Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

Scratch all that. I think I can put this all to bed a lot sooner if I concentrate a lot less on your disingenuous sophistry, cites that don't actually support your points, and strawman rebuttals, and just cut right to the chase.Aside from violating the prime directive and "enforcing cultural ideals on other people", or whatever - in your view, Holmes, is there even a cultural practice you would find indefensible? Could there be such a practice, in your view?If so what would be an example?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

quote:

---

well, that brings out the question of whether men and women have distinct cultures, which they might, as many of the cultures which practice fgm have segregated societies. in which case, it is not an imposition on the men, because it's effects on their culture may be negligible.

---

A woman in one of those cultures that hasn't had her clitoris cut off and her vulva sewn up isn't marriagable, and marriage and giving birth to lots of sons is the only thing that can lift a woman's status.And, not being able to enjoy sex, and in fact, having it probably be painful, is an excellent way to control what women do sexually. Why on earth would your wife ever stray to a better lover if she takes no pleasure in the sex act?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Hi brenna, thanks for the link. Unfortunately I don't have the money and time for whole books right now, but I have read personal accounts.There is no doubt that, specifically without anesthetic and proper health care, it would have to be an excruciating experience. Even with such things it would involve a good deal of pain and some degree of health risk. Thus I have no surprise to hear how horrific such practices would be to any individual.At the same time, this is not something done to just one or two people, this is something everyone shares in. THEY ALL suffer in this way. What's also interesting is to hear those that support the practice despite the suffering they went through. Other than degree of pain, is that any different than rites or rituals we have where many can talk about how they suffered during it, yet others felt it was justified as part of life and felt it improved themselves?Regarding your last point. I realize there are feminist, and frankly it can also be more than just feminist, movements within Africa which would like to end this (and a whole lot of other things). I'm not criticizing these people who want change, nor their seeking tools that might help them change the systems they live in.You raise an interesting question, whether their coming to the West indicates some "flare" to which we should respond. As if these women are ambassadors of all women in Africa and we should do something to protect them. That in such a case... where requests come from people within other nations... that it is no longer an imposition if we act?To this I would ask if someone from the West went to another country and complained about injustices they felt here... according to the norms that other society held as well and would feel connected... wouldn't it be viewed as an imposition if they took it upon themselves to interfere in our way of life, particularly using coercive methods?Wouldn't we say it was none of their business and have a negative reaction like many of those communities using FGM have reacted?Second, you make the claim of feminists wanting change. Frankly the West is not synonymous with feminism. Why should that work as an appeal? And if many people here are correct that cultures should interfere to the point of "averaging" norms, wouldn't feminism ultimately get trampled out?I think feminism, and many individual rights orgs in WC, owe their existence to the brakes I am calling for between nations, and in our case even within our nation. Does this make sense?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

While you are correct about the whys (status), you are apparently not correct about the results.You don't have to respond but I'd suggest reading the literature at the FGM & MGM post I made. In particular there was a study... by a feminist no less... that found strong indications that the majority of women who had clitorectomies were able to enjoy sex and have orgasms.In fact it was western ignorance regarding sexual biology and the social norms they have regarding sexual topics, that made us view their practice as having the result you claim. This is not to say that No woman loses sexual enjoyment, just not the vast number and it might be possible that improved techniques could overcome that.By the way, are you arguing that a woman should stray from her husband if she finds a better lover? That people should think that is a good thing for women to be doing? Somehow I don't think an improved ability for women to be assholes would be a selling point that will get the changes you desire. Again, you don't have to answer, I'm just raising these questions to be considered.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Uh... I was prepared to respond, but I sort of feel I dealt with your points in earlier posts. And if anything most of your post seems to be restating the conundrum which I wholly agree with. I mean I was nodding my head through most of your post... yup yup yup.Here's a couple of questions I'll toss at ya.You say that FGM is an example of not maximizing individual freedom. However, given the unusual traditions they have about sexuality and worth, isn't FGM actually a form of actualizing individual freedom? Without it they have nothing and are considered nothing. With it they are able to rise to greater positions, including authority positions.I raised this in the FGM&MGM post earlier, but isn't this practice essentially an ingrained Body Modification tradition (like lip disks, neck rings, etc), which acts as an indicator of belonging to the culture and an ID card as it were which gives them access to the "benefits" their culture offers?I'm not sure if I'd say "turn a blind eye", but maybe "judge not lest ye be judged"? Heheheh... nudge nudge

