Join 3,557 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Amnesty International ad campaign against FGM
December 1, 2007 1:07 PM   Subscribe

Amnesty International has a powerful new visual ad campaign against Female Genital Mutilation. Close-ups (SFW) of the ads in question are here and here.

Does the flower imagery reproduce stereotypical and sexist notions of female genitalia? Some think so.
posted by Rumple (56 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
I dunno, I don't think it's very effective at all. I mean, I get the metaphor, but the images just don't look very 'painful' to me. It's to abstracted and it might even be counterproductive.

I'm curious if women have a more visceral reaction to those pictures, because I really didn't.
posted by delmoi at 1:24 PM on December 1, 2007


The flower imagery is a reference to Georgia O'Keefe's work. Anyway, who the hell looks at a campaign against female genital mutilation and decides it's the campaign that's sexist?
posted by Dasein at 1:28 PM on December 1, 2007 [6 favorites]


*holds breath, hopes against hope that this doesn't devolve into another "oh yeah? Well it's actually all about what happens to boys!" yellfest....
posted by jokeefe at 1:44 PM on December 1, 2007


I'm female and I don't have the visceral reaction I imagine a man might have to a picture of a lopped off banana.

I think a more powerful visual would have been the look in a child's eyes post-"surgery."
posted by desjardins at 1:44 PM on December 1, 2007


While being lectured on the need for cultural sensitivity towards the people of Sudan, I couldn't help but be reminded of this study of the attitudes of Sudanese men towards female genital mutilation -- and in particular, the practice of re-circumcision. This involves a second act of mutilation (following the original clitoridectomy and/or infibulation at puberty) which consists of making incisions on two sides of the labia majora, which are then sutured to 'tighten' the opening -- presumably to maximize male pleasure.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:44 PM on December 1, 2007


Oh, and I think it's simple and effective.
posted by jokeefe at 1:45 PM on December 1, 2007


I see the connection between the flowers and the vulva, and I'm familiar with O'Keefe's use of floral imagery. It's all a bit overused, but if the ads were effective, I'd shrug it off. But for me, the ad imagery is just too safe. The flower petals are tied up in just too pretty a way. They look more like fancy corsets than painfully damaged genitalia.

A for effort, and the ads may turn a few heads, but I don't think they carry nearly the emotional and visceral heft required for a topic like this.
posted by maudlin at 1:45 PM on December 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


Now if the tied-up petals were brown at the edges, or otherwise looked damaged, the ads could be a lot stronger. I wonder if this look was considered early in the process and if so, why it would have been rejected.
posted by maudlin at 1:48 PM on December 1, 2007


Flower imagery in relation to female genitalia long predates Georgia O'Keeffe.

Dr. Fuambai Ahmadu is an African feminist who has undergone the procedure (as an adult) and defends it here (3 meg PDF).
posted by Rumple at 1:50 PM on December 1, 2007


jokeefe: Oh, and I think it's simple and effective.

Agreed. Though I'm not always a big fan of the causes and tactics Amnesty uses, I've been more impressed with them lately, and this is certainly an issue that it's hard not to be behind.
posted by koeselitz at 2:00 PM on December 1, 2007


That feministing discussion is very interesting, particularly reading about the clash of symbolism with the flower=vulva trope. I suspect that such low-level controversy is a good thing in terms of profile/discussion generally. Thanks Rumple.
posted by peacay at 2:10 PM on December 1, 2007


FGM is an insanely complicated topic, because it involves long-standing cultural traditions that are in many, even most, cases female-perpetuated. I am of two minds in outright condemning it: on one hand, the extent of damage that's done, particularly clitoridectomy and infibulation, truly does amount to a mutilation that affects health and sexual function, while on the other hand this condemnation is essentially a form of cultural imperialism and will be recognized as such by its intended beneficiaries. Infibulation is a cultural norm in many societies, and the sight of an uninfibulated vagina would probably invoke the same feelings of visceral disgust that an infibulated one does here in the west.

We had a fascinating talk at my school by Dr. Nicole Warren, a local expert on the topic who has experience with the topic both on the ground in Mali and locally as a nurse midwife whose practice includes the Chicago African immigrant community. In the second context, she's performed several deinfibulations. The most effective discussions about deinfibulation are those that emphasize the health benefits of the process: fewer episodes of UTI/BV, easier urination, the potential increase in sexual pleasure, and so on. When the issue was framed this way, the women and their partners were usually very positive about the process. The upswing of this is that the way that the argument was phrased was very important for its ultimate success; essentially, it established that an uninfibulated vagina could be considered normal and healthy, a concept that really is not present in the cultures where infibulation is performed.

So all this makes me wonder if this kind of revulsion-mediated campaign is the best way to go about the process of raising awareness. Ultimately, the reason why we consider should FGM to be a violation is for its effects on health and sexual pleasure; if it were strictly a cosmetic alteration, as is male circumcision, there would not really be any need for this kind of revulsion. What we should be doing is making common cause with these societies, promoting noncircumcision by means of emphasizing its effects on gynecological and sexual health; in essence, helping to shift where normal is. Revulsion certainly will raise interest in the topic here in the West, but it will serve as an impediment when we actually have to engage in a dialogue with the societies in which it is actually performed.
posted by monocyte at 2:21 PM on December 1, 2007 [2 favorites]


Dr. Fuambai Ahmadu is an African feminist who has undergone the procedure (as an adult) and defends it here (3 meg PDF).

I'd saying that "defending" is a pretty strong word to use, here. She seems more to be arguing that despite "Western" assumptions, circumsized women can claim sexual determination and experience sexual pleasure. I have no argument with many of her findings, though she relies heavily on anecdote, but where I have a real problem is with what she infers from it all-- actually, I'm not sure I've ever read an article where I've had so little argument with the evidence and such a profound difference with its conclusions.
posted by jokeefe at 2:24 PM on December 1, 2007


This paper linked to by Rumple above is absolutely fascinating. It's a study of sexual enjoyment in circumcised women in the Gambia. I cannot, however, agree with this:

Unlike these "mutilated" African women, no one seems to question the credibility of Western women with surgical "designer vaginas" ...
posted by goo at 2:31 PM on December 1, 2007


And on non-preview I agree with jokeefe. I think the research itself is fascinating, but I cannot agree less with the conclusions.
posted by goo at 2:33 PM on December 1, 2007


Unlike these "mutilated" African women, no one seems to question the credibility of Western women with surgical "designer vaginas" ...

Yeah, her equivalence of Western women's body issues and feelings of inadequacy which drive the market for plastic surgery, etc., with the campaign against FGM having similar effects in making African women feel insecure about their (circumsized) bodies was one of those WTF moments.
posted by jokeefe at 2:35 PM on December 1, 2007


jokeefe - point taken -- I suppose on this topic, explication/explanation can be taken as a de facto defence, since the expected reaction is unconditional condemnation.

She has another online book chapter here (also a 3 meg PDF)
posted by Rumple at 2:40 PM on December 1, 2007


I thought it was way too pretty. Showing an ornamental object which isn't actually harmed by the procedure, in combination with clean and competent surgical suturing, to me at least says "not as bad as you thought" much more than it says "destructive, brutal, sick."

But, I have empathy for the designers who had to figure out how to communicate this visually. I think they blew it by choosing not to have the flowers be apparently damaged, and I'm concerned that that decision was made on an aesthetic basis (egotism) or because of squeamishness (inappropriate, considering). The net result is that you get the impression that if the sutures were cut, the flowers would bounce back and everything would be dandy other than some suture holes. I think that's where the fetish vibe comes from -- that's the desired outcome for consensual what-have-you, but it has less than jack to do with FGM.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 2:43 PM on December 1, 2007


If adult African women want circumcision...well, I wouldn't stop them, though I might wonder if they truly want it or are put under pressure to get it. Would any women not being coerced or pressured truly seek this out?

Doing this to a child? Sorry, no dice. It's brutal, it's horrifically painful, and there is no possibility of consent. (and for the record, I feel the same about boys, but please, can we not talk about male circ this time, it's been covered).

Women, like all oppressed groups, often participate in their own subjugation (see the Handmaiden's Tale, etc.), because the costs of resistance are too high, and because they have been indoctrinated not to question. The fact that women do this to other women or girls does not say anything about its morality.

And I welcome all questioning of Western women modifying their bodies to please men as well. Let's do have discussions about breast implants and silicone injections, and in what context they are empowering if no woman would do them absent pressure to conform to perceived male expectations/desires. But neither of those is likely to be as potentially disabling as FGM.

