"It's just mutilation"

[RandBlade]

What happened when anti-FGM campaigner asked people in the street to sign a petition in favour of mutilating girls

A Londoner who suffered female genital mutilation has warned that political correctness is hampering the fight to stamp it out after asking people to sign a fake petition in its favour.

Leyla Hussein, 32, said many were scared to speak out against FGM because they were worried about criticising another culture.

She decided to conduct an experiment to see “how crazy political correctness has become” but was left in tears by the end.

Approaching shoppers with the petition supporting FGM, she told them she wanted to protect her “culture, traditions and rights”.

In only 30 minutes 19 people signed it with some saying they believed FGM was wrong but because it was part of Ms Hussein’s culture they would add their names. Only one person refused to sign.

Her campaign against FGM is the subject of a Channel 4 documentary, The Cruel Cut, which features the shocking scenes where she asks people to sign the petition.

Speaking after the experiment in Northampton, Ms Hussein broke down and said she was scared by people’s reactions.

“I kept using the word ‘it’s just mutilation’. They were like ‘yes, you are right’. How can anyone think that’s okay?”

She added: “FGM is not culture, it is violence. Stop using the culture word. This is happening to children. We are human beings, we can’t watch children being cut, I don’t care what culture you belong to.”

Ms Hussein, who is co-founder of the anti-FGM charity Daughters of Eve, is calling on the Home Office to take responsibility for drawing up an action plan to eliminate FGM in this country.

No single government department has responsibility for ending FGM. Instead, work is shared between the Home Office, departments of Health and Education, the Ministry of Justice and Crown Prosecution Service. The documentary follows Ms Hussein as she tries to secure an interview with Home Secretary Theresa May, and features the upsetting stories of a group of FGM survivors living in the UK, some of whom have been left wetting the bed or unable to have children.

It also highlights the impact that articles published in the Evening Standard have had on the fight against FGM. More than 66,000 women in the UK have already undergone FGM and about 24,000 girls are at risk.

Although the practice has been outlawed in Britain since 1985, it is still carried out. Victims are typically from families who moved to the UK from countries such as Somalia, Sudan, Senegal and Egypt, where it is widespread. Ms Hussein, who was cut when she was seven in Somalia, said: “Four women held me down and cut my clitoris. I felt every single cut. I was screaming so much I just blacked out.”

The documentary, to be broadcast next week, comes after public health minister Jane Ellison warned that vulnerable girls were being failed because people do not want to be seen as “culturally insensitive”.

In an interview with the Evening Standard she said: “Because of that caution, bizarrely we’ve ended up protecting these vulnerable girls the least.” Ms Ellison condemned FGM as child abuse and said she was determined to end decades of failure to protect women.

The Cruel Cut will be shown on Channel 4 on Wednesday, November 6 at 10.45pm.

Scary! I like the line at the end, we as a society need to determine if we prefer to protect the most vulnerable who need the support or to protect each and every "culture" come what may. You can't always do both.

[Hazir]

Indeed, I can't understand why you'd be understanding of something this harmful to women, let alone go as far as supporting it with your signature.

[Dreadnaught]

I comfort myself in the knowledge that people who sign random petitions might index slightly higher on a crazy scale.

[Lewkowski]

Yet more proof that some cultures are simply inferior to others.

[Timbuk2]

Indicative of several things, and I'd warrant none of them are what our Ms Hussein here is discussing.

Firstly, out of 20 people stopped on the street, how many would know all that FGM is, and what it involves.

Secondly, British people who enter into a discussion on the street are going to be polite, and will respect another's culture, such is their way. Couple that with the ignorance in point one above and you will get a large majority who would sign this petition.

Thirdly, how long did she spend petitioning on the street, and where? One town in middle-England, for all of a day? A morning? An hour? Hardly indicative of anything at all. You would get the same number of people signing up to say that we should send rockets to the moon to mine for more cheese.

~

Her message is noble, and anything that raises awareness of the horrors of FGM is a plus, but this is not the age-old "political correctness gone mad" at all. If anything it highlights the tolerance toward other cultures that people in general, and perhaps the British in this example in particular, have in this increasingly multi-cultural society we find ourselves. And that is not a bad thing.