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

ooh yay for them. they've made a coming of age ritual out of creating an open, oozing, infected sore in their bodies. we should take care to make sure that we don't impose our culture of antibiotics and health on them! you're insane. if you don't have the time to educate yourself, then you don't have the time to spout off your insanity. if you refuse to be informed, stop throwing your ignorance at the world. i really don't think you understand what goes on here. we're not talking about a simple clitoridectomy. we're tlking about slicing off the entire external apparatus, clitoris, labia majora, labia minora, and all right about marrying age and then marrying her off. they sew the vagina closed so it's nice and tight for every time her new husband fucks her. it rips open every time and they sew it back up. because of the lack of cleanliness, it gets infected and doesn't clear up. it can't heal because it's infected... you know. if she wasn't having it ripped right back open whenever her husband needs his cock rubbed. then, she has a kid, which ripps her open agin, and they sew her up again so her husband can enjoy her tight little pussy. and if you think i'm exaggerating, you have no idea. i'm really, honestly holding back.i don't care how many women are so damaged that they actually have embraced this horrid experience. i don't care. it's not culture. it's hellish torture.despite what you may think, and what people here would like you to believe, feminism is anything but a monolithic movement. it's not a western thing. it's certainly not only a western thing.

Whew... while I'm replying directly to mod, I think my response will cover similar issues MrJack, SgtSnorkle, some bits of NJ, and the very last couple sentences of Ikabod raised(the rest of his post I absolutely agreed with). It seemed that most people were questioning the value of cultural diversity itself, or longstanding cultural integrity. While I followed the rest of your post, I'm not sure I understood the conclusion. I am arguing that changing one's own culture makes sense and does not cross a boundary which we have set for others trying to change ours.Your post appeared to be setting out the reality of how changes occur, that such things are inevitable. But isn't there some limits on how this should occur?If say China became pretty powerful and started stamping out overt democratic institutions, as well as personal freedoms, using leverage to enact such changes... wouldn't you say that is not right and stand up for your individual rights? Am I wrong that national and cultural sovereignty was once thought important from those within the individual rights community?I don't see discussions of how the world does change, as convincing argument that all methods should be considered valid, or that an "averaging" to a monoculture would be worthwhile (I know you, Mod, didn't say this but I'm hitting a couple people in the same post).The reason I like cultural diversity is that it allows for individualism where a monoculture by its very nature cannot. If we allow, or dictate, that all cultures must at some point reach an agreement of what IS acceptable, then disagreement itself will become a crime. In the past people could run away to found their own nation on their own ideals, but that would not be an option anymore, and indeed what people seem to be arguing is that it wouldn't be valuable.I don't see cultural differences as driving conflict, and their elimination leading to the end of conflict. Isn't it more likely that such a uniform society would be like a prison, and the headmasters would then turn within to find and punish new classes of deviates?Finally, what if the "average" based on all of this mingling requires an end to many Western freedoms and ideas. After all WC is small compared to the rest of the world. If we really argue that change toward compromise is the goal, isn't that giving up on the very concept of individual rights we took for ourselves? Put another way, as far as I understood IR meant that certain things were non-negotiable. If you say that culture is always negotiable then so is IR. Right?Most of the world is homophobic, should we let them change our current trend toward such rights? Many are not supportive of women's rights, does that mean we should barter that away for something?Hope this all makes sense. I see IR as a limit we have placed on negotiations for ourselves. From this national rights emerge. Give up one and we give up the other. That it might be given up by some future generation under pressure from another culture, who does not believe in such limits, does not argue that I should set that precedent on my watch.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

ah, lip disks and neck rings. another example of how women's bodies are mutilated to please their men. disgusting.

Calm brenna, calm. I said I didn't have time or money for books right now. I didn't say I had no time to educate myself. Look upthread at my post titled FGM&MGM. I did quite a bit of reading actually, including the hellish experiences. And I did appreciate the book link, I will keep it in mind for when I have more time (and money). Yes, I have a whole link to it. I know exactly what's done. Its viscerally disgusting to me. The idea that it makes it any less culture, indeed that hellish torture makes it any less cultural, is something I'd have to question.Coming of age rituals and indeed all sorts of rituals in traditional societies often involve great amounts of pain. While I suppose this is speculation, my thoughts would be that it is because endurance of great suffering is a HUGE part of their life in general. Thus self-inflicted (that is by the culture on itself) damage and pain appears NOT to be an issue of personal rights to them. I agree with you that feminism is not monolithic, ESPECIALLY as some people here like to pretend. However it really is a product of WC. That is to say, the concept of IR expanded from land-owning males, to all males, to women. As a movement I don't see it (though if you have some counter evidence I'm open to it) as having appeared anywhere else, but rather has been getting exported.That is not to say however, that women outside WC have not fought from time to time for their rights. I just don't view, or define, that as feminism per se. That to me is simply advancing forms of IR, and the people happen to be women. Feminism, to me, requires some concept of organized action from at least a general mindset, that is classic WC. Uhmmmm, what? I think this statement itself points to an ignorance on your part. They do not actively turn down hygiene where it is available. These tend to be extremely poor nations which just don't have it. Ironically, hamfisted efforts to end the practice have resulted in it being pushed underground where hygiene is worse.In fact, contrary to your claim here, I think we should be offering them expertise and supplies so that if this is the practice they are going to have, its damaging effects can be minimized. That is not against their cultural traditions at all.Please be civil with me brenna. I realize FGM is a heated topic, but the arguments regarding what individual rights and cultural diversity entails isn't best argued through name-calling.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

quote:

---

You don't have to respond but I'd suggest reading the literature at the FGM & MGM post I made. In particular there was a study... by a feminist no less... that found strong indications that the majority of women who had clitorectomies were able to enjoy sex and have orgasms.