The ad is mildly effective. But just making more people aware of this is worthwhile.
posted by emjaybee at 2:48 PM on December 1, 2007


I think they blew it by choosing not to have the flowers be apparently damaged, and I'm concerned that that decision was made on an aesthetic basis (egotism) or because of squeamishness (inappropriate, considering).

I wonder if the decision to not make the flowers look damaged was over concern about how that would be taken by women who have actually undergone FGM. I totally agree with monocyte above--in my mind, you start heading down a bit of a worrying path when you try to elicit actual disgust and revulsion with the practice. What does that actually achieve? Probably makes the women who have undergone it feel shitty--I mean, you're basically calling them damaged goods, and not many people really want to be told they are damaged and broken--so a pretty rational reaction to that would be a defensive, "Oh, it's not that bad! There's nothing wrong with me, and thus nothing wrong with the practice of FGM!" Which would be pretty counterproductive.

In fact, I do wonder who these ads are aimed at. Women who have undergone FGM? Women or men who are likely to consider using FGM on their children? Westerners, so we can all appreciate how truly barbaric the practice is? (I'm a bit uncertain if that last goal is really the most helpful one in ending the practice.)
posted by iminurmefi at 2:53 PM on December 1, 2007


We are concentrating on third world genital mutilation while we have an epidemic of male genital mutilation happening right here in America!

A Hebrew tribal custom gone out of control is amputating vital parts of our guy's penises and it barely gets a mention.

Uncut and proud!
posted by Sukiari at 3:45 PM on December 1, 2007


Well, I think that the use of the rose sidesteps visceral revulsion or disgust, even if it is damaged (damaged rose isn't gross, it's sad), while still making you wonder what would make someone do a thing like that. I think there is a difference between acknowledging that damage is the result of this sick act versus making someone out to be 'damaged goods', and that distinction is the job of the designer in this case.

Have you ever had something really awful happen, and others were euphemistic about it, and you had the impression that it was to protect their own sensibilities and not yours? A very alienating feeling, as if you've passed entirely out of the realm of the mentionable. So, I'm not sure if I agree that sidestepping the awful is necessarily a nice thing. But, if it was done out of consideration for the victims, I agree that it's a very good intention.

My guess for the answer to "who is this for" is "people who would send checks to AI after seeing the ad."
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 3:48 PM on December 1, 2007


"Key to an effective approach is the exercise of cultural sensitivity when dealing with a custom that has been prevalent for many years and is thought of as normal and necessary by cultures that practice FGM."

The above is from the Amnesty International site linked above and one line of many presented as a joint statement from the World Health Organization, the UN Children's Fund and the UN Population Fund. When I see the word "KEY", it sets off bells and whistles in my head. I think Amnesty International is doing their best with this ad to be sensitive to what is KEY in multicultural understanding. Seems they couldn't help themselves with the small print at the bottom of the pictures though. To iminurmefi's question as to who this ad is aimed at? I say primarily Westerners, but with obvious sensitivity to cultural issues as well. We are being educated, as I suspect Amnesty International has been as well. Now the real work begins in reeducating those that practice this as a cultural rite of passage. I think the new ad is a wonderful start for all.
posted by LiveLurker at 3:52 PM on December 1, 2007


Congratulations, sukiari! Seems like there were alot of young catholic boys who didn't fair so well with THEIR rite of passage. Course that rite wasn't spoken about by their fathers who had gone before them. Could that be because it was just part of the...um...culture?
posted by LiveLurker at 4:05 PM on December 1, 2007


Sorry, that last part sounded way more cynical than intended. Restated: I think that they want people to know that donations to AI go towards efforts to end FGM, and since the part that I saw was on amnestyusa.org, I'm guessing they want to raise awareness among Westerners and get people to go to their website and read their list of what individuals can do to help.
posted by Your Time Machine Sucks at 4:21 PM on December 1, 2007


We are concentrating on third world genital mutilation while we have an epidemic of male genital mutilation happening right here in America!

