Stop FGM in the UK

*This Post contains graphic images*

FGM.

Three letters that are separately distinctive to most people on the planet. But together they make very little sense to the majority of the same people- and this worries me. It's actually rather tragic that in the twenty first century a form of  barbaric child abuse can be so easily carried out whilst a nation sits in blissful ignorance.

The letters 'F' 'G' & 'M' stand for Female Genital Mutilation, otherwise known as female castration:"procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." The practice originated in the African cotenant in around 500BC but due to migration, this is now taking place all over the world. And may I heavily stress that not only is this procedure carried out on children as young as four, but they receive absolutely no anaesthetic throughout; every cut and every stitch is felt. 

It's happening here in the UK despite it having been illegal since 1985; and what's worse, there have been no prosecutions whatsoever since this date.

I write about this off the back of 'The Cruel Cut' which aired on Channel 4 on the 8th November (watch in full here). The programme aimed to raise awareness of exactly what FGM is and to inform people that it's happening on our door step; Over 66,000 women in the UK have already undergone female genital mutilation and more than 24,000 girls are at risk. It revealed the stories of victims and gave graphic accounts of what their own families put them through, including descriptions of being pinned to the ground and having to listen to their sister's screams whilst they wait to be operated on... all to make a girl 'pure'.
 
There are several variations of FGM;
 
-Type 1 involves the removal of the clitoral hood which is rarely, if ever, performed alone. More common is Type Ib (clitoridectomy), the partial or total removal of the clitoris, along with the prepuce. In this procedure, the clitoris is pulled upwards between the thumb and index finger, pulled out, and amputated- bleeding is stopped with stitching.
 
- Type 2 involves the total removal of the clitoris along with the partial of total removal of the inner labia.
 
- Type 3 is the removal of all external genitalia and the fusing of the wound, leaving a small hole just 2mm wide for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. One of the women involved in the documentary described the terror of her first period as she realised that the blood was actually unable to escape from her body as a result of this procedure. Following this, the inner and outer labia are cut away, with or without excision of the clitoris. A pinhole is created by inserting something into the wound before it closes, such as a twig or rock salt. The wound may be sutured with surgical thread- sometimes thorns are used- to hold the sides together. The girl's legs are then tied from hip to ankle for 2–6 weeks until the tissue has bonded.

The descriptions above are enough to prove that this is torture and it completely baffles me as to why it is simply not acted on.

As expected, there are many complications involved with FGM, both long-term and immediate, including fatal bleeding, septicaemia, and the transmission of HIV if the surgical apparatus is not sterile. Long term complications include incontinence and infertility as well as painful periods and intercourse. Neonatal fertility is also severely effected as a direct result of FGM; an additional 10–20 babies die per 1,000 deliveries as a result. The chances of a babies death during birth is increased by: 15 percent for Type I, 32 percent for Type II and 55 percent for Type III.

The death rates are unknown as few records are kept, complications may not be recognised, and fatalities are rarely reported.

The fact is, FGM effectively deprives women of their sexuality. Their natural genitalia is manipulated to the extent where natural behaviours, such as intercourse are too painful to endure, and their periods cause huge problems. Women are stopped from being women because of an operation that is illegally taking place.

I'm really struggling to get my head around any justification for this huge government let down over the past three decades.
 
Before watching the programme, I was aware what 'FGM' was but I didn't know what 'FGM' meant.... I knew that female castration took place in order to try and stop girls from enjoying sex but I wasn't aware of the extent of the practice and reasonings, nor was I aware of the term FGM. I don't really think I realised that this goes ahead without anaesthetic and I completely separated it from British culture, as though it had nothing to do with me, and there was nothing I could do about it. My partial ignorance made me feel slightly disgusted.

However, I was more shocked by the amount of people who were willing to sign a phony petition that would legalise FGM in this country, with many people agreeing to the words "Its only mutilation" as though castrating a woman was no big deal. I don't necessarily blame the people who signed it, I blame their lack of education surrounding the issue- the public simply didn't know enough about the abuse that Layla Hussein was pretending to defend.

 Out of the many people she asked to sign, only one refused. 
 
So why does female genital mutilation happen? 

There are many reasons for it's existence, it stems from purity and is rooted in gender inequality. Although many mothers of the children who are forced to have the procedure support FGM, it all stems from a males pleasure- FGM happens for men. It is cantered upon controlling a woman's sexuality, preventing her enjoyment of intercourse, and enhancing his through the tightening of the vagina. I truly believe that mothers support it through fear rather than having a genuine defence for the 'cut', as their is a huge stigma associated with not having it, an un-mutilated vagina is deemed as being 'unclean' and they're concerned about their daughters prospects of having a male suitor. It is said that FGM is an ethnic marker, and it is this factor which I think is making the pivotal difference between action and the whole thing going unnoticed....

..... Lets face it, if blonde haired blue-eyed girls were victims of this barbaric torture, it'd be all over the news and there'd certainly be 'FGM criminals' in prison. This is as much about racial inequality as it is gender inequality.

I also think that if it were white girls at the centre of this problem, Theresa May would have spared time to discuss FGM with those who were involved with 'The Cruel Cut' programme instead of refusing to come out of her surgery and having someone else write a letter on her behalf. The fact is that she's embarrassed nothing has been done to protect children who are vulnerable to circumcision DESPITE it being illegal. She is embarrassed, as is the government as a whole, that grave inequalities under the protection of the law still exist.

 If the government won't face the problem, we're going to have to force them to.

You can sign a petition by clicking here. "The aim is to get the Home Department- one of the five that FGM currently falls under- to take responsibility for and effective leadership against FGM as it falls under the Violence Against Woman and Girls (VAWG) portfolio. We want them to take the lead in drawing up and enforcing the implementation of a National Strategy and Action Plan to eliminate FGM in the UK."

We need 100,000 signatures for this to be debated in the House of Commons, and as I write this, we're on 73,508. Please help to make this happen. A debate is the first step forward in protecting young children. This has the potential to initiate a string of events aimed directly towards raising the profile of FGM and finally acting upon the law that was passed decades ago.

I truly think that FGM is yet another issue that should be on the National Curriculum- there is nothing more important than educating the masses.
 
As tragic as the story within the documentary was, 'The Cruel Cut' was the best thing I've seen on TV for a very long time; it fills you with the urge to be proactive, and I for one want to be an active part of the campaign. Leyla, Efua, if you're reading, please get in touch.

Hannah Riley
@hannahtheduck

(#StopFGM)

What Feminisim Isn't

After having watched this episode of newsnight a few days ago, I took to twitter- as I do on a regular basis- to express my views and was greeted with a bundle of tweets confirming the fact that gender equality still has a way to go. I understand that people will have conflicting interests, but to be told that I have "no right to comment" on an issue effecting me personally and the millions of other women on this planet by a male UKIP wannabe-MP is a bit much.  

The discussion above and the tweets I received  pushed all of the wrong buttons and I felt compelled to assure you all that feminism isn't about sandals and hairy armpits. For a start, I don't think the programme dedicated enough time to the discussion itself, I completely understand the fact that NewsNight has to stick to a schedulde and fit a lot into its 50 minute time slot but how can prejudice effecting 52% of the worlds population be covered in an 11 minute talk?

The three women involved had some very different opinions of what feminism involves and I'd like to show you my ideas, definitions etc. in a nut shell. I came up with the questions myself but wrote as though someone was asking them otherwise they read oddly, so here we have it:

What is feminism?    
- Simply working towards, and believing in the principle that women are equal to men. That's literally it. I can't speak for everyone, but in my opinion feminism is not about picking fights nor is it anti-men. It's just anti-inequality.

The image of militants and women with hairy armpits does not characterise feminists. If some women feel that venting their anger in such ways will help advance womens rights, then I do sympathise with them, and if some don't want to shave their armpits as a protest against the desirable image of a 'woman'- created by the influence of a males pleasure- then I wholeheartedly understand that. But it's sad that this stereotype makes people shy away from feminism because it's really not a complicated movement, it just wants men and women to be treated as equals.

And you don't have to be a woman to be a feminist, just as you don't have to be black to support civil rights... men can support equality too.  

Are you a feminist?
-I am unapologetically a feminist. No matter what stereotype people have of feminists, I will forever proudly associate myself with them. It would make no sense for me not to be one.

As Mary Beard points out above, "I can't understand a woman who isn't [a feminist]".

On what basis are women unequal to men? 
- Sport, Politics, Heads of Industry, and physical expectations.

Sexisim is everywhere but these are distinctive areas that immediately come to mind as they all involve vast inequalities based on sex.

The sporting world offers a prime example to show that the Equal Pay Act of 1970- ensuring that women are paid the same wages as males in the same positions- is not followed through. Wayne Rooney earns £180,000 a week. Compare this to the womens England football team who, after having received a £4000 pay rise in January this year, earn an annual wage of £20,000. It's disgusting.

Turn to Politics and you'll see the problem of under-representation. In Parliaments all around the world the presence of women is severely lacking. Here in the UK, 147 of our 650 MPs are female. It nowhere near represents the society we live in; and as the function of Parliament is to represent the people, this is a huge dilemma. Put on PrimeMinisters Questions on a Wednesday afternoon and you'll really have to look hard to spot a handful of women. We are in 58th position (joint with Israel) in representing women in parliament; The Philippines, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Finland, Tunisia, Sudan, China, Sweden, Ethiopia, and most ironically, Iraq, are all countries that rate above us in representing women in Parliament. Rwanda has the highest representation with 64% of representatives being female, look the other way and Micronesia, Palau, Vanuatu, and Qatar are all countries with absolutely no female representatives, and there are 35 countries with fewer than 10% of seats taken by women.

Women in positions above the glass ceiling is limited and our appearances are continuously objectified for the pleasure of men. Tits are everywhere.

What are your thoughts on page three? 

Mixed. I have no problem with the women choosing to model because really, most people do most things for money.... and the money is good. If page three were to be banned many of these women could be put out of work.  'Page 3' itself isn't something I get angry about and, despite all the bad press, I'm a big believer in the freedom of the press. I don't have much of a problem with porn magazines being on shelves either.... we live in a liberal state and pornography is freedom of speech.

BUT. And it's a big but. I hate, hate, hate, what pornographic images do in terms of objectifying women. As I suggested above, women are turned into sexual objects and the expectations for flat stomachs, perfect boobs, and a 'thigh gap' are brandished on billboards, posters, adverts, and magazines. But it must be noted that it's not JUST porn. I think the fashion magazines and the industry at large can be just as bad.... using excessive airbrushing and size zero models is something I really don't like. It's something I really struggle with when I go to fashion week.

I think the pressure of girls looking 'good' for their boyfriends stems from both magazines and porn. The whole thing with being completely hairless stems solely from the gratification of the male. I for one, would never fancy looking like my gentials are those of a three year old.

So really, I don't like what naked photos DO but blaming page three won't take the pressures women are surrounded by away. Women posing 'sexily' exists in a lot more than just tabloid papers. Much more would need to be done than taking away page 3 and there's a fine line between protecting women via banning such images and censorship.

Is sexisim an everyday occurance? 
-Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Everything from childrens toys such as 'boy' and 'girl' lego and kindereggs to fairytales (as mentioned in the clip above) involving pretty blonde-haired, blue eyed princesses in beautiful ballgowns being saved by the brave knight in shining armour embeds expectations and limitations to gender roles at an early age. The terminology directed at women "ladies first", and being polite for the sake of 'ladies', even calling them 'flower' all comes from a patronising, derogitive light.

Trouble is, a lot of it goes unnoticed.

What womens 'issue' needs to be publicised to help awareness? 
-FGM. "Female Gential Mutilation".

Otherwise known as female circumcision. It is an ancient practice, dating back to 500 BC, originating in Africa but now occurs all over the world. FGM involves the removal of the clitorous and labias and the tightening of the entrance to the vaginal canal (where the penis goes). It is done entirely for the benefit and pleasure of the man as it often stops women from enjoying sex and enhances the enjoyment of the males experience.

It has been illegal to perform FGM in this country since 1985 but no prosecutions have ever been made- very little is done to stop it from happening and very few people actually know what it is.

There is currently a campaign raising awareness of the cause to stop it from happening and it will be the focus of my next article on this blog.

Do you support positive discrimination?
-Yes.

If a man is clearly better suited to the job than the woman, then hire the man. But if the woman is equally qualified and is as deserving of the job as the man, then choose the woman and do so based on her sex. Inequality has been the pinnacle of society for centuries and the only way to quickly turn it around is to discriminate positively.

It's not PC but being PC can often cause more harm than good.

How would you reduce sexisim if you had the ability to do so? 
- I'd start with young people because they're the future. Embedding a mindset at an early age is the best way to carry equality onto future generations. I'd ban companies from producing 'girl'/'boy' versions of toys.... no more pink lego.

In schools, I'd make sure that issues surrounding prejudices are taught from an early age and the unrealistic portrayal of women via pornography would be included in sex education.

Dealing with the issue head on is how to go about tackling it.

***

So basically, I think I disagree with everything that dear Angela says in the interview. And when I clicked on the twitter hashtag after watching the video, and stumbling across various vulgar anti-feminist and just plain anti-women tweets, I couldn't help but take a couple on. I thought I'd be able to transform their views with my words of wisdom but it backfired a bit and I was bombarded with tweets that basically told me to pipedown.

Apparently feminism is "stupid":

The last tweet saddens me somewhat. Because it's far from true- it's an ideology. Lets see the female England team on £180,000 a week shall we?


And then there's Paul, The UKIP guy, who tried to justify the below comment as a bit of lighthearted sarcasm.... because, oh, that makes all the difference.

I did start these bits of confrontation so I was prepared for reactions. But the closed-mindedness of it all just shocked me. If you fancy reading all the conversations I had between these two, pop on my twitter, @hannahtheduck.

I could literally go on for ever, and discuss the interview on NewsNight in great depth but I would literally kill my laptop in the process so I'll stop here, with the uplifting comment that feminism is arrogant. Of course.

Get a grip Jonathan.

Ok. I'm done now.




Hannah Riley.
@hannahtheduck