[Khendraja'aro]

What Timbuk said. I mean, we recently presented a "phrase translation" for certain British terms to our pupils, detailing what the Brits usually say, what we understand it to mean and what the Brits actually wanted to say.

I mean stuff like the famous "not bad"

[LittleFuzzy]

Secondly, British people who enter into a discussion on the street are going to be polite, and will respect another's culture, such is their way. Couple that with the ignorance in point one above and you will get a large majority who would sign this petition.

Yeah. I was thinking that next, we're going to be shocked by the results of the SPI, or Milgram's study. Actually there are parallel's to Milgram's study here. I'm certain someone's already done the experiment but I'd be surprised if all you needed to get agreement from a whole bunch of random people on the street is something more than to appear like a normal and reasonable person and to hand-wave off what should be sticky points in a non-abrasive manner. At least for things that aren't widespread and polarized issues. You'd probably see less success with something like abortion as the topic in most of the US.

[GGT]

The Milgram Effect make me think less about abortion, and more about infant male circumcision. At least in the US, and how a 'random survey' of people on the street might turn out.

[sheadunne]

I think it was Leno who did the survey to end Women Suffrage in the US. He received a surprising number of signatures from both women and men. It's a bit different than "It's only mutilation," but the idea that people don't always understand, are put on the spot, and are trying to be polite, does play a factor in these types of surveys.

There was also another one, I can't remember who, on whether or not people preferred Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act. Most people didn't want Obamacare but did want the Affordable Care Act.

That said, WTF people! It's horrid!

I think there's also a wide difference between Infant Male Circumcision (IMC) and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), although I can certainly see why there would be similarities. Perhaps I'm not aware of the effects of IMC, but it certainly hasn't impacted my life in any negative way, and certainly not in any way similar to FGM. IMC is closer on the spectrum to having an infants ear pierced, than it is to FGM. Now Foot Binding is closer to FGM than it is to IMC, in my opinion.

It's all a bit crazy what a society is willing to accept for no other reason than it was done in the past.

[GGT]

...It's all a bit crazy what a society is willing to accept for no other reason than it was done in the past.

Well, IMC was passed off as a "medical necessity" for decades. I'm pretty sure the US military frowned upon soldiers with penile foreskins, like flat feet or myopia, that were thought to cause problems in the WWII theatre. Lots of conflicting medical literature since then.

Ancient foot binding and ribcage constrictions still exist for females, in the modern fashion world of 6 inch stiletto heels or "sexy" corsets. But that damage doesn't have to be permanent.....like excising normal tissue is.

PS, you must be a circumsized male if you equate IMC with pierced earlobes. Ammirite?

[Khendraja'aro]

Pierced earlobes heal and they're not potentially life-threatening either.

[sheadunne]

PS, you must be a circumsized male if you equate IMC with pierced earlobes. Ammirite?

I suggested it was a spectrum of things done and that IMC was closer to PE than to FGM.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/1....circumcision/

[Khendraja'aro]

Oh, an opinion from CNN. Makes the whole argument weigh in your favour, of course!

[sheadunne]

What argument is that? I don't believe I stated anything other than a suggestion that there is a spectrum of acts performed.

[Khendraja'aro]

And I reject said suggestion on the basis of one being reversible and the other being pretty much non-reversible.

Also, "spectrum" implies comparability with some sort of one-dimensional scale. That's pretty much not the case here. There are multiple factors to consider which throws a "spectrum" right out of the window.

[sheadunne]

I guess we'll disagree. Which is fine. I'm not pushing an agenda so it doesn't matter to me much. I'll still continue to lump all forms of body disfigurement into one category and use a spectrum to distinguish between those that I feel are minor with minimum risk, those with greater risk but none or minor impediment, and those that are completely and utter unacceptable. You can make your value judgements using any type of system you prefer. It all works out.

Edit: On a side note. I still have the hole in my ear from when I got my ear pierced 20+ years ago and I haven't put anything through it in over 15+ years. While the hole has probably sealed, the mark is visible and therefore I consider it a disfigurement since it wasn't naturally occurring. You're free to classify it however you like.

[Khendraja'aro]

I'd rather classify such procedures as "neccessary even though posing a risk" which would include vaccinations, life-saving procedures and such. With the other end being "stuff that can be left alone until the human in question is able to decide for himself".