Everyone please ignore the Penis Troll.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:29 PM on December 1, 2007


Emjaybee is right, I think -- even leaving male circumcision aside, it's not that there are no parallels in western society, it's not that an American woman with ginormous implants isn't its own kind of grotesquerie, it's just that no one here is sewing saline bladders onto the chests of little kids. My gut reaction to the idea of an adult wanting to mutilate her genitalia is, in essence, that if an otherwise rational-seeming guy wanted to chop off his dick with a straight razor we probably wouldn't waste a lot of time questioning our imperialist assumptions and attempting to grapple with his culture; we'd put him somewhere where he couldn't hurt himself, feed him pills, put him through counseling, etc., until he stopped wanting to cut off his dick. On the other hand, if a person wants to change gender, it seems repressive and barbaric to stand in their way, and FGM is certainly far less radical than that. So okay. Maybe women should be able to choose circumcision for themselves (even if a period of psychiatric evaluation previous to, however implausible such a thing may be in context, doesn't sound unreasonable to me), but adults for children? Um, I can confidently say I'm against it, for what that's worth.

(That's very brave of me, I know. Would you like to hear my stance on bears eating people? I AM AGAINST IT)
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:30 PM on December 1, 2007


Kitten is obviously against breast implants and against bears having half so much fun as what any red-blooded American guy would want on any Saturday night. Why YES! You really are a brave one.
posted by LiveLurker at 4:49 PM on December 1, 2007


I cringed when seeing those photos. Flowers are naturally beautiful and delicate -- whether or not the O'Keefe-style metaphor is in effect isn't really relevant to me, because it still works as a general metaphor. Taking the natural delicate beauty of the human body and violating it like that is disgusting.

And yeah, fuck off, Sukiari. If you can find a woman who has had her genitals "modified" in this way and have her testify that she's had no negative effects from it and that it's been neutral -- even just neutral, not positive -- for her life, I'll believe there's a parallel. Whether or not male circumcision is a useful cultural norm isn't even nearly a comparable situation. Not nearly.
posted by mikeh at 7:20 PM on December 1, 2007


I thought it was a really interesting allegory- something that a child might see on a poster and not have to be shielded from, but something that might provoke conversation.

I think there might have a point about the reasons for not having the edges of the petals be brown, but what about the fact that it is widely done to young children? In Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel, she described being tormented by the other children at school because at age 6, she was one of the last girls who hadn't undergone FGM.

Maybe the relative freshness of the roses is supposed to represent the youth of the victims? To me, the little rips and tears caused by the cuts were all the more horrifying because of that.
posted by arnicae at 8:35 PM on December 1, 2007


I thought the images were gorgeous but they didn't really hit me hard in the way I'd hope they were intended too. It does make me want to see how difficult it is to suture flowers though.

As for genital mutilation...I'm all in favor of it if you feel like it as an adult. But you just don't cut off bits of kids. Seriously. That's fucked up.
posted by afflatus at 8:55 PM on December 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


But you just don't cut off bits of kids. Seriously. That's fucked up.

Sky gods, etc.
posted by ryoshu at 12:07 AM on December 2, 2007


Yes, because a penis is only 1/10000th as holy as a vagina.

Thanks, sleepy eyed one worlders!
posted by Sukiari at 12:13 AM on December 2, 2007


And a well meaning, misinformed parent mutilating male genitals in the first world somehow commits less of a crime than those evil Africans.

Those bastardly evil Africans. If only they would do female circumcision in a sterile, medically approved way it would be fine, right?

This is no troll. Male genital mutilation is no less serious than female. Anybody who believes otherwise is a sadistic chauvinist.
posted by Sukiari at 12:16 AM on December 2, 2007


I composed a REALLY long reply to this, suggesting how perhaps you hadn't read any of the loads of posts on MeFi that address this, and how you'd have to be daft to make that old, tired equivalence argument, blah blah blah, not about you, not about men, totally different things, blah blah blah. some people don't get it, not worth arguing about, please be quiet.

then I had a flash of satori and deleted it.

uh, yeah. totally a troll.
posted by exlotuseater at 12:22 AM on December 2, 2007


Well, this is a clusterfuck. Naturally, I don't agree that circumcision and female genital cutting are equivalent, not in the least, since their results are so patently divergent in terms of safety and satisfaction. Still, I am very much against them both. monocyte's points are well made, and I will add that I come from a branch of feminism which acknowledges the dangers of American cultural neocolonialism and the need for autonomy in the postcolonial condition, and have no intention of effecting cultural traditions of groups beyond my ken. Is this a good advertising campaign? Obviously.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:24 AM on December 2, 2007


While being lectured on the need for cultural sensitivity towards the people of Sudan...

Pffft, screw "Cultural Sensitivity". Any population group that practices FGM should be called what they are: barbarians.

As for circumcision, it's clearly not as bad as FGM, but to shout down any concerns about it as trolling compels me to call Girlzone shenanigans.
posted by Scoo at 5:15 AM on December 2, 2007


It has got nothing to do with "Girlzone shenanigans", more like, every time this topic comes up some feel the need to draw the focus away and on to male circumcision. It's a derail at best and trolling at worst.
posted by liquorice at 6:01 AM on December 2, 2007


mikeh: Actually, the PDF linked to earlier includes several examples of women who think exactly that about their FGMs. Not that I don't think they're rationalizing, but it's there.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 6:17 AM on December 2, 2007


[a few comments removed - do not turn this thread into a single person argument. Go to MetaTalk or mefimail for that, thanks.]
posted by jessamyn at 7:48 AM on December 2, 2007


Thanks Joakim, I breezed over that link earlier and it's exactly the sort of testimonial I was wondering about.

As for what we're actually talking about here:
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the removal of part, or all, of the female genitalia. FGM may refer to clitoridectomy (removal of the clitoris), excision (removal of the labia minora), or infibulation (removal of the clitoris, labia minora and majora, and stitching together).
This is why I think throwing out male circumcision and drawing an equivalent to this situation is crass and worthy of ridicule. It is, at most, comparable to the "excision" option in this list, which I'd consider to be the least invasive, and is normally done by medical professionals, meanwhile..

This campaign is to raise awareness about people chopping off the external part of the clitoris, or doing so and then stitching the bits together, in ..unsanitary conditions, using objects like broken glass, tin can lids, blunt knives, scissors, or razors. I think this is worthy of a campaign. When I hear about male circumcision being regularly done to children by random people with tin can lids, I will campaign against that too.
posted by mikeh at 8:50 AM on December 2, 2007


What is the sense in a sexism flag for derails and trolls of that nature, if the offending material is just left in the thread despite the flags?

Never mind. Just gonna go get my bingo card and settle in.
posted by FunkyHelix at 9:06 AM on December 2, 2007


This campaign is to raise awareness about people chopping off the external part of the clitoris, or doing so and then stitching the bits together, in ..unsanitary conditions, using objects like broken glass, tin can lids, blunt knives, scissors, or razors

If people were chopping off the external part of the clitoris in sanitary conditions with a scalpel, would you be okay with it?
posted by ryoshu at 11:11 AM on December 2, 2007


This campaign is to raise awareness about people chopping off the external part of the clitoris, or doing so and then stitching the bits together, in ..unsanitary conditions, using objects like broken glass, tin can lids, blunt knives, scissors, or razors. I think this is worthy of a campaign.

But to raise awareness to what end?

I'm not disputing that this is a bad practice that needs to end. I'm just wondering whether using "raising awareness among Westerners about the totally fucked up shit primarily practiced in Muslim countries" is a campaign that will really end this practice. I think it's just as plausible that getting a bunch of Westerners riled up about practice X in middle Eastern / African countries will entrench that practice further--I mean, it's not like we've ever seen dictatorial governments stir up us-vs-them, colonizer-vs-colonized feelings in their country in order to maintain control of their dictatorships in the face of Western or UN pressure. (Oh wait, yes we have.) If the government of Sudan seizes on Western outrage over the practice and says, "Look! The cultural imperialists in the West hate our culture and our women and want to force us to give up our cherished traditions, *that's* why they're trying to get us out of Darfur, so they can turn women into Westerners," I think we're going to end up having an even harder time eradicating the practice, because all of a sudden we've laid the baggage from about 300 years of oppressive history on top of it.

So I'm not wringing my hands about what it says about me to think this is a barbaric practice--I do, hands down, and feel no pangs of cultural imperialism about it--but I wonder it really achieves. Is this a situation where Amnesty (or other organizations) would get a lot further by doing a very low-key approach in the country, focusing on doctors and traditional healers, and pushing a health message? Does "raising the awareness" of Westerners make it harder to do a campaign like that, because all of sudden you've created an expectation of boycotts against the Sudanese government and official diplomatic pressure to outlaw the procedure?
posted by iminurmefi at 3:38 PM on December 2, 2007


"If people were chopping off the external part of the clitoris in sanitary conditions with a scalpel, would you be okay with it?"

I doubt you'll get anybody here to admit that males and females should have equal rights when it comes to their genitals. Girlzone shenanigans indeed!
posted by Sukiari at 5:58 PM on December 2, 2007


Uh, males and females should have equal rights when it comes to their genitals. Are you positively flabbergasted?

However, until minors have rights that's mostly moot.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:16 PM on December 2, 2007


So are you OK with just snipping off part of the clitoris, if it's done by a doctor, to a baby girl?
posted by Sukiari at 6:17 PM on December 2, 2007


If you're asking me, check my other comment.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 6:37 PM on December 2, 2007


to me at least says "not as bad as you thought" much more than it says "destructive, brutal, sick."

yeah, I had the same response. It makes me think maybe the name makes it sound worse than it really is.
posted by mdn at 7:33 PM on December 2, 2007


FGM is an insanely complicated topic, because it involves long-standing cultural traditions that are in many, even most, cases female-perpetuated.

It's my perception that MGM is largely male-perpetuated. You may be on to something here.

Personally, I value my foreskin for its stem cells. It's money in the bank!
posted by meehawl at 10:18 PM on December 2, 2007


If people were chopping off the external part of the clitoris in sanitary conditions with a scalpel, would you be okay with it?

I would think it is a cultural norm that I can't get behind, and I would have to think about my position for a while. So no, I would probably not be OK with it, but it'd make it more of a cultural divide issue and less of a health/wellness one.


So are you OK with just snipping off part of the clitoris, if it's done by a doctor, to a baby girl?


See above, including where I pasted the definitions, if you're going to keep acting as if male circumcision and the procedure you just mentioned are comparable. This is pretty much comparable to chopping off the glans penis, and then sewing the foreskin tightly around what remains. Well, not really. There's not a good comparison to be made, but I think it's amazingly disingenuous to pretend the procedures being done on females here are comparable to circumcision in the changes being made.

I can be against FGM and neutral on male circumcision without being inconsistent or some sort of misogynist/anti-male person or however else anyone wants to spin it. Anyone repeatedly calling this a "girlzone" issue is painting this with wide strokes.
posted by mikeh at 8:04 AM on December 3, 2007


Unless you've gone into minor surgery and woken up without your penis and a bunch of doctors trying to diminish your outrage and a court system letting everyone off the hook, then this discussion is not about you.
posted by FunkyHelix at 8:42 AM on December 3, 2007


The flower imagery is a reference to Georgia O'Keefe's work. Anyway, who the hell looks at a campaign against female genital mutilation and decides it's the campaign that's sexist?

Regarding this, I just wanted to note that what I found interesting about O'Keefe, to the extent that I found her interesting, was that she took a traditional symbol of feminine sexuality / labia, the flower, and made it enormous, wild, unbounded, and powerful, instead of sweet, pretty, small and contained.

The use of a rose to represent the female genitalia is nothing original with O'Keefe, and to suggest that this ad campaign references O'Keefe really misunderstands her work, in my opinion. This just references sweet little flowers.
posted by mdn at 11:12 AM on December 3, 2007


Message-wise there's a big difference between "this is something you should think about" and "this is an outrage! let's go get those fuckers!"

For that reason I think the subtlety of the images work. Sometimes "shocking people" isn't the most effective strategy. It has the negative effect of not letting people feel that they've made up their own minds on a subject. I'm not saying these are perfect, but a strategy of good advertising is letting the consumer do some of the work.

If I were art directing this campaign, I'd probably have also gone in the direction of showing an image just strong enough to get the viewers attention and hopefully they'll be curious enough to read the rest of the poster. I'm guessing they were trying to find the fine line between going too clever/cute, and full on horror movie.

But I worked advertising for a long time. Whenever I see something like this my first thought is "I wonder what the creative brief looked like"
posted by billyfleetwood at 10:27 PM on December 3, 2007


This is about people freaking out about female circumcision, and being OK with male circumcision. These are both horrifying mutilations. If you think they are not equivalent, remember that they are both painful, permanent, and done without consent. So please cut the indignation.
posted by Sukiari at 4:02 AM on December 6, 2007


The New York Times has an updated column on FGM, including a lengthy comment from Shweder on male vs. female GM. Also, someone posted an open link to the recent WHO-Lancet report.
posted by Rumple at 11:07 AM on December 7, 2007


« Older Enter text, get an mp3....  |  Tom Tomorrow presents Bill O'R... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments