UKC

An anti-FGM campaigner (from Somalia, where she was subjected to FGM aged 7) decided to do a little test. She approached people on the street asking them to sign a petition *supporting* FGM. She said things like: "it’s just mutilation", and that she wanted to protect her “culture, traditions and rights”.

Of the first 20 people she spoke to, fully 19 signed the petition *supporting* the right to inflict FGM. Only one person refused. Is this political correctness -- a refusal to criticise someone else's culture -- taken way too far?

Or is it just "do what the annoying person in the street wants so that they'll go away"?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/what-happened-when-antifgm-campaigner...

In reply to Coel Hellier: The latter I suspect/hope.

In reply to Coel Hellier: My guess is that a scarily large proportion of the population think that mutilation is some sort of horror film.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

People generally don't think too much when confronted in the street.

In reply to The New NickB:

I suspect most people wouldn't support it if they had it explained to them, but most won't think to ask the question.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Be useful if they were quizzed afterwards to establish exactly what they knew about it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
My guess is that there is a huge amount of that combined with a blind assumption that "it must be for a good cause". It's why (on line) petitions in particular are of dubious validity.

In reply to Postmanpat:

If I were a psychology student, I'd be tempted to extent this test, along the lines of Milgram or Zimbardo.

Set up a petition for -- say -- a law requiring that Jews display a yellow Star of David on their clothing, approach people in the street, and see how many sign.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I remember a bloke with a petition down the local supermarket, getting really angry with me because I refused to sign it. I kind of agreed with what the petition said, it was about preserving woodland, but I didn't understand the whole issue (obviously I only got one side of the argument), so I didn't sign.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Petitions generally are ignored for yhis very reason. The view of officialdom is generally if you can't be arsed to write your own letter you're not really all that bothered. A petition has to get into the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands before anyone takes it seriously.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I suspect it's: Nod, smile, sign and assume it's a good cause without actually engaging brain and listening to a word the other person is saying, perhaps combined with some unwillingness to offend.

jk

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I think it was the latter, there have been prank petitions to get Dihydrogen monoxide (water) banned.
http://www.infowars.com/environmentalists-call-for-banning-water/

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The petitioner was a female who had herself been mutilated, so perhaps people felt that yes, she does have a right to protect her "culture, traditions and rights".

Wonder what the response would have been, if it was a male who was directly responsible for FGM had asked the same question?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I suspect it has little to do with political correctness and more to do with people just signing it so they can go on their way without being hassled any further. Seen a similar 'prank' where they were getting people to sign a petition calling for the end of Women's Suffrage.

In reply to Coel Hellier: I wonder how many UKC responders even bothered to read the article.

"19 people signed it with some saying they believed FGM was wrong but because it was part of Ms Hussein’s culture they would add their names."

In reply to Coel Hellier: I think all she proved is people will sign anything that is waved in front of them. Seems a long way to come to prove a daft point.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I hope so. But my response to people annoying me in the street is to simply walk away (if I'm being polite), or tell them to FO and then walk away if I'm not being polite. I certainly wouldn't sign anything (unless as 'M. Mouse') just to make someone leave me alone.

Whilst signatures are less frequently needed for financial transactions these days, they still form part of your identity. Do you want to give that identity to someone you don't know?

In reply to cap'nChino:


I should have said "originally" from Somalia, she is currently a London resident.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I suspect when expalined to them 99% of people will agree that FGM is abhorrent.

however, i think context is a major factor here. you wandering along Penge high Street when a black lady in full traditional African dress stops you and asks you about something you know little about. Until that moment your thinking "must get some Drontal for the dog / kids / mother in law.

so you half listen, sign it as she look a nice lady and carry on with you parasite related daydream.

What makes me despair is some of the comments under that article. If they had their own way some of those people would have us in separate ends of the bus.

Oh, and she has a point - people ar so quick to call racist, that we have lost the ability to objectively criticise. Take the whole Roy Hodgson case - crying racist dilutes the message, and the real racists and bigots are lost in the chatter. We become so mired in paranoia that we lose the ability to really challenge issues such as FGM.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

you might be tempted but i doubt you'd get ethical clearance for your exp!

In reply to Coel Hellier: I wondered about this yesterday when I was (as a female) struggling in IKEA by myself. A black man helped me in store and a Scottish man helped me load the car. I wondered if they helped because they don't have this whole stupid political correctness thing in their head, and if a white Southern English man would think that it isn't politically correct to offer to help a woman. Could just be coincidence I suppose.

In reply to marsbar:

I often hold doors open at work (in the UK) if someone needs to go through carrying stuff. I did this for someone who was coincidentally a German girl. They stopped and refused to go through the door and stated that "In Germany men do not hold doors open for women."

I believe we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

In reply to wintertree: That's what I mean. I hate it when women do that. Its ungracious. I also hold doors open for people carrying stuff, its not complicated.

In reply to wintertree:

My response would have been

" We are not in Germany. Where I come from it is considered incredibly insulting to not hold the door open for anyone, regardless of age, gender, race or religion. Don't be so sanctimonious and insulting to me. Get through the effing door!"

Though I'd probably have saved time and just used the last 5 words!

In reply to marsbar: yes.. a coincidence.

In NE Germany, I can't speak for the rest, its very cold so opening doors.. even daily greetings are unheard of.. once you know them it is different but on a run/walk if you pass people and say abend or hi.. they'll look surprised.. glare or sometimes add hi after a pause.. shocked that you did.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Your definition of political correctness is a bit strange there. Its pretty bad but hardly unexpected given there have been loads of similar petitions over the years as research experiments or jokes (esp. the ban water one). I congratulate her for raising the profile of the campaign against this abhorrent practice and thank you for posting as I'd missed it. Thanks also for Rob for pointing out the nastiness of some of the comments.

In reply to MJ:


Not sure if it relates to this particular case, but I understand that, historically at least, the culture of genital mutilation was encouraged by the women more than the men. That men expected to marry women without a clitoris and stitched-up labia was probably a significant factor, but it seems that the pressure to conform came primarily from within the female social group.
It's probably more a sort of motherly concern ('no-one will marry my daughter if she doesn't have the procedure') rather than maliciousness ('I had to have it done, so you will too'), but still baffling.

In reply to nufkin: I'd wager a very large bet that if those societies were run by women it wouldn't have happen. Sure second class citizens follow social practice where they have little choice.

In reply to Offwidth:


Oh, no doubt. It was just surprising that the influence of women who'd endured it was so considerable, as was their resistance to attempts to abolish the practice.
Presumably men were less directly involved in the perpetuation of FGM because they had so little to do with women

In reply to nufkin:

In her book "Infidel", Ayaan Hirshi Ali recounts how her father totally forbade that FGM be inflicted on her. Then, when the father was out of the country on a business trip, her grandmother inflicted it.

In reply to nufkin:

In societies where FGM is a problem, it is mainly promoted and performed by women, who have themselves been mutilated.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Absolutely. Surely all this showed (yet again) is that most people are compliant. The awkward brigade is a distinct minority.

Mick

In reply to John1923:


Mind you, the same is probably true when it comes to men and circumcision, where that's the norm. But that isn't really equivalent in terms of grimness

In reply to Coel Hellier: Psychologists have enough ideas for sick (or very interesing, depending on your point of view) experiments without any more helpful suggestions.

My favourite is the one about seeing how many students rushing between lecture halls would stop to assist an apparently seriously injured man lying on the ground. The sick part was they did this test on theology students who had just been studying the good Samaritan parable!