Lisa Wade says: let’s have a “balanced” discussion on child mutilation!

Gwiz, Brilliant piece that captured our attention by highlighting the implicit bias involved in the very use of the term “mutilation.”

The Prime Directive

There are few health repercussions, so you really should have a more “balanced” view of this. It’s their culture, you know.

Sociological Images, a blog I used to follow until now, recently published an article by Lisa Wade called ‘A Balanced Look at Female Genital “Mutilation.”‘ (yes, with the scare quotes). Some other blogs have published criticism of this entry (see here and here). As it turns out, Lisa Wade is a tireless critic of people who are against FGM.

But you know, fair enough, let’s first see what this “balanced” discussion should be about. As it turns out, Wade’s thesis consists of seven facts:

1. Using the word “mutilation” is counterproductive.
2. Media coverage usually focuses on one of the more rare types of genital cutting: infibulation.
3. Research has shown that women with cutting are sexually responsive.
4. Health complications of genital cutting “represent the exception…

View original post 391 more words


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: