Pharyngula

Posted by: Ewan R | July 27, 2010 2:19 PM

If medical neglect of children can be a prosecutable crime here in benighted America, why isn't the UK doing something to stop active, vicious mutilation of children?

Cowardice.

Posted by: oihorse | July 27, 2010 2:22 PM

Cue spine shrudders. What a horrible practice to inflict on a person.

Posted by: steve | July 27, 2010 2:27 PM

Sure makes it an easy choice for the "What I did during summer vacation" essay.

Posted by: KennyG | July 27, 2010 2:29 PM

I clicked the link; couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing. Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, what a horrible thing to do to someone.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 27, 2010 2:34 PM

If I remember right, the UK is also really weak on rape prosecutions as well.

In short, they tend to whip out the cowardice when it comes to women's rights.

It's an unfortunate mark and there's nothing to be done other than the UK to get better at this shit and for UK feminists to continue to raise an outcry to prompt positive changes rather than bask in the relative qualities of being "better" at some women's rights compared to third world countries.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 27, 2010 2:37 PM

Sure makes it an easy choice for the "What I did during summer vacation" essay.

Posted by: Matt Keefe | July 27, 2010 2:38 PM

Archaic cultural practices seem to survive longer amongst certain immigrant communities in the UK than they do in the US or in France - possibly owing to differences in the way immigration has historically occurred here, possibly owing to demographic differences, and possibly owing to our government's community-centric approach to immigrants, ethnic minorities and the religious, all of which can result in self-appointed traditionalist leaders holding sway over isolated, under-represented and under-served populations (euphemistically branded 'communities' in the public facing debate here).

Similar revelations about the continuing extent of forced marriage occur every few years, as do occasional cases of so-called 'honour killing'. In some ways, there's over-reporting of these sensational cases, certainly if compared to other forms of domestic abuse occuring rampantly here as elsewhere, but at they same time they occur predictably and almost intractably amongst certain groups, suggesting there are members of our population we are simply not doing enough to protect. Our failed approach in this regard has resulted in a number of societal problems, besides the crimes committed here against neglected and abused individuals.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | July 27, 2010 2:40 PM

Remember kids: If something is technically illegal, no one will actually do it! That's why we don't need the police or the FBI. Or the Royal Knights or whatever it is they have in the UK.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 27, 2010 2:40 PM

Don't start. Not even in jest.

--o--

The British are timid when it comes to standing against any belief based in Islam no matter how inhuman, even female genital mutilation or honor killings, because they don't want to be tagged as "discriminatory".

Posted by: steve | July 27, 2010 2:44 PM

It's made pretty clear to the poor girls that they should keep schtumm.

Essay choice aside, the school system is an obvious place for the detection and reporting of such crimes.

Assuming the girls are

a) even going to school

and

b) not going to some faith based madrassas

Posted by: IslandBrewer | July 27, 2010 2:45 PM

Maybe if one could construct an argument that FGM was somehow libelous to homeopaths, the UK might prosecute the cases more vigorously.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 27, 2010 2:47 PM

others will be "cut" or circumcised and sewn closed here in the UK by women already living here or who are flown in and brought to "cutting parties" for a few girls at a time in a cost-saving exercise.

Cutting parties? Really, it keeps getting worse. This is hard fare to read while waking up.

Posted by: bellerophon | July 27, 2010 2:48 PM

A lot of the problem arises from the fact that the last government indulged for many years in a huge spree of new laws but without providing resources to enforce them. They had a sort of legislative diarrhoea where every aspect of life was affected without prioritising the more important laws. Many of the new laws were knee jerk responses or window dressing to give the impression of action.
What this has meant is that laws such as FMG were given no priority over for example laws against selling goods in imperial measures. For the government, passing the law was enough to silence critics and they had no real interest in what happened once the ink was dry. FGM deserves the most stringent penalties but they exist on paper only

Posted by: Mephit | July 27, 2010 2:50 PM

8# It's not normal practice to have an annual check-up in the UK.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 27, 2010 2:54 PM

Katharine:

Which may be why I'd be all too happy if someone hacked off the dicks of any man that supports this horrific mutilation

That's ignoring the fact that a great deal of FGM is supported by and perpetrated by women. In Ayaan Hirsi Ali's case, her father was absolutely opposed to it, he had discussed it with his wife and made his views clear. The moment he and his wife were out of the house, grandma went to town.

Posted by: Katharine | July 27, 2010 2:55 PM

Can someone also file a huge complaint with the Grauniad for putting a fucking picture of A YOUNG CHILD SCREAMING IN PAIN FROM BEING MUTILATED on the front page?

First time I read something like this it horrified me to the extent that I started actually screaming and crying and could not sleep at all.

For reference, I don't even flinch at most gory pictures and have a stomach of steel.

Sexual violence horrifies me in a way that no other violence does.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 27, 2010 2:56 PM

If I remember right, the UK is also really weak on rape prosecutions as well.

This isn't sarcasm. If someone isn't, I'd like to read about their laws and see if/how they got around the various legal issues that form a refrain when I think about Acquaintance Rape, among other things.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | July 27, 2010 2:57 PM

PZ, I'm sure Richard Dawkins will have told you just how powerful the Muslim lobby is here in the UK. They are getting everything handed to them, and then get to use the persecuted card when anybody dares to criticise them. As the C of E dies on its feet, and the Roman Catholic church becomes more and more unpopular due to the abuse scandals, Islam is there and ready to replace them both.

That is absolute fucking bullshit.

Muslims are possibly the most persecuted minority group in the UK. In many areas they are targets of verbal and physical abuse. The BNP and other far-right organisations use criticism of Islam as a cover for bigotry against Asian immigrants, and use scaremongering about Muslims "swamping Britain" as a pretext to call for tighter immigration controls.

I'm sure someone will chime in at this point with "Islam is a religion, not a race". But the fact is that a high proportion of UK Muslims are of Pakistani, Bangladeshi or other Asian ethnicity, and Islamophobia in the UK is inextricably linked to, and is used as cover for, anti-Asian racism.

Obviously, it goes without saying that female genital mutilation is absolutely wrong and horrific, and I have no wish to hijack this thread. But I can't let bullshit scaremongering about an imaginary "powerful Muslim lobby" pass unremarked.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2010 2:58 PM

The article actually referred to what I think will be the best arguments to convince communities to end this practice. Communities that have ended the practice have convinced people (men and women both) that this is a practice that (a) makes it very likely that you will have stillborn grandchildren, (b) makes no difference as to whether your daughter will be "good" or not, (c) can send you to prison, and (d) makes women less able to enjoy their sexual relationship with their husbands. (Not unable, but way less able - I have read FGM activists who have undergone severe genital cutting discussing how it does not eliminate sexual pleasure - will find citation later.)

Isn't it Sweden that made the practice illegal and then got the pediatric community to do genital exams on young girls (tied to school attendance?) and report mutilated kids?

@Feynmaniac - do what I do. Save the "what about Teh Menz" quips for the gay netball and rainbow threads. I lost all patience with the Dick's Law morons when I saw the damn subject raised in the comment thread of an NPR story about women in prison being forced to labor in shackles, leg, and belly chains. Fuck that noise.

Posted by: Katharine | July 27, 2010 3:01 PM

Caine, thank you for also touching on an example of why I have a special hate of conservative women.

It's bad enough that sociopathic/brainwashed/stupid conservative men want to restrict women's rights, but SELF-HATING sociopathic/brainwashed/stupid conservative women just make me want to kick 'em in the vulvas repeatedly.

Posted by: Katharine | July 27, 2010 3:05 PM

And no, it's not one of those secret weird fucked up sort of 'women hate other women' sort of things that makes me hate conservative women, it's the fact that they act like female, nonlethal versions of (majority male) violent criminals who were badly abused as children and are mentally/psychologically so fucked up inside that they perpetrate horrific, horrific, horrific violence - my reaction comes out of nothing but sheer revulsion at the fact that these sorts of human beings exist.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2010 3:07 PM

@38 - Actually, FGM is a practice that is practiced by some, but not all, Muslim groups, and some, but not all, Christian and animist groups.

The stupid practice stretches back to the ancient Egyptians, who were not Muslims, and spread to much of Africa and the Near East. It is an African problem, not a Muslim problem.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmi1MI_39jeNhOwbOgXwTPrSwHbGizTOiA | July 27, 2010 3:11 PM

One would assume that a cursory genital examination would be standard routine in an annual physical, right?

Uh... wrong. I am 27, UK born-and-bred, and female. No-one here has an annual physical. As far as I'm aware no-one (not even my mother) inspected my genitals between toilet training (at, what, 3ish) and the first time I was called by my practice nurse for a cervical smear in my late teens.

Posted by: sydneycarton | July 27, 2010 3:14 PM

It seems to me that people are afraid to crack down on this because they're afraid it will be seen as being a statement against Islam.
It's not an Islamic thing. The fact that Islam is oppressive towards women enables it, sure. If FGM is analogous to anything it's Chinese footbinding. It's perpetrated on women by mothers in an attempt to make them more desirable as brides in communities where that's the only perceived worth for a daughter. Like footbinding, its purpose is to cater towards a sexual fetish. In the case of footbinding, it was that the crease in the soles of "lotus feet" was considered erotic. In this case the male's ability to use the female while giving her nothing is the fetish. Virginity is also a fetish, and that's another area where Islam helps perpetuate what is essentially a cultural issue in the same way that Confucian values helped to perpetuate footbinding.
I think this analogy to footbinding also helps to explain why FGM is so terrible and why it's so much different than male circumcision. (The subject to which this thread will inevitably devolve.)
Footbinding, which had been a tradition lasting centuries has died out in China. Several prominent women in the aristocracy advocated vocally against the practice, and pressure from the west forced Empress Cixi to outlaw it temporarily. It was permanently outlawed under the Kuomintang during the Chinese Civil War, and the ban is still in effect today. Societies in communities were formed as support groups for women who had recently unbound their feet, and marriages started to be arranged at birth so that the size of the feet was not a factor when negotiating a contract.
It looks like members of the middle eastern/african communities are starting to work against FGM from the inside while western advocates apply pressure to end the practice externally. We're on the right track here.

Posted by: cody.cameron | July 27, 2010 3:26 PM

Sorry to nitpick, but technically the number of deserved arrests could be much lower, as presumably some sort of alleged authority is performing the mutilations, and they probably mutilate more than one person, so strictly speaking, we might estimate 1-2000 arrests. Though postulating such an industrious mutilator seems more absurd; lower bounds may be hard to estimate.

In any case it is an appalling figure, and shameful to realize so many people live in modern societies yet still suffer from the barbarism of ancient history. I wonder how badly we rate here in America?

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | July 27, 2010 3:35 PM

Cody:

The nitpick doesn't stand unless the mutilators are also guilty of a large number of counts of kidnapping: the law

makes it an offence to carry out FGM or to aid, abet or procure the service of another person.

Every parent, grandparent, or other adult who tells someone to mutilate a girl is breaking the law, even if the parent in question isn't in the room, or even within a hundred miles, when the child is attacked.

Posted by: cody.cameron | July 27, 2010 3:38 PM

Ah, good point Vicki.

Posted by: Spiro Keat | July 27, 2010 3:43 PM

The various flavors of political parties in the UK are falling over themselves to court the various religious votes.

The average Brit is sickened by the mutilation of these children but everyone is scared of being branded racist if they speak out against it.

It matters not a fuck that Islam is a religion, not a race; FGM is just WRONG, whether it is done on religious or cultural grounds.

Sometimes I am deeply ashamed to be British.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2010 3:46 PM

@ Tom #52 - In the US, doctors are mandated reporters of child abuse - if they suspect child abuse, they are legally required to report it, and confidentiality does not apply. Furthermore, schools, camps, etc. often mandate that children receive physical examinations and vaccinations in order to participate in school activities, and all the forms that I've seen require the physician to note if there are any abnormalities in a wide range of physical systems, including "genitals." No one complains that this is "forcing medicine on people." (Well, some people do, but those are anti-vaccination people and faith healers, and most of the Pharyngula folks don't approve of allowing them to have their way with children in their care.)

Parents could easily be required to obtain a medical examination for their children in order for them to participate in school and other youth activities. FGM is child abuse, and the state has a legitimate interest in preventing it. This is not "forcing medicine on people" any more than requiring that children be vaccinated against measles is.

Saying that efforts to use legitimate state powers to prevent such a severe crime are inappropriate smacks of extreme libertarian trollishness.

Posted by: bigdavesb | July 27, 2010 3:47 PM

UK readers go here:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

Get your local MPs details and send them a message.

Go, now!

Posted by: Matt Keefe | July 27, 2010 3:50 PM

For a blog read by sceptics, there's an awful lot of repetition of irrational lines about Islam in the UK. We've got our own - that is, British - cultural problems that contribute in a big way. We're a society where class is still very much in evidence. We do very little to enable the individual in the context of the class or community to which they are crudely perceived as belonging. It's no surprise if other paternalistic, communitarian cultures conspire with that in destructive ways, but the idea that they're simply importing it and we're all turning a blind eye to it out of some self-parodying version of English, or 'British' politness is - to use the Queen's English - bollocks.

Posted by: Personal Failure | July 27, 2010 3:56 PM

My first encounter with Female Genital Mutilation (and we should never use the more palatable "FGM") was an article written by Iman discussing her experience with Female Genital Mutilation. She was mutilated in a tent, by a woman using a piece of glass. The glass was curved and green, obviously a broken off piece of a beer bottle. They stitched together the remains of her vulva with thorns, but they stitched them together too tightly, and she could not urinate. She nearly died from it.

Iman had no idea what female genitals are supposed to look like, and was incredibly embarrassed the first time a fellow model gasped upon seeing Iman's mutilated genitals in a dressing room. She has gotten over her embarrassment and now fights for an end to the practice.

This isn't about religion or cultural practices. This is about the mutilation of minor children for no medical benefit, mutilation often done without sterilization or pain relief, that results in serious health consequences for the victims. This is not acceptable.

I think the idea of requiring yearly health exams for minor children that include a visual inspection of the genitals and mandate immediate reporting if anything suspicious is found is a reasonable solution, and I am appalled that no one in the UK or US cares enough about girls to mandate this. (Especially in the UK which has socialized medicine, so it wouldn't be a hardship for anyone.)

Posted by: Spiro Keat | July 27, 2010 3:58 PM

Matt Keefe

It has nothing to do with class; it's the usual "nowt to do with me lad" from the public, and craven cowardice from the government.

Posted by: AnneH | July 27, 2010 4:00 PM

Oh, us Americans are not innocent-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPDGk14Jkw0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvX5J7lAv4g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS1inzYWa0Q

Posted by: octopod | July 27, 2010 4:05 PM

Can anyone explain this? From the social worker quoted in the article, explaining what she has to work against, and what the people who do it see in FGM:

"It is a power negotiation mechanism, that women use to ensure respect from men. It prevents rape of daughters and is a social tool to allow women to regain some power in patriarchal societies."

I really cannot understand how FGM could be perceived as a way for women to regain power in negotiations with men. Could someone make sense of it for me?

(Note: There is no sarcasm in this comment. I really do want to figure out what the hell is going on with this rationale.)

Posted by: davem | July 27, 2010 4:08 PM

As others have said, it's political correctness, and a fear of being accused of racism. I'm pretty sure that the UK is not the only place where this happens - probably France and Holland have the same problem, given the proportion of immigrants they have.