That's what I'm objecting to: It's an unneccessary procedure of dubious value subjected upon people who can't yet decide for themselves. The only reason it's still on the books is either because of "tradition" or because "God said so", two very specious arguments of zero value.

[RandBlade]

Neither are reversible so odd claim.

[Khendraja'aro]

Then it's not reversible. Doesn't make the whole thing any better, though. It's still an unnecessary procedure which can be left for an age until the human in question can do his own informed decision.

[Dreadnaught]

Vaccinations are not reversible either.

While my views on this have changed substantially, I wouldn't go so far as to call it wholesale unnecessary or even really wrong.

[RandBlade]

Then it's not reversible. Doesn't make the whole thing any better, though. It's still an unnecessary procedure which can be left for an age until the human in question can do his own informed decision.

I find it creepy I agree but am not sure if there's any harm. I know Amanda had her ears pierced as a child because her parents thought she'd wear earrings when older and it apparently hurts less or something else if does as an infant. I find that cosmetic decision odd personally but similar to male circumcision.

Vaccinations are not reversible either.


While my views on this have changed substantially, I wouldn't go so far as to call it wholesale unnecessary or even really wrong.

I would go so far as to say it is wholesale unnecessary. There is absolutely NO known provable need to do it. None whatsoever. Wrong is a different question.

However none of this is remotely comparable to the barbaric practice of FGM.

[Loki]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...ircum-aids.htm

[GGT]

I suggested it was a spectrum of things done and that IMC was closer to PE than to FGM.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/06/1....circumcision/

Ear lobe tissue is not equivalent to male penile tissue or female clitoral/labial tissue. Look, anyone can pierce their earlobes or ear cartilage to wear jewelry. They can even use plugs or gauges to stretch earlobe tissue, without losing tactile sensation...or hearing abilities. And if they decide their lobe tissue has too many holes, dangles too low, or is too floppy....a simple surgical procedure can restore the ear lobe, retaining its sensory and cosmetic value.

That principle does not apply to genital tissue. You can't cut off 'part' of the clitoris, or 'part' of the foreskin, and retain its full functionality as sensory or glandular tissue. And it doesn't 'grow back'. Much of our new science on genital tissue and surgical procedures can be attributed to trans-gender and gender-dysmorphic folks, who pioneered the way.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...ircum-aids.htm

That's nothing new, Loki. If you read closely, the cultural (patriarchal) influences will become apparent.

[earthJoker]

I would go so far as to say it is wholesale unnecessary. There is absolutely NO known provable need to do it. None whatsoever. Wrong is a different question.

Am I reading this right? You say there is no prove for the need of vaccinations?

[GGT]

I'm pretty sure he was referring to infant male circumcision.

[GGT]

It's perfectly understandable that men without foreskins, particularly Jewish men, would try to portray male circumcision as "no big deal" even though it is. And it's not too surprising that some people view female circumcision on par with ear piercings....including other women.

Khen brought up age of consent as an important factor. I agree with that...but don't think 12-13 year olds can give full, informed consent. They're still likely to make decisions based on parental or peer influence. The drive to feel part of a culture, 'like everyone else', makes it very hard to buck trends, even with medical facts and rationales.

I know this because I gave consent for both of my sons to be circumsized as infants, using gomco-clamps. It wasn't an easy decision, and I still feel conflicted about it. I can't imagine the difficulties new parents face, if they come from cultures that have treated female clitoral/labial resections the same way male penile foreskin resections have been treated in the west. No big deal. It's clean, hygienic, aesthetically pleasing. Can't miss something never known. Just do it.

[GGT]

Also, I don't know what to make of the "pin prick" crowd, either. Some religious groups have re-defined male and female circumcisions as "drawing blood from the genitals"....accomplished with a pin-prick. It's not genital cutting, resection, or mutilation, but still meets religious 'standards'.

[earthJoker]

I'm pretty sure he was referring to infant male circumcision.

To me it isn't clear from context, that's why I am asking.

[Khendraja'aro]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...ircum-aids.htm

Oh, that old idiocy again: "Hey, if you wear those gloves, your chances of being brutally mutilated while juggling chainsaws are reduced by 5%!"

Good grief.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...giene-and-stds

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

[earthJoker]

It's also absolutely no argument to do this in childhood. I think we all agree that this is only relevant for men that have sex.