The only thing really amazing about this case is that others are amazed this is still happening...as in there seems to still be a double standard between men and women...which of course is alive and well.

It wasn't very long ago [60's?] that a womans' uterus belonged to her husband. Before she could have her tubes tied all the criteria had to be met. She had to have 3 children, be of a certain age and permission given from her husband. The really astounding thing about this is it didn't even matter if the woman's life was in danger due to having life threatening pregnancies...it only mattered what was best for the male spouse [penis].

Now let us fast forward 45 years and we see not too much has changed. Most insurance companies do not cover birth control pills for women but it certainly covers male impotence enhancing drugs. I'm sure if I think hard enough I could think of many other examples.

Sadly, it doesn't matter that this young woman's sexual organ [the one that gives her pleasure] has been mutilated due no doubt to some custom perpetrated by men or that she will be forced to marry a close relative of her father's choosing. What makes us think that the men in this country would refrain from sending her back to the male relatives who think her only redeeming quality is being a brood mare for the incubating of the male sperm. I say, absolutely nothing!

We must not do harm to the male sex organ, after all in our society that's the only thing that counts.

SG

But remember, female castration can only be performed once, so I can't see any reason why this woman would not want to live around the people who pinned her down, spread her legs, and sawed off some of the most sensitive skin on her body with a sharp rock. Possibly even her clitoris. Oh, sorry, I almost forgot that female orgasm is completely useless.

Plus, who really cares if she's going to be forced into matrimonial rape with her cousin? I mean, we all love our family, right? So why wouldn't she want her first cousin to assault her already tortured genitals? Besides, we don't really have proof that her father will otherwise pour gasoline on her and burn her alive, as is sometimes done to protect the "honor" of a family.

For the love of all that is good in this world... Any Cuban who sets foot on the Florida coastline gets to stay lest they continue living under communism. Yet this woman is forced to live among those who violently assaulted her and unwillingly altered her sexual organs, and will likely be forced to marry a man who will violate her for the rest of her life, or be exiled... or killed. Libery and justice for all.

"We must not do harm to the male sex organ, after all in our society that's the only thing that counts." "A rabbi may have given babies herpes during circumcisions. Three baby boys have been infected, and one died... Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, a mohel based in Rockland County, uses an ultra-Orthodox practice "metzizah bi peh," which means he uses his mouth to 'draw blood from the circumsion wound to remove impurities.'" We have infant boys dying from genital mutillation in our own country.

not male impotence enhancing drugs but drugs used for impotence....just to be clear.

SG

up within the Jewish society and the court system. Apparently there needs to be some kind of regulations regarding the way circumcisions are preformed by a Rabbi.

I'm sure there are many young women who also die from being circumcised but it is adding insult to injury to send one of these women who have lived through it back to the perpetrators of that act especially when she is in this country wishing asylum. The reasons for sending her back make no sense.

My conclusion is consistent with reality because even in the case of the circumcised male infants it is being decided and performed by Jewish men for their own reasons.

SG

SG

There are many people, men and women, who die from genital mutilation in other societies. But your conclusion was "We must not do harm to the male sex organ, after all in our society that's the only thing that counts." When, in fact, we only routine mutilate the genitals of male infants in our society - occasionally with fatal consequences.

The latent reason this woman is not being granted asylum is that what happened to her is not materially worse than what we allow done to children in this country. In fact, you seem rather cavalier about it yourself. Refering the matter back to religious authorities and the courts - who have neither authority nor inclination to stop a practice which is legal under both religious and state law.

Our government cannot simulatenous claim to abhor what happened to her so much that we will protect her forever, while simultaneously allowing similar acts to be perpetrated against our own citizens. If the government were to grant asylum for circumcision, it would then have to stop circumcision in our country.

In this country the parents of new born males have a choice in whether they elect to have circumcision performed on their sons or not.

My recommendation to you would be if you do not want your child/son circumcised then do not have it done...you, as I've already stated have a choice.

There is no doubt in my mind that in the society [Mali] of which this young woman was born into it is expected for females to be circumcised and hardly given a choice in the matter.