We need a new expression for it - FGM, as someone said, doesn't sound too bad. 'Cutting parties' is harder hitting, and reveals it for what it is. Call it 'slashing' or 'butchery', and it sounds worse. It needs to sound worse in normal parlance.

Nothing will get done until there is a TV programme on it - then MPs will act. BBC/Channel 4 - wake up! They will only act if somebody asks questions in the house, and the answers to those questions are of interest to the population - ie worth votes.

Posted by: Don Quijote | July 27, 2010 4:08 PM

Well it got off to a good start.We have Brianblackbery hitting the nail on the head, followed by Walton who must be Charles Windsor. It doesn´t matter where they come from. Muslims are Muslims and they will not speak out against any law that is imposed on them in the name of their book. Ask any of them to denounce the murder of that unfortunate woman in Iran, ask any of them to denouce the death penalty for apostacy, ask any of them to denounce any outrage that is said to be the law of their book. They cannot and will not. In western countries we are now expected to give undeserved respect to all types of obnoxiuos ideas just because they are supposed to be religiuos. Now, we can´t even say thay are stupid.

Posted by: Ray Moscow | July 27, 2010 4:13 PM

I was just reading that Observer article about an hour ago -- at dinner (uck). It pisses me off that 1) this still goes on 2) even in the UK and 3) without any prosecutions.

Plus, it's usually mothers doing it (or arranging for it to be done) to their own daughters. What the f*ck is wrong with these people?

@Don @#73: Although this shit is associated with Islam (since they are usually the ones doing it), it's not required by Islam. It is however in line with Islam's usual crap treatment of women.

Posted by: Tulse | July 27, 2010 4:21 PM

Muslims are Muslims and they will not speak out against any law that is imposed on them in the name of their book.

Because at no time has any Muslim ever challenged religious laws.

Posted by: Mandolin | July 27, 2010 4:26 PM

Repeating information someone else put in the thread earlier--this is only tangentially related to Islam. Christian groups do it, too, as do members of indigenous religions. The cultural practices predate the spread of the Abrahamic religions.

Posted by: Matt Keefe | July 27, 2010 4:32 PM

AshL,

Sorry to sound like the broken record, but you can't remove our ruling class from the equation and then say "that aside we're classless". If my use of the word 'class' is misleading by suggesting a strictly financial correlation, then let me repeat the other part of my argument - this is a country where many traditional power structures (which I equate to class, though I won't distract with that here if it bothers you) are given undue respect and shown undue deference by politicians and members of other institutions, like the police and the courts. Hence a debate constantly centred on the notion of 'community', and deference to organisations like the church in matters like education. The notion that Islam and Muslims are somehow a particular beneficiary of this attitude, or even the cause of it through their supposed 'whining' I just find ridiculous.

Posted by: Dae | July 27, 2010 4:37 PM

I watched the whole thing - I didn't think it was possible for me to get more upset about the issue, but I guess new extremes of horrified disgust are always possible.

Something struck me that I haven't seen mentioned yet - the bit about the girls who are actually sewn up being cut back open on their wedding night. Not only are they being incredibly traumatized as children, having the majority or all of their capacity for sexual pleasure stolen from them, but then their first experience with sex comes directly after being cut up AGAIN?! (I'm guessing either there's such horrible scar tissue in the first place that there isn't much healing involved, or there's an allowed healing period before consummation - but either way, yet again they're being cut up to accommodate societal expectations.) I have had some physically and emotionally painful (but not physically damaging) sexual experiences that still occasionally come back to keep me awake at night even as I lie next to the love of my life - I cannot imagine how terrible it would be, beyond lacking the capacity for sexual pleasure, to have such agonizing and bloody associations with sex.

Posted by: csreid | July 27, 2010 4:41 PM

Haven't got time to read the thread yet, but wanted to place a bet that Dick's Law came into effect before comment 30.

Posted by: Betelgeuse | July 27, 2010 4:47 PM

Muslims are Muslims and they will not speak out against any law that is imposed on them in the name of their book. Ask any of them to denounce the murder of that unfortunate woman in Iran, ask any of them to denouce the death penalty for apostacy, ask any of them to denounce any outrage that is said to be the law of their book. They cannot and will not

That is a gross generalisation.

To yet again repeat what some others have said, FGM predates Islam, and was reportedly around before their prophet was (this from some two minutes of searching and reading).
And its not limited to Islam.

According to more of my recently acquired knowledge, apparently why it caught on with the Muslims is because the Quran didn't exactly forbid it, in a sort of roundabout way. And people interpreted an absence of prohibition as silent assent.
It started off with apparently being 'a nip off the old hood of the clitoris', specifically mentioning that no girl or woman should have to undergo the least amount of suffering on account of it- the justification for it being the same old ceremonial purity or whatever bullshit that is.
But then that nipping got taken too far; as most things of this sort are, by those who wish have clearly had their brains sucked out via their nose with a straw.

And there certainly are liberal and getting-there-liberal and all kinds of moderate muslims who actually talk a lot of sense and think Sharia law is oppressive and discriminatory and all kinds of wrong. They just unfortunately get buried under all that hype surrounding the extremist version of their religion.

an example of a Muslim Women's league commenting on FGM.
I hadn't ever heard of them until a few minutes ago and have no idea of who they are or what they do. But its an example of criticism, so..

Posted by: Mephit | July 27, 2010 4:50 PM

70# Parents get sent reminder letters about vaccinations. If they choose not to immunise, nothing is done. The nurse/doc might bring it up when you go in with your child for something else, but that's it.

There are hearing/sight checks at school at particular stages, but you can opt out.

There's no mechanism to make you get your child a check-up. We have health visitors and such, but once past the first couple of weeks after birth it's perfectly possible to stop attending baby clinics etc without being questioned on it.

It's up to the parent to access the services. If you opt-out entirely, it's possible eyebrows will be raised, but not necessarily.

Posted by: Mephit | July 27, 2010 4:55 PM

Should add, am talking about routine health checks etc rather than medical treatment for injury/illness.

Posted by: Mandolin | July 27, 2010 5:12 PM

Hi Betelgeuse,

Appreciate your sentiment, just wanted to correct some of your history.

According to more of my recently acquired knowledge, apparently why it caught on with the Muslims is because the Quran didn't exactly forbid it, in a sort of roundabout way. And people interpreted an absence of prohibition as silent assent.

It didn't "catch on" with Muslims, by and large. It was practiced by groups that later converted to Islam.

You mention it predates the prophet---yes, extremely. Some claim evidence of infibulated or circumcised ancient Egyptian female mummies.

It started off with apparently being 'a nip off the old hood of the clitoris', specifically mentioning that no girl or woman should have to undergo the least amount of suffering on account of it- the justification for it being the same old ceremonial purity or whatever bullshit that is.

I think you're referring to the passage--which is ancillary to the Koran and unofficial--in which Mohammed urges people practicing FGS to cut little, and minimize pain.

It seems as though you've concluded from this passage that Mohammed was describing a new surgery he'd like to see start? Actually, he was looking at FGS as they existed, and urging people to modify the extremity of the surgery to cut less deep and impart less pain.

You've just got things a little backward, I think. The FGS comes first. Then comes Islam. Islam integrates into communities where FGS already exists, and people find justifications in Islam to keep doing it. Mohammed, seeing a practice that already exists, suggests a modification (at least in one story of mysterious provenance).

It's not that there aren't Islamic groups that don't practice FGS--there are--groups that didn't practice it before converting to Islam would be unlikely to begin afterward, unless there was an external, non-religious impetus (e.g. what I mentioned earlier about some groups picking up FGS as a way of protesting colonialism).

Again, I appreciated your original comment; I just wanted to tweak a couple things.

