations, but judging by the interview, he doesn't have any way to show that they're wrong.
As a moral skeptic, I don't have a problem with that. But Haidt apparently isn't a moral skeptic--he wants to have a descriptive theory of morality, and then layer a normative theory on top of it to explain why some people have a better morality than others. It's not surprising that he ends up tripping over himself.
kellbelle1020, would you support making type 1 FGM legal (the removal of the clitoral hood, not the clitoris)? If not, would you support a law making neonatal male circumcision illegal and be called an anti-Semite in the process?
Rather than playing down the circumcision discussion in this thread I feel like it strengthens Jonathan Haidt's point. What we view as morally justified is intimately linked to what is considered culturally normal.
The most disturbing thing about Jonathan Haidt's work is that he's probably be right.
To continue to complain about Haidt's non-criticism position, he talks about gay marriage, and how attitudes today are such that many of us find it ok, while 100 years ago we would not have. But this is not some sort of magic, unexplainable change, it's a direct result of agitation for gay rights, of activists publicly attacking the view that homosexuality is wrong with rational arguments, showing people what homosexuals are like on a personal level, etc.
Invoking an evolutionary argument for particular moral beliefs leaves him unable to explain how the moral consensus in a place can change, or how a range of moral beliefs can exist at one time.
This overlaps somewhat with a post by Dan S. on another thread, but I'm surprised that Haidt finds "purity/sanctity/cleanliness" to play such a small role in liberal thinking. Seems to me that it's one of the most important foundational principles in environmentalism; many people think we should protect the environment not because we get good things from it but because it's an inherently beautiful and sacred thing which should not be despoiled. Think of all the rhetoric about "pristine, virgin forests" and, for that matter, "tainting" our food with GMOs and radiation.
(By "rhetoric" I don't mean to imply that such language is appropriate or inappropriate--just that, in my experience, that's how environmental issues are commonly championed.)
Anton:
Exactly. Some people have suggested that in Scandinavian countries, "morality" is now more often directed at environmental choices (recycling, buying hybrid cars and Fair Trade products, not smoking) than the traditional nudity, sex, alcohol use etcetera. Can be a pain if and when people don't question their assumptions, but otherwise, why the hell not put those moral feelings to good use for once.
"Can you literally gag on metaphorical objects?"
Yes, you can. The 'literally' refers to the gagging, not to the concepts that generate it. If a disgusting idea leads you to actually have a physical gag reflex, then you are literally, physically, gagging at the idea. I'm sure you can think of instances where an idea, such as a description of an act, has caused people to physically gag, or even vomit.
telemerex: You are changing the working definition of circumcision(type 1 is vanishingly rare) and assuming responses on part of other people based on these new definitions that they have already specifically denounced. That is, kellebelle has already said male circumcision is unwarranted so the directly analagous type of female circumcision would be unwarranted for the same reasons.
You are ignoring the repeated explanations of the amount of harm FGM does compared to male circumcision in favor of calling it a purely cultural preference, like spices in food or kissing on the cheek rather than hugging. If your support of Haidt's work is based of similiar reasoning, it's more a mark against than for it.
Caledonian: Removing the penis does not remove the ability to reproduce sperm. To paraphrase someone else, if a man's penis was cut off with scissors as a toddler and his testes cut and fused together, and after marriage he was cut open and harvested from for the purposes of reproduction, there would be a more analogous situation. Argue against male circumcision on its own merits, not by flaunting your own ignorant and callous disregard for a different practice.
Yeah, all those poor circumcised women with their ovaries fused together...
No, wait. That makes absolutely no sense.
1) Context? Who cares about the context?
2a) Female mutilation is a long-standing tradition in various other societies. The difference is that those societies haven't been ones you've grown up in.
2b) Male circumcision doesn't actually have a very long history in the societies that directly lead to the US. It was a Victorian perversion intended to prevent masturbation.
Anyhoo, to get this discussion back on track AND tie in my previous posts to the theme:
I think there are additional 'pillars', one of which is the idea that one's own group should be defended whether right or wrong. This concept doesn't seem to fit in any of the previous pillars discussed, and tribalistic thinking is clearly a factor in most people's moral decisionmaking.
"Yeah, all those poor circumcised women with their ovaries fused together...
No, wait. That makes absolutely no sense"
Caledonian, do you simply not understand what Kerlyssa's talking about, or are you merely mocking the less-than-perfect choice of anatomical analogies (and consequently dodging their point)?
Anton - and I go on about that some more up in #39 - but yeah, it's really odd that he misses this. I haven't read any of the actual research, so there may be a good reason for it, but I dunno . . .
That's "loyalty" and, as I mentioned before, it's a vice - and a pernicious(!) one at that, because of the way it is traditionally misadvertised as being a virtue.
"I think there are additional 'pillars', one of which is the idea that one's own group should be defended whether right or wrong."
He may be subsuming this under 'duty' - certainly in the recent Science Times article and some other places he talks about five principles or systems, one of which is in-group loyalty. (also respect for authority/hierarchy, and then the other three as discussed here).
Proposal for a new purity ensuring operation : caledonostomy.
cut caledontrol's penis, prostata and anything between out, and make sperm duct stomas in the scrotum, so he can still reproduce by collecting the sperm in a pouch and injecting it in the womb by a syringe.
Their point is incoherent. If they possess a coherent point, they have not expressed it and don't look likely to express it.
Except that 'duty' can include a variety of contradictory principles depending on the culture, but in-group loyalty seems to be universal. If he is so subsuming, I think it's a mistake.
"Their point is incoherent. If they possess a coherent point, they have not expressed it and don't look likely to express it.
Come on now, their point is perfectly coherent (unless you literally don't know what they're talking about/referring to), albeit with some, again, less-than-perfect analogizing. (although since the scrotum is apparently homologous to the labia majora - I'm trusting wikipedia here, which may be a horrible mistake - they're not that far off.) If you insist, an analogy would be an operation involving cutting off much of the penis (and possibly some surrounding areas as well), with the resulting stump covered over by sown-together scrotal tissue (with a little hole for urine), to be torn or cut open to allow intercourse. This of course would be analogous to type III/infibulation - type II/excision would probably be more analogous to just chopping off a fair bit of the penis.
Because of the different distribution of sensory nerves, it's not really possible to make simple comparison between male and female anatomy. I suspect your analogy is closest to the truth.
But you're focusing on the argument, and not the point (or the lack thereof).
"You are changing the working definition of circumcision(type 1 is vanishingly rare) and assuming responses on part of other people based on these new definitions that they have already specifically denounced."
That is a lie! The only time I even used that word in my question is when I ask about "neonatal male circumcision". I can only guess that when you wrote "circumcision" you really meant FGM which would be rather amusing given your objections. Your point about the rarity of the practice is a red herring and has absolutely nothing do with the questions I asked.
"That is, kellebelle has already said male circumcision is unwarranted so the directly analagous type of female circumcision would be unwarranted for the same reasons."
I didn't ask about the practice being "unwarranted" or not. I asked whether it should be made illegal as the female analogue is.
"You are ignoring the repeated explanations of the amount of harm FGM does compared to male circumcision in favor of calling it a purely cultural preference, like spices in food or kissing on the cheek rather than hugging."
Funny, as what I used in the comparison is what you call the "directly analagous type of female circumcision".
I like Tamler's philosophical work a lot. He's a rare breed -- a freewill skeptic. Which means he must be unusually brilliant. (Take it from me; I'm a freewill skeptic too.)
Kerlyssa:
No, it's not. C&Ping a post from an earlier thread:
--
Types I and IV are actually often milder than male circumcision--for instance, in Indonesia nearly all baby girls get a symbolic pinprick of the clitoris or removal of a small part of the hood. Still pointless suffering for the girl, of course, and still a health risk in areas with poor-to-nonexistent medical hygiene.
Even in Africa, most of the countries UNICEF surveyed do Type I circumcision more often than any other type. The only countries where full removal of the clitoris or worse mutilations are the most popular were Burkina Faso, Sudan and Eritrea.
Dan S.,
Whoops, missed that one. Sorry!
"kellbelle1020, would you support making type 1 FGM legal (the removal of the clitoral hood, not the clitoris)?"
Well, FGM 1 is defined as "excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or the entire clitoris." (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm and pretty much anywhere else you look it up). You can't just cherry-pick the part of the definition you like in order to set up a false comparison. So, to answer your question, no, I would not support making type 1 FGM legal, as it allows for clitoridectomy.
And no, growing up in a different culture is NOT the only difference between male circumcision and FGM. I'm sure I'm not going to be able to change your mind, but I'll say this again for the hell of it: most circumcised men have fully functioning, pain-free sex lives. Most FGM recipients not only do not enjoy sex, but can have vast amounts of pain during sex, menstruation, and urination, and have a higher liklihood of complications (including infant death) during childbirth (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/lancetfgm.pdf).
Also, the point of the questions in my first post is to illustrate that male sexuality is vastly privileged over female sexuality, which is underscored by your posts. Male circumcision is pointless and shouldn't be done unnecessarily, but comparing it to FGM is just stupid. By doing so, you're equating a tiny bit of foreskin and perhaps a minor loss in sensitivity to the loss of a womans entire ability to enjoy sex (not to mention the additional pain. But, who cares, they're just women, right?). Now, we can agree that unnecessary genital surgery is a bad thing, but in practice, circumcision and FGM are two different phenomena that need to be addressed in different ways. And, inevitably, whenever a discussion about FGM comes up, there's always someone who says "FGM? But... But... what about MY FORESKIN GOD DAMN IT! Why aren't you talking about how to stop the HORRORS of CIRCUMCISION?!"
Those of us who discuss FGM and it's ramifications are sick of you. And since I've stated my case as clearly as I can, and lack faith that I have influenced you in the slightest, I'll merely shut up and refer you to the following thread, which discusses this issue in far greater depth: http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/06/28/some-good-news/
"kellbelle1020, would you support making type 1 FGM legal (the removal of the clitoral hood, not the clitoris)?"
Well, FGM 1 is defined as "excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or the entire clitoris." (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm and pretty much anywhere else you look it up). You can't just cherry-pick the part of the definition you like in order to set up a false comparison. So, to answer your question, no, I would not support making type 1 FGM legal, as it allows for clitoridectomy.
And no, growing up in a different culture is NOT the only difference between male circumcision and FGM. I'm sure I'm not going to be able to change your mind, but I'll say this again for the hell of it: most circumcised men have fully functioning, pain-free sex lives. Most FGM recipients not only do not enjoy sex, but can have vast amounts of pain during sex, menstruation, and urination, and have a higher liklihood of complications (including infant death) during childbirth (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/lancetfgm.pdf).
Also, the point of the questions in my first post is to illustrate that male sexuality is vastly privileged over female sexuality, which is underscored by your posts. Male circumcision is pointless and shouldn't be done unnecessarily, but comparing it to FGM is just stupid. By doing so, you're equating a tiny bit of foreskin and perhaps a minor loss in sensitivity to the loss of a womans entire ability to enjoy sex (not to mention the additional pain. But, who cares, they're just women, right?). Now, we can agree that unnecessary genital surgery is a bad thing, but in practice, circumcision and FGM are two different phenomena that need to be addressed in different ways. And, inevitably, whenever a discussion about FGM comes up, there's always someone who says "FGM? But... But... what about MY FORESKIN GOD DAMN IT! Why aren't you talking about how to stop the HORRORS of CIRCUMCISION?!"
Those of us who discuss FGM and it's ramifications are sick of you. And since I've stated my case as clearly as I can, and lack faith that I have influenced you in the slightest, I'll merely shut up and refer you to the following thread, which discusses this issue in far greater depth: http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/06/28/some-good-news/
The point, Dan S., isn't that because men and women are wired differently, there's no way to compare the effects of damage to genitalia between the two sexes.
The point is that no one has suggested that male and female circumcision are physically equivalent. What is the same is the lack of rational examination, the rationalizations, the references to supposed medical benefits that have actually been shown to be false, the association with specific religious and cultural identities that any attack on the practice is called an attack on - these are the ways in which they are similar, and in many cases identical.
If we're going to attack the shoddy reasoning used to support the practice of female circumcision, we must first acknowledge that we've been using the same reasoning ourselves to support our own dubious cultural practices - then we have to stop.
I tried posting this earlier, but it didn't take. Trying again, w/o all the links:
"kellbelle1020, would you support making type 1 FGM legal (the removal of the clitoral hood, not the clitoris)?"
Defined correctly, FGM 1 is "excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or the entire clitoris." (WHO website). So, no, I would not support making type 1 FGM legal.
And growing up in a different culture is NOT the only difference between IMC and FGM. Again: most circumcised men have fully functioning, pain-free sex lives. Most FGM recipients not only do not enjoy sex, but can have vast amounts of pain during sex, menstruation, and urination, and have a higher likelihood of complications (including infant death) during childbirth (WHO website).
Also, the point of the questions in my first post is to illustrate that male sexuality is vastly privileged over female sexuality, which is underscored by your posts. Male circumcision is pointless and shouldn't be done unnecessarily, but comparing it to FGM is stupid. By doing so, you're equating (morally, if not procedurally) a tiny bit of foreskin and perhaps a minor loss in sensitivity to the loss of a woman's entire ability to enjoy sex. Now, we can agree that unnecessary genital surgery is generally bad, but in practice, circumcision and FGM are separate phenomena that need to be addressed in different ways; i.e. FGM is used to control female sexuality, whereas IMC is no longer practiced as a method to control male sexuality. And, inevitably, whenever a discussion about FGM comes up, there's always someone who says "FGM? But... But... what about MY FORESKIN GOD DAMN IT! Why aren't you talking about how to stop the HORRORS of CIRCUMCISION?!"
Those of us who discuss FGM and its ramifications are sick of you. We see no reason why we should stop IMC (which is already declining) before we can even address FGM, and most of us already see no reason for IMC anyway. Search for FGM on Pandagon, for instance, and the results give quite an in depth discussion of this.
Circumcision involves the loss of between a fourth to a third of the skin on the penis, and depending on how it is performed, it removes either most or all of the musocal membrane that constitutes the inner surface.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
You're right, using the words "tiny bit of foreskin" was a bad choice to describe that procedure. I apologize for minimizing it. However, the fact that the removal of the foreskin and the removal of the clitoris produce vastly different results remains accurate. I notice you didn't respond to this difference in loss of sexual functioning and how you've morally equated those.
I'm with Caledonian on this one. It's illogical to defend MGM and decry FGM - while FGM is more devastating, they're both harmful.
Some of you are coming at this in a very "Red Sox v Yankees" approach - as if you have to choose one as good and the other as evil. People, please: we can hate all East Coast baseball franchises at the same time.
(I hate the Yankees more, but baseball in general is nigh-unwatchable.)
I think Haidt makes a disastrous error when he lumps harm/fairness in with ingroup/respect/purity. Is there really an acceptable level of harm? We would say yes only when the benefit--care--outweighs the harm. Can you actually be too just? Too fair? Care too much? But it is painfully obvious that tribalism, obedience, and purity can be taken to monstrous extremes; millions have died, and continue to die, for these primitive emotions. If intellectuals reject tribal 'morality', it is because they have such a poor reputation, historically as well as rationally.
Tribalism, obedience, and purity survive only as unexamined values. They do not stand up to scrutiny and never have; the only defense of these is Haidt's ad populum argument. Haidt's defense of these reeks of postmodernist moral relativism, and I think he is coming dangerously close to defending the emotional roots of racism and caste distinction. I do not consider these defensible.
"It's illogical to defend MGM and decry FGM - while FGM is more devastating, they're both harmful."
I agree, which is why I'm not defending it and never have. But it's also illogical to say that the context of the two practices is irrelevant, while simultaneously saying that the only difference between the two is cultural context:
"1) Context? Who cares about the context?
2a) Female mutilation is a long-standing tradition in various other societies. The difference is that those societies haven't been ones you've grown up in."
It's also annoying that any mention of FGM automatically turns into a discussion of the less devastating male version and how it should be as/more important.
kellbelle1020, isn't it strange that the WHO definition includes the possible removal of the clitoris in each defined type? I thought I was clear with my qualification but I'll ask again: Would you support legalization to remove the prepuce if the clitoris itself was left intact? Even with that qualifier it still technically counts as type 1 since the WHO doesn't make a distinction.
"It's also annoying that any mention of FGM automatically turns into a discussion of the less devastating male version and how it should be as/more important."
Is it so hard to stand up against genital mutilation in general? That is all we want, and I don't see how throwing MGM into the mix would in any way hurt your cause.
kellbelle1020,
I don't think I've seen anyone saying that.
MGM is continually derided in these sorts of flamewars as 'just a bit of skin', and 'you don't even notice it's missing', and 'besides, [random discredited study] shows it's a good thing to lop of part of the weenis'. And it's not that it should be 'as/more important'. Just acknowledged as harmful.
It's sort of like Nisbet arguing that discrimination against atheists "isn't a civil rights issue". Compared to sexism, racism and homobigotry, atheist discrimination is a small problem. But don't deny it's a problem.
Anyways, [/trollfood]. The Purity and Duty pillars sound like post hoc rationalizations for an authoritarian patriarchy, and the Fairness pillar is just Harm in a nonviolent context. Fie on them.
Telomerex, Stogoe, I think we're talking at cross-purposes because in nearly every discussion I've had about this topic, most people opposed to FGM already do view the male counterpart as harmful. And are happy that it is declining in popularity here in the US. And are doing what they can to debunk the claims of health benefits, etc. It is not hard to oppose genital mutiliation in general. It is hard to try to address the real differences between the two without the conversation completely devolving, without people trying to convince me into a position I already hold, or without men devaluing the problem of women losing most/all sexual pleasure (not a common factor for males, but the PURPOSE for females). Using your analogy, Stogoe, it's as if someone in the midst of a dicussion of homobigotry keeps saying, "But atheists are discriminated against too! Why don't you care about that?" But, since people are starting to think I'm a troll (which was never my intention, I'm sorry) I'll now shut up and point you in the direction of further discussion here: http://feministe.powweb.com/blog/2007/06/29/comparing-circumcisions/
kellbelle1020, it's stuff like this that make my blood boil: http://www.nysun.com/article/62850
Again, I don't understand the anti male-circumcision brigade. Caledonian, you make the best argument so far for the persistent habit of certain people, almost every time folks sit down to try discussing FGM in an open forum, of figuratively kicking the door open, bursting inside, and starting to run around the room in circles, knocking over chairs and tables as they wave their arms around wildly* and shout over and over again "IT'S NOT JUST A 'TINY BIT OF FORESKIN'!" and "ADMIT IT'S HARMFUL!! COME ON, ADMIT IT!!" (to which an entirely reasonable response would be, especially after the nth time, yes, you do have a reasonable point here, but could you please just get out and leave us alone, and what's wrong with you, anyway?)
The problem here is that there's no particular reason to think that the argument's right. It's not at all clear why we have to fix our own shoddy reasoning-and-rationalization in order to attack the (somewhat) similar shoddiness used to defend FGM (which isn't to say that getting our own house in order wouldn't be a good thing); (indeed, I'm not even certain that attacking reasoning and rationalization is necessary the best or most important approach to take, although I'm extremely tentative 'bout that.). Beyond certain basic similarities, these are very different practices, as kellbelle1020 points out re: their use/purpose.
* For some reason I was rather tempted to write "wave their tiny arms around wildly," although I'm not sure why my imagination is presenting anti-MC advocates as small T-rexes.
"s it so hard to stand up against genital mutilation in general? That is all we want, and I don't see how throwing MGM into the mix would in any way hurt your cause.
Some people would be happy to take such an overall stance, others wouldn't, and why in any case do FGM opponents have to genuflect to your, er, cause? As folks have been pointing out, there are many differences, including - as Haidt points out, though I disagree with his conclusion - entirely different moral/cultural frameworks and - with some very few exceptions - entirely different parts of the world, with different political representation. Take away the (quite unappealing) gender dynamics of the discussion, and the equivalent might be, say, whenever folks started talking online about the rather horrible situation of women in parts of the middle east and environs - honor killings, etc. - other folks started loudly insisting that they must pay attention to the plight of middle-class white U.S. women who still faced some workplace discrimination and substandard childcare options. It's never happened, but if so, they'd no doubt they'd be considered a) to have some legitimate -rather less horrible, but that doesn't mean they don't exist! - grievances, b) incredibly rude, inconsiderate, and self-centered, and c) just bewilderingly thick, I mean, totally clueless. Yes, there are genuine underlying factors in common, they're both two aspects of a single overarching thing, and that's an very important discussion to have, but there's a time, place, and appropriate way to do that, and this wouldn't be it.
Add in the gender dynamic (how dare you talk about women's genitals being sliced off and their vaginas sown shut, without discussing how many baby boys get their foreskins cut off!!!!), and well - again, the obsessive-MC mentioners have some real points, but really, I would think it's just being squandered, because they're acting like complete clueless, well, jerks. No, no, stop scowling at me, that's really how this comes across to a lot of folks - supposedly, the ones who are wanted to join in and condemn MC (which they may or may not already be doing) - like utter clueless jerkiness.
Does it go the opposite way? I mean, are their folks who barge into discussions about MC and start insisting that they must must MUST talk about FGM?
I'm going to assume that you meant "the claim", not "the fact". Facts can't be any more or less accurate than they are.
No here one has suggested otherwise, so your point, while accurate, is a non sequitur.
And... you're an idiot. What's morally equal is the disgusting rationalization of procedures that have their roots in enforced conformity, deep-seated anxiety over sexuality and the normality of genitalia, worship of one's own cultural norms, and a profound contempt for bodily integrity.
THAT's what's being objected to, and what you seem to be utterly oblivious towards. You're every bit as sick and deluded as the people supporting the odious customs you condemn, and you can't see that they're impervious to your arguments for the same reasons you hold on so hard to your delusions.
Haha! ::points at Caledonian:: Your pet troll's acting up again, Pharyngulites. You might want to do something about that. He was almost rational until the last post there, but that one just ran right off the rails.
Anyhow, back to the topic. I can see how people would object to Fairness as a "pillar" of moral reasoning (and Purity and Duty are right out) but I do remember seeing various studies confirming that capuchin monkeys would refuse to take a reward from a "bad deal", when they apparently felt they'd been swindled. The link is here. That is, there seems to be some neurobehavioral reality to the idea of fair dealing.
Amazing the number of hes that want to deal acedemically with removal of a shes anatomy that relates to sexual pleasure.
I wonder if the hes that think this is a good idea would be willing to play tit-for-tat. You can "circumcise" my clitoris if I can circumcise your balls as well as your penis so we all encounter the same result.
Don't think I'd see a lot of he-hands in the air.
How can a series of posts be almost rational, but the summation of those posts be "off the rails"?
Anyhoo - this is just another case of an academic wanting to categorize perfectly reasonable standards as arbitrary social constructions. While it's certainly important to recognize that many, many of the rules and principles we live our lives by actually are arbitrary social constructions, there are some that are less so, and some not at all.
The cultures that engage in this delightful sexual modifications aren't just different. They are in fact wrong and different, and we are right to look down on them as primitive and barbaric.
He was almost rational until the last post there, but that one just ran right off the rails.
hmm. I'm missing this supposed trainwreck? did I not bring the right glasses?
disgusting rationalization of procedures that have their roots in enforced conformity, deep-seated anxiety over sexuality and the normality of genitalia, worship of one's own cultural norms, and a profound contempt for bodily integrity.
funny, but I got that this was Cale's point the very first time he ever made it, so very long ago when I first saw this discussion appear on Pharyngula.
made sense to me then.
still does.
what I see is a sideways view of Cale's point somehow being that all genital mutilation is equivalent in how it affects someone PHYSICALLY.
that was never his point.
am i wearing the wrong glasses?
His point is that the comparable socio/religious "traditions" are at the root of both kinds of genital mutilation, and the acceptance of either suggests a severe level of hypocrisy at the ideological level.
he's right.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who inevitably argue with him on this particular topic always seem to fail to see his point.
Cale, I think you should talk to Nisbet about how to better frame your argument.
:p
Dan S.,
Except that we weren't sitting down here to discuss FGM in the first place. The original post was on Haidt, and mentioned his (rather nauseating) position on FGM in passing. Pretty much immediately, people jumped in with "FGM is so incredibly horrible that no one should even try to justify it!" It's a perfectly reasonable response to say, "Well, why?" And since we're talking about moral differences and similarities across cultures, and whether one culture's obligated to accept another's moral judgment on matters like FGM, it's perfectly reasonable to bring up MGM as the most analogous thing that Americans commonly do.
Now it wasn't particularly reasonable to accuse the first person who condemns FGM of being a hypocrite because they failed to mention MGM in the same post. (Not that Caledonian was the one who did that.) But bringing up MGM kept the discussion more relevant to the original topic than simply asserting, repeatedly, that FGM is a horrible thing and Haidt is a horrible man for trying to justify it.
Anyway, I think Haidt is perfectly right that practitioners of FGM have--to them--compelling moral justifications of the practice. So do practitioners of MGM. But Haidt is wrong that I have any obligation to agree with, or to respect, their justifications. They conflict with my moral pillars--and yes, extreme FGM does so far more than the typical circumcision undergone by American males--and are only relevant insofar as knowing them allows me to pose more persuasive counterarguments.
Haidt, incidentally, seems to have his own personal pillar of Internal Consistency. Apparently that's the mightiest, tallest, firmest pillar of them all, since it dictates whether or not you're allowed to complain about a given moral system. Yet he seems to recognize that this is not a position most humans would agree with, so he can't explicitly place it in his list o' pillars. Which makes him almost the only person I've ever heard of who actually succumbs to the relativism paradox; no surprise that he gets tripped up by the interviewer. Usually "moral relativism" is just something you accuse people of in an argument; it's not something anyone actually supports in that caricatured form. Except Haidt, apparently. Weird.
Icthynic: All forms of religious expression are based in superstition. Some cause more harm than others. He becomes furious when people say this, others become furious when he denies it or says people are missing the point when they bring it up. He is not satisfied with people saying that male circumcision is unjustified and wrong, he wants equal energy and revulsion given to it.
It is not hypocrisy to be more revulsed and give more energy to preventing an act that causes more harm simply because similiar arguments are used to support it as another act that causes lesser harm.
"Cale, I think you should talk to Nisbet about how to better frame your argument.
Seriously. The debate here isn't over the points you discuss - which have at least arguable merit - but over the surrounding . . . well, social interaction and nuances, I guess. (It's not unlike arguments over, ah, a certain recent book title, in a way). To some degree, Caledonian's the lesser offender - having indeed consistently denied any easy equivalence and instead demanding a focus on root causes. The real fuss, imho and as i've said, is that it becomes - esp. dorid's excessively-capitalized contribution a mere 16 posts in - just another example in the constant demand that people cannot talk about FGM without MC. As others have pointed out, it's hard not to see a particular sexist slant to this, esp. when the same dynamic tends to occur across a range of women's issues. Again, I think Caledonian's argument is entirely worthy of consideration; however, there's a time and place and way of doing it - and perhaps there might have been a better chance of useful dialogue if their first comment didn't start off "fuck you, ma'am," and end "Or is the real problem that it's performed on males, which you don't have an interest in defending because it's outside the narrow bounds of your cause?"
Genital mutilation isn't a "woman's issue". It's a human rights issue.
Genital mutilation isn't a "woman's issue". It's a human rights issue.
Yes. But female genital mutilation is one that primarily affects women, and men only secondarily. I'm uncertain if you're referring to FGM in this sentence or both practices. Referring to both with the phrase "genital mutilation" - as in MGM (which just makes me think of film studios, frankly) is technically accurate, I suppose - although given the strength of the term, male circumcision really does just slip in by the skin of its -well, nevermind. At the same time, of course, it's hard not to see it as a rhetorical strategy intended to equate the two practices at some level.
Anton: "It's a perfectly reasonable response to say, "Well, why?" And since we're talking about moral differences and similarities across cultures, and whether one culture's obligated to accept another's moral judgment on matters like FGM, it's perfectly reasonable to bring up MGM as the most analogous thing that Americans commonly do."
Good point. But it's an issue that's emotionally loaded enough, and with enough of a history in this regard, that to start any sort of productive discussion along these lines, esp. out in the blogosphere, might well take some careful sensitivity - on both sides, but esp. with those bringing it up - something which didn't quite happen here (and not absenting myself from blame, either). . .
". Which makes him almost the only person I've ever heard of who actually succumbs to the relativism paradox; no surprise that he gets tripped up by the interviewer."
That was pretty funny - there are a few bits where one gets the impression that he really hasn't thought it all out, yet . . .
But the one cannot be condemned without the other. If you make an exception for male genital mutilation, your case against the female is crippled - which is precisely why antiFGM people like to talk about how harmless MGM is, because then it's not an exception.
You do not defeat hypocrisy by tiptoeing around it and using kid gloves. You defeat it by forcing confrontation.
"tribalistic thinking is clearly a factor in most people's moral decisionmaking."
Depressingly true. Once it's *your* group, ethnicity, gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, etc. or a representative thereof that's being criticized, all bets are suddenly off, reason and objectivity are thrown out the window. There have been some fascinating examples of this on "Real Time with Bill Maher" (never miss it) recently: someone incisively analyzes the Iraq war, trade with China, the state of the economy, etc...until the tribe they identify with gets questioned. Then they flip a switch, the mind shuts off, and they start emitting bad arguments, logical fallacies and overall fuzzy thinking. Sort of parallels the creationist mindset where a foregone conclusion is adopted (in this case, one of *my* group can't possibly be wrong, mistaken, guilty, deluded etc and must be defended at all costs) and the facts are twisted/altered to support the conclusion. Perhaps one of the hallmarks of a conscious and mature human being is the lack of (or at least diminished) blind group loyalty.
I know I said I'd give up on this thread, but for some reason I can't help it...
"kellbelle1020, it's stuff like this that make my blood boil"
Yes. Me too.
"But the one cannot be condemned without the other. If you make an exception for male genital mutilation, your case against the female is crippled"
I know this wasn't specifically addressed to me, but I feel compelled to respond on behalf of anti-FGMers. I (and many others) have expressed condemnation of both; I (and many others) have made no such exception. So I don't know why you think I'm sick and delusional, or why it's such a problem to say that they happen for different reasons*. Incidentally, one of the best ways to reduce the prevalence of FGM (which overwhelmingly includes clitoridectomy, regardless of type) is by substituting a less harmful rite of passage - namely, nicking, splitting, or removing the clitoral hood while leaving the clitoris intact. Am I delusional for thinking this is a good thing? Moving from great harm to much lesser harm? Yes, I am still fundamentally opposed to it. Bodily integrity should be a basic right, and should be the ultimate goal. But I also don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the better. And when the female equivalent of IMC as practiced in the US is a big part of the SOLUTION to the greater harms of FGM (yes, including most Type 1), it becomes easy to see why some anti-FGM people don't also focus on male circumcision.
*They only happen for the same reason at the most abstract level, which you laid out in a previous post. Yes, they both happen because of a "worship of cultural norms" etc. Yes, that attitude should be fought against. However, because there are different cultural norms at stake for each, combating the two practices (in a non-abstract way) must occur in different ways which shouldn't necessarily be conflated. Such conflation can be very counter-productive. In any case, I think it's more important to seek practical ways to reduce these phenomena than to have complete philosophical purity. Usually, such seekers already have philosophical purity anyway. But I'm certainly not going to fault someone for focusing their efforts on one gender, particularly when that gender experiences the greater physical and psychological harm.
Remember that "clitoridectomy" itself is usually defined so as to include removal or splitting of the hood without removing the clitoris. That makes it difficult to infer the frequency of partial/total clitoris removal from survey data. But again, according to UNICEF, the most common type of FGM in the African countries they surveyed was excision of the prepuce, without excision of the clitoris. In Indonesia, FGM is overwhelmingly type IV, without any flesh removed from the clitoris or hood.
But certainly we should try to encourage a shift from Types II and III to I, and from I to IV, and from IV to nothing.
I don't know that the norms are that different. Certainly there's one big difference, in that a large fraction of FGM supporters say that it preserves the virginity and chastity of the girl. But that's not the most common justification, and the others seem quite similar to those for MGM in Western cultures. Religious devotion; adherence to tradition and custom; cleanliness and hygiene (many Indonesians believe that clitoral pricking protects against disease); greater pleasure for the girl's spouse; and greater marriageability.
Some African tribes also have explicitly parallel reasoning for clitoridectomy and male circumcision. The Bambara and Dogon believe that children are born hermaphroditic, and that boys must have their "female" foreskins removed, while girls have to lose their "male" clitorises. I'm not sure how to deal with that level of ignorance, other than a massive and explicit-photo-laden sex ed campaign...which for various reasons the Mali government is unlikely to mount.
I agree with Tamler Sommers that error theory should be the outcome of all this. That's not a bad thing: error theory doesn't mean we have to give up on all place for reason in morality, or that we have no motivations to be moral, or that we have no basis on which to criticise the morality of our own culture or other cultures. It does mean that we have some deep-seated errors in our commonsense thinking about morality.
I'll look forward to Sommers' book.
What happens if I declare there's a single pillar -- long-term self-interest?
In the West, outside the USA, only Jews and Muslims think of male circumcision as "normal". Or rather, only they are circumcised.