Subject: Re: On interracial relationships, or anything
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:52:49 GMT
Wayne Johnson (ciacon@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Thomas) wrote:
: >Roger Brown (brownro@erols.com) wrote:
: >
: >(( cuts ))
: >
: >: A clitoridectomy eliminates a women's ability to feel sexual pleasure.
: >
: >And you *know* this?
: We can only know what women who've had the procedure tell us.
: They tell us exactly what Roger is relating to you.
: If you don't believe it, ask them. If you still don't believe it,
: it's your business. Not theirs. Not ours. Yours.
Gee, and all this time I thought that women could actually have
a *vaginal* orgasm. Silly me. I even thought that sufficient
stimulation of the G-spot (you know what that is, right?... if
you don't it lies *within* the vagina) could cause a woman not
only to have an orgasm, but even to ejaculate. My own personal
experience confirms this. Now, if you tell me that *vaginal*
orgasm, and female ejaculation, are tied inextricably to possession
of a clitoris, as a matter of anatomy/physiology and how the
relevant nerves are hooked up etc., I would be man enough to
admit that I did not know that. Just so long as non-facts
are not being foisted by those who are in no position to *know*.
I told you once before, I am amused by impossibility claims.
: >: It is forced upon the woman. She has no choice. This is subjugation of
: >: women by men.
: >
: >Society generally imposes its conventions upon its members.
: >Western society is not exempt, even though it is supposedly
: >based upon the rights of the individual.
: Tell it to Rosa Parks.
Indeed.
: >: Neither circumcision, nor body piercing affects a man's ability to
: >: feel sexual pleasure.
: >
: >You *assume* that circumcision for the female is all about
: >the elimination of sexual pleasure. I reject that assumption,
: >because if that is all male-dominant men wanted to accomplish,
: >why go through the charade of male circumcision?
: Your rejection of this "assumption" is sad, since it shows that you
: ignore the suffering of your own people selectively. It's all based
: on whether or not bad things are done by people you wish to deify.
No, I reject an assumption based on whether or not it corresponds
to Truth. I merely assert that female circumcision, like male
circumcision, is based on something other than the elimination
or enhancement of sexual pleasure. You are welcome to disagree,
but then in that case, tell me why should men undergo male circumcision
if all they want to accomplish, via female circumcision, is the
elimination of sexual pleasure for the female. The story, that
I have heard or read somewhere, and stated before on this thread,
so far without response, is that circumcision sought, in the male,
to remove the female prepuce (looks like a little vagina), and
in the female, to remove the clitoris (looks like a little penis).
Therefore it is symmetrical in symbolism, likely in intent also,
even if the female loses "more" in the process. Again, I do not
defend female circumcision. I merely question whether its
*intent* is as claimed by meddlesome outsiders who want the
practice banned: namely the oppression of women. It is not so
simple.
: I don't think we need to dwell on the subject of sexual mutilation.
: It defines only a specific subset of certain African tribes, and isn't
: universal. The point is, it truly torpedoes the idealistic notion
: that African is good/Europeans are bad, which sounds like a sugarcake
: notion of why evil occurs.
I challenge you to quote me where I have said that "African is
good/Europeans are bad". Challenge me by all means, but
challenge me on what I have said, not on some simple-minded
caricature thereof. In fact, I took pains to get specific.
The African *asili* includes "right to land" as a fundamental
value. Do you disagree? If so, why? Conversely, the European
*asili* includes no such right, otherwise the serfs of Europe
would never have been dispossessed. Do you disagree? If so,
why? (I'd really like to know, this is not rhetorical.) Now,
there are other differences besides, and I promise to quote
you Hegel if you want further elaboration on the European
worldview. But "right to land" suffices for the present purpose,
specifically to suggest that there is a fundamental flaw in
the European asili, for it is its failure to respect the
right to land of "the other", and even its failure to respect
the right of "the other" to control his own labor, that has
led, in turn, to feudalism, imperialism, slavery, colonialism,
neo-colonialism, and patriarchal sexism. Conversely, I do
not see in the African asili, a similar fundamental moral
flaw. See "Yurugu" for chapter-and-verse. Therefore, there
is a clear sense in which the African asili is superior to the
European asili. Now, clearly I do not say that Europeans
per se are bad, and that Africans per se are good, because it
is equally as obvious to me as it appears to you that confuting
examples may be brought forward of bad Africans and allegedly
good Europeans. A bad constitution will give you bad
results; a good one does not guarantee that it would always
be followed. If your mind is not supple enough to follow
the contours of these distinctions, then forget it. If,
as I think more likely, you use obtuseness as tactic, I
wish you would stop it.
: Reject reality all you like. Perhaps reading the accounts of the
: young women who were mutilated in this fashion would change your mind;
: but I doubt it.
Change my mind about what? The dishonesty of those
who use the word "mutilation" to describe what is clearly
"circumcision". Or the proposition that the practice of
female circumcision is a sufficient proof of the oppression
of women? It clearly is not, and I have argued, so far
without valid rebuttal, why it is not. I would urge you,
if you want to save the allegedly oppressed women of
Africa, subset or otherwise, that you first establish
yourself on a foundation of truth and logic. You might
also consider directing your attention instead at family
breakdown and prostitution in the West, which are conditions
that to my mind cause the oppression of women more than
female circumcision can.
: >The European worldview is *not* a universal.
: The European worldview is not what these young women are upset about,
: when they say that they were abused by being sexually mutilated.
The mission-school girls that object to female circumcision
may be victims of the European worldview more than you
admit.
: Wayne "I notice that anyone who objects to what African men do, is
: accused of having the European world view..." Johnson
: ciacon@ix.netcom.com
Nothing quite so simple Wayne. If you consistently refuse
to take other than a one-dimensional Euro-view of Africa
and the Africans, while refusing resolutely to crack
open an African-centered book, you could be accused of
proceeding from within a Euro-asili even if you were
heaping praise on African "tribes". Don't you find it
a wee bit inconsistent that on the one hand you are blind
to European crimes against humanity, saying that they are
"no different" from us, yet as soon as Africa comes into
view, the very notion of a common African asili is objected
to by you on the opposite ground that these "tribes" are
all different. This kind of inconsistency on any matter
connected with race is characteristic of Euro-thought,
and explains how come they are the ones that can institute
and maintain a system of racism (white supremacy), yet,
whenever it is challenged, the challengers would be
the ones deemed to be "racist". Africentrists are in
this way despised, and unworthy of being read, because
their books proceed from an "unacceptable premise",
namely that (shock!) there are racial differences.
And I notice that certain Blacks or near-Blacks complain
loudest and longest at any attempted African-centered
challenge to the manifestly unjust existing Order, and
are the most passionate defenders of the European worldview.
"Adopt ye not the ways of the oppressor."
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery".--Bob Marley
Contents | Previous | Next