Just to refresh your recollection....

This decision would appear to go against legal precedent. Two years ago, the same board dismissed the case of a 17-year-old Somalian woman with a similar mutilation history. In that case, a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco overturned the board by comparing the young woman to immigrants from China who have been punished by sterilization for exceeding limits on family size. (The United States allows refugee status in these cases.) Like female genital mutilation, sterilization is not a punishment likely to be imposed more than once on the same person.

In this latest case, however, the board stubbornly reasserted its earlier interpretation and rejected the higher court's reasoning. It also took a hard line against Ms. Traore's secondary plea that if returned to her village, she will be forced into marriage with her first cousin. "It is understandable that … an educated young woman would prefer to choose her own spouse rather than acquiesce to pressure from her family to marry someone she does not love and with whom she expects to be unhappy" (Page 5), the board concluded. But "we do not see how the reluctant acceptance of family tradition over personal preference can form the basis for a witholding of removal claim" (Pages 5 and 6). Nor could Ms. Traore prove, the board said, that her father, who stated in a letter that she must enter the arranged marriage "to uphold the reputation of our family" (Page 6), would take severe action if the wedding failed to occur. The board's basis for believing this was that Ms. Traore's father did not spell out what the anticipated punishment would be. Score another victory for traditional family values.

I am not cavalier about circumcision, male or female of which you accuse me. So in turn I will say the same to you in regards this young woman...you seem rather cavalier about her case.

Unless I missed it somewhere females in this country are not routinely circumcised as are the males and once again, parents are given the option to have this procedure performed.

Are you a male? If so, I can understand your perspective about my statement and why it might bother you..."We must not do harm to the male sex organ, after all in our society that's the only thing that counts." I believe you will find many women in this country feel as I do.

Good day...

SG

"In this country the parents of new born males have a choice in whether they elect to have circumcision performed on their sons or not."

Now I understand, your objection is not to genital mutilation per se, but rather to a lack of parental choice as to whether or not it should be performed on one's child, long before he or she has any choice in the matter. Thank you for fully elucidating your position. I'm curious if you believe female genital mutilation would be acceptable in this country, considering that parents are clearly not coerced into endorsing the practice in the United States, indeed they would have to overcome a strong bias agaist it. And how does this accord with your theory that the phallus an unfairly protected genitalia in the United States?

"I believe you will find many women in this country feel as I do."

You may eventually find that feelings and beliefs have little to do with reason.

If we grant asylum to all women who are from countries where women are treated less well than men, about 90 percent of women would be eligible for asylum. I do think it would be useful to grant asylum for FGM when the mutilation has not yet occurred, but women who have already been mutilated cannot reasonably claim fear of FGM.

the kind of punishment she will receive from her father once she returns.

SG

It's easy to see you have a reading and comprehension problem. So instead of wasting my time explaining to you what you are so clearly determined to misconstrue, misrepresent and twist, I believe it best to just let you have the last word with yourself.

The one thing we agree on is this..."You may eventually find that feelings and beliefs have little to do with reason."

SG

Not bad for a woman who never went to college and barely finished high school, Sandy.

Still, it's primitive. Try taking some continuing ed English courses, girl.

I've presented a fairly well reasoned, if hastily assembled, argument why someone should not be granted political asylum when she fears her family rather than her government, and cannot be considered a victim of human rights violations by a government that allows similar treatment of its own citizens.

You have taken this single anecdotal case and extrapolated from it a belief that the United States protects male genitalia at the expense of any other good. Intriguied by this leap, I have asked you to further elucidate the reasoning which led you to this conclusion.

You are certainly under no obligation to explain. The ad hominem attacks in lieu of a reasoned respose though seem a bit over the top to me; perhaps I'm just too stupid to understand as you imply. Thank you for the last word, that at least is quite generous of you.

SouthernGal I have learned that some things never change:

prejudice sums it all up

synonyms: anger, control, ignorance, the list goes on and on.

for you forgotton veterans on America's streets, penniless and weary, today is for you. I have met you and I am ashamed.