Posted by: nelc | July 27, 2010 5:31 PM

The cartoon version of the UK showing in some of these comments is, if anything, worse than the cartoon version of Islam that is inevitably showing up in a handful of comments. PZ's Brit-baiting in the initial post doesn't help.

How do I, a Brit, reconcile the fact that we have a law with the fact that the crime still gets committed? Uh, maybe it's because it's a crime and people do it in secret, hide the evidence and close ranks if anyone investigates it?

Here in the British Midlands, I live directly opposite a mosque, and know one of the worshippers personally. (No, he's not my best friend, thank you for asking.) If he was mutilating his children, how would I know? (He's a kind, quiet, gentle man, so I doubt it, but you never know.) Am I, a civilian, supposed to interrogate the muslim family that runs the cornershop about the local prevalence of FGM the next time I buy my morning paper and a pint of milk, perhaps?

If it's not the general population of the UK who are supposed to be doing something about this hideous crime, but the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, then maybe you ignoramouses can stop trotting out the national stereotype informed by a Hollywood version of history and society and anecdotes told to you by your great-uncle who served on the Atlantic convoys in WWII and got a couple of days' shore-leave in Liverpool once?

For what it's worth, I first encountered the idea of FGM in a fiction book by an American, James Tiptree (aka Alice Sheldon), writing about an attack on an American child by her father. I have no doubt that she was writing from a real life situation. So don't be too sure that it's not happening in the USA, and that you'd know about it if it was.

Also for what it's worth, I haven't watched the video in PZ's post, because this is something that periodically gets raised in the British media; how do you think we happened to have a law against it in the first place?

Lastly, save your ire at being called out on your collective knee-jerk nationalism, and send some money to Forward or your favourite FGM charity instead.

Honestly, I love you guys, but you can be such jerks sometimes.

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 27, 2010 5:34 PM

I've been following the news in the UK for a while now, and I have learned some important ways in which the UK justice system differs from ours.

1. It is legal for police officers to push people to the ground and kill them.

2. It is legal for parents to abuse their kids.

3. It is illegal to take photographs outside.

Posted by: Tom | July 27, 2010 5:39 PM

@mattir 57
Yes you could require medical examinations for school attendance. Then they would be educated at home and still no medical examination would be done.
We are talking about a community that encourages severe mutilation of their children - do you really think legislation is going to make any difference at all? The mindset that allows someone to do something so horrific to their children prevents any kind of contact with a medic that will reveal what's happening to the state if they can help it.
When you come from countries where the practice carries a death rate in excess of 10% - they wont go to a doctor unless they really have to.
What happens here is awful - but in Chad girls (some 45% of whom have FGM) VOLUNTEER for it - that's the mindset that needs breaking!
If these girls are allowed into school one can hope they may get educated enough to prevent it happening to their children - if they are forced to be educated at home by badly thought out laws you just force the practice on their children too.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | July 27, 2010 5:48 PM

@Katherine: Cultural relativism is for idiots.

What an idiotic thing to say. Idiotic cultural relativism is for idiots, just like idiotic biology is for idiotic biologists, idiotic physics is for idiotic physicists, and idiotic atheism is for idiotic atheists (yes, there are idiots who are atheists who say idiotic things in the vein of atheism -- I think I've found an example...).

To say that what should be legal and illegal in England in 2010 bears little resemblance of how to analyze (since one would have to be an idiot to judge) what happened in 432 in the Nazca valley is relativism. Only an idiot would say that one can't judge the behavior of folks in the south-east of London by the similar standards to those of the north-east of London.

Only a totalitarian will say that all analysis must be the same for everyone everywhere and everywhen. Only a different kind of totalitarian will say that there are no standards of any kind, that we must live in a solipsistic world where in the end the only right is the might of numbers.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | July 27, 2010 5:49 PM

@Tom - if Sweden has managed to virtually eliminate this practice in immigrant communities via medical exams for all children and mandated reporting, and still allows homeschooling, then I seen no reason why the UK can't do it. So yes, I think that legislation does make a difference. It doesn't make all the difference, but it makes some. What you're proposing is a total capitulation to the community with no strategy other than hope that education will solve the problem eventually.

Homeschooling is totally irrelevant - homeschooling is legal in all US states, but most have some form of state oversight and many require evidence of vaccination or a "statement of religious principle" justifying non-vaccination.

Posted by: SaraJ | July 27, 2010 5:52 PM

@ heatherly, I'm not a full SW, yet, I'm working on my MSW, and loving every minute.

You also bring up great points, and someone else brought up that these girls are most likely coming from otherwise loving families who think they are doing right by their child. When the damage has been done, it's easy to fall into that mentality of wanting to punish, but ultimately a punishment that falls on the parent will affect the child, and it's the child's BEST interests we should have at heart. It's hard for people to understand that doesn't always mean taking a child permanently away from a parent who is harming them or has harmed them (especially in this way).

Posted by: Dania | July 27, 2010 6:03 PM

I don't normally go off like this, but this kind of stupidity from a crowd like this is just too much.

FFS. Did you see anyone here condoning circumcision? No, you didn't. What you saw were people who are tired of watching every single thread that mentions FGM being hijacked by idiots who want every discussion to be about men. That gets pretty tiring after a while.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 27, 2010 6:10 PM

I've been following the news in the UK for a while now, and I have learned some important ways in which the UK justice system differs from ours.

What the fuck is going on with the high-minded attitudes of the non-UK residents on this thread?

There is a problem, and it is starting to be addressed in the UK. Clearly more needs to be done. However, given that FGM is a cultural import, then it is also likely to be a significant problem amongst specific communities across the western world. No-one should feel like patting themselves on the back on this one.

The lack of prosecutions are worrying, but they are also not very surprising for this kind of crime given the general underreporting of child sexual abuse in British ethnic communities. That is probably part of the reason why outreach is prioritised over prosecution in some cases, otherwise we're left in a situation where the crimes continue to be committed, but vulnerable people are also denied access to social and medical care (lest offenders be subject to legal punishment via child protection reports). That has certainly been a problem in British asian communities.

Unfortunately, it may be that the law cannot properly be enforced until a critical mass of cultural change is reached. The main thing to concentrate on is protecting children, even if that means that offenders aren't punished as justice demands.

if Sweden has managed to virtually eliminate this practice in immigrant communities via medical exams for all children and mandated reporting, and still allows homeschooling, then I seen no reason why the UK can't do it.

Other approaches clearly need to be considered, but until prosecution becomes a realistic prospect, then simply detecting FGM is not necessarily going to have the same effect in the UK.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 27, 2010 6:19 PM

Oh yay.

The WHAT ABOUT THE MENS brigade has arrived.

Posted by: Betelgeuse | July 27, 2010 6:22 PM

@ Mandolin

Thanks a bunch for correcting that for me.
I had only given it a minute's read, just to point out the generalization in #73 and obviously missed some key points.
And I just realized that it was your previous posts that I wanted to back-up.
I had some fuzzy knowledge of it and thought it was best to refute what Don Quijote said, but posting that in an emotional hurry was clearly not the best :P :)

I did presume that the prophet was advocating it as something new, and akin to that which must not be brought up on this thread; but it does make much more sense that it was a practice carried on by people who converted to Islam.

And I didn't pick up anything about the passage in question being ancillary to the Quran. Was of the impression that it was part of the main text, but that was clearly a mistake.

I'm aware that there are many islamic groups that do not go down the FGM route and I meant to mention that, but it got lost somewhere.

Posted by: Don1 | July 27, 2010 6:23 PM

As I understand it the most maimstream Islamic honchos have made a clear statement that the practise is nothing to do with Islam.

http://fgmnetwork.org/news/show_news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1164978388&archive=&template=

However, as stated in the article,

parents practicing circumcision didn't do it because they received a religious edict asking them to do it in the first place. When they stop it they will not do so because of a religious edict either.

So, yes. Most FGM is carried out by moslems, but not as moslems, not as part of a religious duty. It is barbaric and vile, but goes back way beyond Islam or Christianity (it is common among Coptic Christians and animists too).

And let us not forget the issue highlighted here recently, about FGM carried out at Cornell University for cosmetic reasons.

Having said that, there is a reluctance to face up to toxic cultural practices among some groups for fear of a backlash. Child witches among some pentecostal African communities has recently been brought to the forefront. I think this fear is spurious and that that vigorous intervention would actually be welcomed by many who hate these practices but feel unsupported if they speak out.

Many years ago when I was working in a small town in Sudan a local guy made good as a petroleum scientist based in France came back with his wife and infant daughter. Much celebration, I was at the party and he seemed like a nice guy. While he was out of town the 'procedure' was carried out without his consent or knowledge. When he found out he flew her back to Paris for medical attention, leaving his wife behind and vowing never to have anything to do with the family again. I don't know if he kept to that, but there was general incomprehension at his response.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 27, 2010 6:30 PM

I think the point is that nobody should understand this to be merely a British problem.

And I think that it's pretty obvious judging from all the other threads PZ has had on the subject that no one thinks that it is.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 27, 2010 6:40 PM

And I think that it's pretty obvious judging from all the other threads PZ has had on the subject that no one thinks that it is.

I don't mean just FGM, that is clearly a an international problem and, yes, PZ has implicitly addressed that before.

What I mean is that FGM in any particular jurisdiction is likely to need to be addressed only in the context of it being a cultural and cross-border offense. That is, FGM in Britain cannot be understood as merely a British problem. Asking what Britain can do is only part of it.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 27, 2010 6:46 PM

Had such a policy been in place, Feynmaniac would needs must have been banned as well.

For what? Pointing out that in a discussion about Female Genital Mutilation some over-privledged dicks will inevitably talk about their dicks?

Posted by: Rich Wilson | July 27, 2010 6:55 PM

I think if the thread was hijacked, it was pre-highacked. I don't have a problem with PZ 'ignoring' a topic. I sure don't have the energy to fight every battle every day. I would never have mentioned circumcision. Call me a n00b, but some of the comments sounded (and honestly still sound) rather dismissive of MGM, and that's what got my gander up.

I don't get the amputation vs. broken bone analogy at all. I hear you can have skin attached to replace your foreskin, but I've never heard of anyone 'growing it back'. Mine sure hasn't 'grown back', not that I've ever thought to try, or have any idea how I would. Is that what all those ads in my spambox are about?

I'm all for ranting against FGM, but let's just try to not dismiss MGM while we're at it.

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | July 27, 2010 6:58 PM

If we can't protect our minors from their own families, what sort of nation are we?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 27, 2010 7:07 PM

Call me a n00b, but some of the comments sounded (and honestly still sound) rather dismissive of MGM, and that's what got my gander up.

but let's just try to not dismiss MGM while we're at it.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 27, 2010 7:18 PM

Rich:

I'm all for ranting against FGM, but let's just try to not dismiss MGM while we're at it.

Different fucking ballparks my poor, deluded troll.

I am so so so so SO sick of this. Of course we can't discuss womens issues and cultural norms and HACKING OF A LITTLE GIRL'S SEXUAL ORGANS without some dick for brains whining about his fucking foreskin.

Go start a Save Our Dick ad campaign or something and stay the hell out of threads like these.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | July 27, 2010 8:20 PM

Katherine: frog inc, this is probably one of the most specious arguments I've ever seen coming from you. Positively postmodernist.

Oh noess! You called me a a postmodernist.

What is going on here is that someone is getting their body violated and mutilated without their consent purely because their parents have bizarre ideas about women (and men for that matter - they apparently think men are so uncontrollable and can't keep it in their pants so they persecute the woman, violently, for it).

Yes -- in what way is that relevant to "cultural relativism" in general? This is about a violent act committed against children in the modern world, and particularly in England. It's horrendous. No one with a brain in their heads would question that.

I'd call the Nazca in 432 barbaric. No question about it. Back in 432 compared to today pretty much everyone was kind of stupid, and humans knew FAR less today than we do now, and moral thought was far less advanced. We were younger as a species and dumber. We're still young and dumb as a species. Only some of us know how to treat humans at large with equity and equal rights and respect.

See, that's just stupid. It buys you nothing to call the Naza in 432 barbaric. It's a stupid, empty headed comment. So, you can go around calling the Nazca barbaric, the Romans barbaric, the Chinese barbaric -- hell, everybody at everytime everywhen else.

That's just fucking useful. That gives us so much information -- yes, people in the past did things differently. Yes, in our time we don't do the same things -- and we shouldn't, given current economic and historical conditions.

Woop-de-do. Unless you want to argue about specific points relative to specific conditions, all you're doing is getting of on self-righteousness (what kind of organizations behave like that?).

Now, we have to figure out how to stop FGM. We have to start in our own countries, and then convince people in other countries. It's not 1492, we live in a global society with a global economy living under fairly similar conditions.

A sane relativism actually supports strong action here -- this is about the basic definition of being human, and we necessarily have to have a common definition of basic human rights, since we live in a common system, whether in Dubuque, London, or Nadi.

But such subtleties are clearly beyond the kind of self-righteousness about all other people at all other times in all other places. Yes -- the Nazca never heard The Gospel of Katherine.

Are they damned then? Do they go to limbo? Is there a special exemption for those who lived before your Gospel? How insufferably stupid.

You can take the atheist out of god, apparently, but not the god out of the atheist. Same simple minded fallacies, same self-righteous fervor that spread universally, same bullshit.

Yeah, let's use our intellect and put Boas, Mead, Bateson, and Levi-Strauss in the same boat with the post-structuralists and the post-modernists.

Lordy, do I hate anti-intellectual morons.

Posted by: Graeme | July 27, 2010 8:48 PM

My question is, (if we can ignore the rather annoying assumed cultural superiority displayed by some in here for a moment), how can we prosecute this crime? I agree it's horrendous, in fact it's worse, but how can we gain evidence when confronted by a wall of silence? How are we meant to gather a case when no-one knows?

I've had one full check up in my life, when I went to boarding school (which is, of course, not universal). The NHS is already creaking under the strain of day-to-day running, and GP's are really not going to be able to do checks on every healthy person when they can't even manage all the ill ones. If you tried to make school-based inspections mandatory, it'd be shot-down by the religious and cultural isolationist lobbies using "Human Rights" legislation, not to mention the Sun and Mirror rubbing thier hands with glee at all the 'pedo' stories they could make up.

The problem is cultural, and that suggests that education is the only true weapon. Admittedly it would help if the men in these cultures turned against it, but I lost faith in that sort of change a while back. Would retroactive prosecutions help? I'm personally not sure, as you'd have to persuade someone to testify against thier own family, and that's never easy. I imagine the convictions might help dissuade some, but I suspect they'd just make the parents terrify thier kids into silence even more.

Basically I'm not convinced that actual prosecutions would help that much, largely because they would merely act as an external threat and purely intensify the internal cultural mechanisms causing this to occur (circling the wagons and holding onto identities in the face of attack). This needs to be broken up from the inside, so protests, banners and above all education are what's needed.

G

Ps. To all those intent on having an ideological snipe at the UK: Naff off, eh? We're very far from perfect over here, but lets keep it constructive. Say my country is crap if you like, but please say why, otherwise it's just childish.

Pps. Leave male circumsicion out of this thread guys. We get more than enough attention as it is.

Ppps. Please forgive spelling mistakes! It's almost 2 am here.

Posted by: Seraphiel | July 27, 2010 10:33 PM

Well.

Perhaps one solution is to provide young girls in England with firearms and the appropriate training to use them for self-defense.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | July 27, 2010 11:10 PM

#137

You, sir, have watched exactly the right amount of anime.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | July 28, 2010 1:45 AM

P Smith, if your understanding is correct, then mine is wrong.

From the quote in the OP,

The UK Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 makes it an offence to carry out FGM or to aid, abet or procure the service of another person. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, makes it against the law for FGM to be performed anywhere in the world on UK permanent residents of any age and carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.

The particular "English law" you refer to in your 3rd paragraph is the one under discussion, and not another one equivalent to the pædophile one you mention in your 2nd paragraph, right?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawntbkLlJwiX1gbzB1e7Fo4BfJhgc2TJuek | July 28, 2010 2:51 AM

Hey USA! I can't.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 28, 2010 3:15 AM

Whilst there have not been any prosecutions under the act there have been a number of cases where the authorities intervened before a girl could be taken abroad for FGM. Indeed this seems to be the preferred approach and I know teachers in areas with a sizeable population that has a tradition of FGM get training in indentying potential victims. Most of the interventions have come about as the result of the girl (or one of her friends) talking to a teacher.

Posted by: ANTIcarrot | July 28, 2010 4:45 AM

Unfortunately... A little something called criminal evidence. Unlike a black eye, or a broken arm, this kind of thing is really hard to see. It's not like suspicious teachers can demand, "Pull you panties down young lady and show me your clitoris!"

At the end of the day someone is going to have to stand up and say that this was done to them, and could the courts please send their parents to jail for the next 20 years? That is a very difficult thing for any child to do.

I suspect (hope?) this will be like the catholic church and child abuse. One adult will stand up, then half a dozen, then hundreds of thousands. However I fear that just like the catholic church, given the prospect of suddenly having to lock away a 1/4 million people, the government (or rather any government) will choose the easy way out.

Posted by: defides | July 28, 2010 5:14 AM

1. You think it isn't happening in the same communities - where they exist - in the US? Get real.

2. Where the family and the community have decided that one or more laws don't apply to them, and that they are going to enter into a carefully-organised conspiracy to avoid detection, how exactly are the investigating authorities going to find out about the assaults?

Many people probably didn't read this far:

"For Jason Morgan, a detective constable in the Met's FGM unit, Project Azure, the solution lies with those girls themselves: "…They are coming from predominantly caring and loving families, who genuinely believe this is the right thing to do. Many are under a great deal of pressure from the extended families.

"Sometimes it might be as simple as delivering the message of what the legal position is; sometimes we even give them an official letter, a document that they can show to the extended family that states quite firmly what will happen if the procedure goes ahead. The focus has to be on prevention." [My italics.]

Project Azure made 38 interventions in 2008, 59 in 2009 and 25 so far this year. For Morgan those statistics are just as important as getting a conviction. "We know it happens here although we have no official statistics, but we have seen very successful partnerships and we don't want to alienate communities through heavy-handed tactics.

"While a prosecution would send out a very clear message to practising communities, really it is very difficult and you would be relying on medical evidence, and in turn that would all hinge or whether the child consents to an examination.""

Posted by: baldywilson | July 28, 2010 5:37 AM

P_Smith:

Yet the English law does not apply to sexual abuse committed on English children transported out of the country by their parents?
Oh, that's right, it's religion, so it's protected.

Go ahead, muslimeys: David Cameron says it's okay to torture, mutilate and violate your kids.

Get a grip. It's not protected. It's illegal. The problem is in bringing a criminal prosecution, which requires substantial evidence. It's not that the police don't want to bring prosecutions, it's that they can't. No amount of willpower will magic sufficient evidence for a prosecution out of the air, when no-one is coming forward. It is not sufficient to show that something has happened, you must prove, beyond reasonable doubt that the person in the dock committed the offence of which they are accused. "They're black parents" hardly qualifies as evidence.

On your second "point", I fail utterly to see what David Cameron has to do with the price of fish. It has been illegal since 1985 (ie. Thatcher era), and was strengthened in 2003 to cover the offence when committed abroad. Despite this strengthening, however, the problem of bringing a successful prosecution remains.

This isn't something new. This isn't even a revelation by the Guardian. Here's an article from 2009 discussing the same problems, and how the NHS tried to advertise a reversal procedure that it would carry out for free:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5913979.ece

Note in particular this statement from Scotland Yard:

While Scotland Yard is understood to have made investigations into female circumcision in the UK, and offered a £20,000 reward for information, no one has been successfully prosecuted for carrying out the procedure.

Even with a £20,000 reward for information, no-one came forward.

And, just in closing, WTF is a "muslimey"

Posted by: TheCalmOne | July 28, 2010 6:01 AM

four-thirteen:

Bunch of sexist laws. As the victim of male genital mutilation, I am pretty pissed off that I get laughed at while being told with a straight face that it is wrong to cut up women in the same manner.

Oh fuck off!

Don't you understand the difference, you moron? Having your foreskin removed is the equivalent of having the little hood of skin that covers the clitoris removed, NOT THE CLITORIS ITSELF!

Do you even know what the clitoris does? Do you pay any attention to it with your fingers or your mouth, or any other part of your sorry anatomy, when you have sex with a woman (a circumstance I seriously doubt occurs more than once in a blue moon, given your obvious abysmal ignorance of female sexuality)?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 28, 2010 6:34 AM

I see a lot of righteousness on display here, but fewer people offering sensible discussion on the practical matter of protecting children and young women.

There seems to have been an outbreak of low quality commentary on a couple of threads recently, what is going on? Too much sub-Daily Mail reactionary bollocks.

Posted by: mrkipling | July 28, 2010 7:37 AM

Alice - by the time a person has decided to resort to that kind of namecalling then facts, reason etc have pretty much left the building. The problem is, as bernard points out, that it clouds the issue, detracts from the seriousness of the situation and causes people like me to respond with clumsy sarcasm. For me, it's threadjacking of the worst kind because all that happens is that people end up replying to the insult, usually with an insult of their own, and absolutely cock all is achieved. Harping on about male circumcision on a thread about FGM is irritaing but at least there's a debate to be had there, even if this isn't the place for it.

Every single Brit on this thread has expressed shame and disgust that this happens in our country. It's a fucking disgrace. When people like psmith decide that it's more important to score a cheap point than to properly address something so serious I just want to bang my head off the sodding desk.

Posted by: Conan the Librarian | July 28, 2010 7:47 AM

Well I've done my small part - I've written to my local MP - who happens to be the Health Secretary - and politely asked when the UK are going to actually enforce the laws which are already in place.

Don't suppose it will do much - but if any other UK folks want to let off a bit of steam at their MP an easy way is using
this web site

Well I feel slightly better now - but still sad and appalled...

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 28, 2010 8:06 AM

...it clouds the issue, detracts from the seriousness of the situation and causes people like me to respond with clumsy sarcasm.

I think it is worse than that, because it substitutes chauvinism for genuine awareness and action. They strut and posture without really trying to make a difference, and yet think that they have done enough.

There are many problems with Islam, and clearly cultural attitudes are reinforced by religion in this case, but to use FGM as a pretext to attack the religion is to employ an ineffectual blunderbus approach where surgical precision is actually required.

Pragmatic intervention is probably the most realistic way of protecting people, and a carefully balanced approach is needed. Those most boorishly declaiming the practice are offering only blunt (unrealistic and unworkable) solutions. That is worse than doing nothing, because it is ultimately counterproductive.

Everyone wants to see prosecutions of child abusers, but that takes a degree of trust, awareness, and goodwill that isn't necessarily in place at the moment. First and foremost, we need to save people from having to endure mutilation.

Posted by: werewolf07 | July 28, 2010 8:20 AM

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 28, 2010 7:48 AM

"Who?"

Brianblackberry

"The entries for dumbest comment of the day are now open"

Yes, it has opened with your comment.

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | July 28, 2010 9:06 AM

Ah, crap - no sooner do we get the anti-Muslim trolls boxed in, than here comes a pro-Muslim one.

@ werewolf07 - it has been pointed out numerous times already in this thread that FGM is NOT an exlusively Islamic issue. Also, can I suggest you re-read RevBDC's comment #160 and see if you can figure out why one or two things you said might not go down too well with Pharyngulites...

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 28, 2010 9:21 AM

Werewold07,
OK, now I've been all over PZ's comment and I don't see any mention of Islam at all. None! So, do you maybe think that your little diatribe might have been a bit of a non-sequitur?

YES! WE DO HEREBY CONCEDE THAT FGM IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVELY MUSLIM ISSUE. WE ALSO CONCEDE THAT SLAVERY IS STILL PRACTICED BY SOME OUTSIDE THE MUSLIM WORLD, AND THAT NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE BACKWARDS ASSHATS WHO FAVOR STONING WOMEN RAPE VICTIMS OR OTHERWISE REPRESSING WOMEN!

There, happy now? Did I miss anything?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 28, 2010 9:46 AM

"The entries for dumbest comment of the day are now open" Yes, it has opened with your comment.

Not really. Let us read what you wrote again...

Though he is an atheist he may detest the Muslims more than his own Christian or Jew brothers towards whom he should have a soft corner thanks to his genepool.

You may think in racial terms first, but projecting that racism on anyone else to try and bolster your unsupportable point is at best intellectual dishonesty and at worst a hint at your own racial feelings.

Got it?

And please show where PZ claimed FGM to be an uniquely Islamic issue here.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 28, 2010 9:53 AM

broboxley,
Oh F*cksocks! How could I have forgotten beheading...and flogging, too!

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 28, 2010 10:25 AM

Restricting this issue to the UK for now, perhaps the best way of staging an intervention is to get relevant messages across to these girls while they're in school.

My understanding is that is what is happening. There have been example of injunctions being taken out to prevent parents taking their daughter abroad after the girl told the school she feared she might be sent for FGM.

Posted by: broboxley OT | July 28, 2010 11:48 AM

side by side pictures of a normal and a fgm before and after poster in school girls bath rooms? will an 800 number across the bottom. Never happen but might help.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 28, 2010 1:39 PM

How does female circumcision prevent rape?... not sure I quite see the deterrent there, but obviously the committed do! I mean I doubt a rapist is particularly bothered that his victim would feel no pleasure in the act, seems rather vague and airy fairy to me.

Circumcision of course isn't any kind of deterrent, but it along with other forms of FGM, like sewing the vagina closed, is seen as a remedy to rape.

Of course, none of it actually makes any sense, and nor should it to any right-minded outsider, but it is the culturally received mindset that underlies many instances of FGM. The mutilation is seen as a way for women to control their sexuality, because men are given almost free reign for theirs. It is horrible, contradictory, and nonsensical, but nonetheless understanding it paves the way for education and outreach. That is why the cultural roots cannot be easily dismissed.

Condemnation is important, of course it is, but it is too simplistic to think that it alone will stop the practice.

Posted by: Phillip Helbig | July 28, 2010 2:06 PM

First, it's not a UK-specific problem, but a problem wherever immigrants from the corresponding countries are prevalent. Second, not only the UK but many countries have laws against this. How to reconcile? Easy: Enforcement is difficult in practice. I doubt that genital examination is part of normal physical exams, and if it were, mutilated girls wouldn't be taken there by their parents.

With the huge difference that one should be illegal and the other shouldn't, many states in the US have or had laws concerning what married heterosexual couples could do consentingly behind closed doors. It was violated probably millions of times, with practically no arrests, because it is difficult to control. Same same but different.

The only way to help these girls is to prevent it from happening (if it does happen, imprison the parents for life---otherwise there is no deterrent, and the girls have a life sentence). In order to find out, genital examinations will have to be required, Unfortunately, the libertarians will oppose this. But it is necessary to punish the perpetrators. It is difficult to prevent it from happening. It might help to require people to swear not to do it when entering the country, with the understanding that they will be deported forever if they violate the agreement. The most important thing, though, is to get it stopped in the countries where it is part of tradition. Rüdiger Nehberg and his Target organisation have been quite successful here, but there is still a long way to go. (His strategy is to get Islamic leaders to condemn the practice. Most, but not all, people who practice it are Moslems, though the tradition itself does not have an Islamic origin. While in the longer term getting rid of the influence of Islam altogether should be the goal, one has to weigh things carefully and in this case I would favour cooperating with Islam to get it stopped as quickly as possible (especially since it's not an intrinsically Islamic problem anyway).)

Posted by: Phillip Helbig | July 28, 2010 4:58 PM

While the origin is not Islamic, and while one can probably be a good Moslem (whatever that means) and not support FGM, and while adherents of other religions also practice it, nevertheless it is a fact that it occurs mostly in the Islamic community and that many leading Islamic authorities (not just backwater ignorami) support FGM. For people who do it, just the belief that they think Islam supports it is enough. How are they to check whether this is true? There is no one official Islam anyway. And, as with other religions, the Koran itself is not the sole authority. If everything is in the Bible, who cares what the Pope says? The Talmud is as important to the Torah for the Jews. Similarly, merely some unbeliever saying "it's not in the Koran" doesn't automatically mean that it cannot be part of Islam.

It should be illegal and prevented because it is bad. It doesn't matter who supports it in the name of what religion nor whether the religion "really" supports it. Many countries have laws saying that one cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion, ethnicity etc. Good. By the same token, one cannot claim special exemption on the basis of religion, ethnicity etc.

Posted by: Peter H | July 28, 2010 8:35 PM

Even after backing off from comment 3-4 times to "gather my thoughts," I can seem to find none but "This is ghastly, bestial, hateful and vengeful barbarity." There, I've typed a bit and words still fail me utterly.

Posted by: John Morales | July 28, 2010 9:38 PM

SphericalBunny, your prudery about exposing the pink bits (regardless of the reasoning involved) is noted.

Posted by: John Morales | July 28, 2010 10:07 PM

SphericalBunny,

Your reading comprehension fail is noted.

Really.

Did you note my caveat ("regardless of the reasoning involved")?

Are you asserting that there is no possible justification to force a child to undergo a medical examination, hence such should be utterly verboten.

If not, you should argue the merits of the reasoning; if so, how are you not being irrational?

Most salient, for mine:

We were uncomfortable to the point of being perfectly willing to accept being banned from sports class to being naked around others.

You might consider why you were so very uncomfortable at the prospect.

Posted by: SphericalBunny | July 28, 2010 10:46 PM

Most salient, for mine:

We were uncomfortable to the point of being perfectly willing to accept being banned from sports class to being naked around others.

You might consider why you were so very uncomfortable at the prospect.

You might be happy to whip it out whenever, in front of whoever, I am not. As a kid, I had mild body dismorphia; other reasons amongst those girls included the practical ('hey, I'm off home where I'll wash + change anyway'), possibly the lazy, probably some like mine, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that one or two had experienced sexual abuse. Add in the beauty culture, kid angst and varying stages of puberty, and I'm actually surprised this would seem strange to you.

Posted by: John Morales | July 28, 2010 11:10 PM

SphericalBunny @189, it doesn't seem strange to me at all.

What it seems like is social acculturation.

Historically, many societies thought nothing of nudity — until colonisation/missionaries came along.

other reasons amongst those girls included the practical ('hey, I'm off home where I'll wash + change anyway'), possibly the lazy, probably some like mine, and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that one or two had experienced sexual abuse.

The practical and lazy reasons you cite seem like ad-hoc rationalisations when compared to the power of your (my emphasis) "We were uncomfortable to the point of being perfectly willing to accept being banned from sports class to being naked around others."

Your abuse reason has merit, but then it should be a heads-up to the school staff that something might be seriously amiss. And it would be, if it were not overwhelmed by the noise inculcated prudery provides.

Posted by: Peter H | July 28, 2010 11:26 PM

Explicit exposure (to anyone) (of another's) genitals is on various levels of consideration tasteless, manipulative and/or prurient, I grant you. It But such may be sought/welcomed in very private, personal, consensual & loving circumstances. Very few surprises there, I hope.

I realize that "common" male circumcision has been discussed ad nauseum and to no conclusion, but any possible "parallel" with FGM is odious in the extreme.

Posted by: John Morales | July 29, 2010 12:07 AM

SphericalBunny,

... please don't consider me rude if I'm sporadic from this point ...

Not in the least.

That was most informative and you set forth a clear case which supports your earlier contention that education is the way to go.

--

Now, get thou to thine essay!

Pharyngula will still be here when you're done. :)

Posted by: SphericalBunny | July 29, 2010 1:12 AM

John @196

Yeah, UK. I have cried for the experiences of others, but what really made me sick was that none of the actual rapes were by strangers, and that given what I know personally and statistically; I am 'privileged' not to have been abused myself.

Posted by: Phillip Helbig | July 29, 2010 4:58 AM

"and that many leading Islamic authorities (not just backwater ignorami) support FGM."

Is utterly inexcusable garbage. "Not just Backwater ignorami"? Seriously? Are they backwater because they're Muslim, or are they Ignorami because they're muslim?

Read what I wrote. I said that there are some Islamic clerics who support FGM. The point is that these are not backwater ignorami (i.e. I am not going the easy way and dredging up some backwater ignorami who spout nonsense, but citing a literate cleric who spouts nonsense), but rather people who are seen as leaders within the Islamic world. As to why someone is a backwater ignoramus, I said nothing. Such people exist. In particular, I did not say that such people are ignorami because they are Moslems; I specifically mentioned Moslems who aren't such. Neither did I say that they are backwater because they are Moslems.

Read what I wrote and don't put words in my mouth.

And who are these (un-named) "leading Islamic authorities" who support FGM? Are these the "leading islamic authorities" who have repeatedly condemded the practice? Or are you so ignorant that you did not know that it is a practise that is condemned by the overwhelming majority of Islamic scholars? Or are you just so ignorant that you did not know that Islam is not the monoculture you seem to think it is?"

Read this:

Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, head of the al-Azhar Islamic Institute, had stated during the 1990s that the practice is un-Islamic. The Health Minister of Egypt, Ismail Sallam, announced a ban on FGM in 1996-JUL. This was upheld by a junior administrative court in Cairo.

Sheik Youssef Badri, a Muslim fundamentalist, took the health minister to court. In 1997-JUN, an Egyptian court overturned the ban. Eight Muslim scholars and doctors had testified that the ban exceeded the government's authority and violated the legal rights of the medical profession. Sheik Youssef Badri commented:

"[Female] circumcision is Islamic; the court has said that the ban violated religious law. There's nothing which says circumcision is a crime, but the Egyptians came along and said that Islam is a crime."

In 1997-JUL, the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel interviewed Sheik Badri. He claimed that many Muslim women are pleased with this victory of Islam over its enemies. When it was pointed out to him that parents in Morocco and Algeria do not practice FGM, he replied that the clitoris in Egyptian girls was larger than in those countries and had to be cut back to a normal size. He quoted a French study which showed that circumcised girls are less likely to catch AIDS. [Author's note: This may well be true; victims of FGM are probably less likely to be sexually active.] Badri believes that the United States is spreading misinformation on the health risks of FGM.

We have been unable to find any documentation to support Badri's assertion about clitoris size.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm3.htm

I remember reading the original interview in Der Spiegel.

"the clitoris in Egyptian girls was larger than in those countries and had to be cut back to a normal size" Give me a break. This guy also said that without FGM, the clitoris rubs on the close and makes the women sexually active so that they seduce men.

I rest my case.

Posted by: MadScientist | July 29, 2010 5:17 AM

Just remember that the same shit is happening in the USA and yet I don't hear anything about anyone trying to put an end to it. It's all this "respect other cultures" bullshit - cultural relativism in a politically correct society is just so goddamned hard to kill off.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 29, 2010 7:03 AM

Just remember that the same shit is happening in the USA and yet I don't hear anything about anyone trying to put an end to it. It's all this "respect other cultures" bullshit - cultural relativism in a politically correct society is just so goddamned hard to kill off.

It just isn't true that this practice is tolerated, nor is it true that people aren't working to stop it in the US and around the world.

The fact is that in western countries the practice is relatively rare (and is therefore swamped in numbers by other crimes of abuse) and is conducted in a much more secretive fashion. The fact that FGM is largely limited to poorly integrated immigrant families who are likely to be suspicious of or have poor access to law enforcement and social services only compounds the problem. Couple that to a male-dominated culture where women (and men) have been conditioned to believe that this is a normal and beneficial part of their ethnic identity, and you can see that the will of any particular agency to solve the problem is insufficient.

However, there are apparently some big problems in the US with regards to the coordination of the approach. In particular, the AAP was forced to reverse a policy change which effectively promoted a type of FGM (type IV) in place of the more physically damaging forms. They now clearly condemn all forms of FGM, and instead advocate outreach and vigilance by healthcare professionals as the only approach.

Posted by: John M | July 29, 2010 9:42 AM

Katherine #10

You know, it's ridiculous when people compare male circumcision to what I can only call female genital mutilation.

If the biological equivalent were performed on a man, it would be equivalent to hacking off the glans plus a significant part of the shaft.

So simple infundibulation, or excision of the labia, would be acceptable in female infants, would it? Would present day proponents of male circumcision remain quiet, do you suppose, if such a practice were adopted as a regular medical routine on newborn girls?

Nevertheless, I grant there is a *huge* difference of degree when clitorectomy is performed. But it still remains a difference of degree.

Posted by: John M | July 29, 2010 9:52 AM

#202 Rorschach

I agree. If one posts without reading and editing, one deserves to be a victim of ridicule or opprobrium for whatever typos or badly worded statements you have created.

Posted by: luna-the-cat | July 30, 2010 1:54 PM

Speaking from Scotland.

I haven't read through all the comments here, but I do remember seeing upthread questions about "how doe the UK deal with things like aquaintance rape?" -- the answer is, appallingly badly. At the University of Aberdeen a few years ago, a student was raped by another student, who forced his way into her dorm room. Bearing in mind that there was no question about whether this rape occurred (he admitted it) or that it was against her will (he admitted that she'd kept telling him "no, no" and crying) and that she was ill and on medication at the time and not physically up to fighting, the judge dismissed it as "no case to answer" -- not even "Not Guilty", but as "no crime has been committed here" -- because according to laws still on the books, it's not rape unless she screams and physically tried to fight back.

Second, I can answer a bit of why there aren't any prosecutions. Because no-one really wants to know. Doctors are largely unaware of their duty to look for this, except for the very few who are complicit in providing this "service" for immigrant families (for substantial sums of money). Teachers seem to not believe kids who talk about it (I've encountered a couple of those through a friend who teaches). And the police just don't want to know, because I think it would be way more paperwork than it would be worth, to them. They tend to dismiss reports* of a lot of injury-to-women events anyway -- and the scary part is that I've found them to be way better near Aberdeen than they are in the larger cities. So, nobody is being prosecuted because, to a frightening extent, no-one is bringing cases forward, and those few reports that are brought are dropped for lack of interest.

Don't think for one minute I'm defending this, by the way. This shit drives me nuts.

----------
*Like http://myfaultimfemale.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/police-behaving-badly-men-behaving-worse/ . I wish I could say I thought incidents like this were an aberration, but I can't.