---

Yeah.And you could also find slaves after the Civil War who yearned for the good old days when they were owned.Do you therefore think that slavery should be legal?...for cultural reasons?

quote:

---

By the way, are you arguing that a woman should stray from her husband if she finds a better lover?

---

No.I am saying that FGM is a really good way to control women's sexuality.FGM has everything to do with men's insecurity over who the father of their children are.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Okay, isn't that just a bigoted statement regarding aesthetics? As far as I understand there aren't a lot of problems associated with either of those practices. And besides, men in those cultures also usually have body modifications themselves.Indeed, lip disks can be worn by men and women alike. Wha's the deal? And I then have to ask if you have an issue with ear rings and other piercings worn by women today. How about tattoos? Isn't that all to be made attractive according to cultural standards?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm sorry, but why am I to take these assertions, over a study which I presented? While I totally agree that much of the INTENT is control over women's sexuality... they worship hymens, virginity,chastity to the point of disliking the appearance women would want sex... that is not the same as succeeding.The author presents some very convincing evidence for existence of sexual satisfaction, despite all the hindrances. Man, they can't even writhe around in orgasm, or risk divorce!I do agree that this could have stemmed from, and still include to some degree (depending on culture) insecurity by men regarding paternity. Okay. That doesn't make it any less their culture.To this I would note there are actual aesthetic concepts ingrained in this practice as well. Albeit due largely to ignorance of biology. It is incorrect to blame it all on male paternity concerns. This is like asking me if I think Saddam should have been put back in charge. SHOULD it be legal? No, I am not a proponent of slavery. And I will fight it within the nation and culture where I exist.However I have no illusions that I belong to anyone else's community and have a say there. As a matter of fact, slavery is a plausible form of dividing rights/labor for a community. It built many nations quite well. That a culture/nation might have it today, would be odious to me... but so is marxism, fascism, and laissez faire capitalism. I'm not about to say we must go out and change it, just because we don't like it.That said, slaves taken from other nations would be against national sovereignty. De facto slavery of occupied areas (ala Israel/Palestine) would be against international individual rights (Palestine being an occupied territory). I think we have rights within the international framework to stop such things.There may also be issues of nations in civil war, such that sovereignty becomes lost for these kinds of purposes.But no, I don't think other nations SHOULD have slavery as a legal institution.Edited by Silent H, : lil additions

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

oh, what happened to ? you understand wrongly. women with lip disks often suffer from broken lips. they also have a great deal of problems doing ordinary things with their disks in once they get up to a certain size. sure, it's just an exaggeration of ordinary piercing, but i wonder if they have any individual choice in the matter.further, women with neck rings cannot support their heads if they remove the rings. i think that's a pretty severe problem. and? i have two lobe piercings, two cartilage piercings, and a nose piercing. i have no issue with personally selected body modification. i certainly wonder if the more exaggerated examples might be symptomatic of some psychological issues, ie pain-seeking behavior. sure, maybe it's merely aesthetics, but sometimes it must be at least just curiosity of what the body can take, if not potentially something more serious. now, not everyone with a full-body tattoo is a whacko, but i know some people whose tattoos are symptomatic of their issues and it's patently obvious with the nature of some of the artwork. sure, sure anecdote isn't worth anything on here, but i don't have time to fight the nutballs here about "evidence". these people have diagnosed psychological maladies and have told me specifically that the tattoos are a product of the maladies. i'm willing to bet they aren't alone in the universe.but the biggest issue is that these women don't choose these behaviors. oh maybe they want it because it will help them get a husband or whatever, but cultural coercion is not choice.

Why does changing one's own culture make sense? What is one's own culture - where does my culture stop? The moment I leave Britain, or the moment I leave Manchester, or the moment I leave my house?I am aware of no boundary that we have set for ourselves that we ourselves cross. We here in Britain have been invaded by American culture, was that wrong? We have exchanged cultural elements with India. Was that wrong? I'm not sure limits are possible. Of course I would. And maybe my culture would vanish and be replaced by a far reaching Chinese culture. Chinese culture has likewise been altered by Communism. Who can say which one will win, but there are certain outcomes I would prefer. Well, the time for nation states may be limited - who knows? Either way, I don't have a problem with either national or cultural sovereignty. There are things we try and stop nations doing, and there are things we try and stop cultures doing. I like cultural diversity too. Humans are renowned for doing some things in different ways and that's a good thing. We don't have to agree on all things. We will just eventually come to agree that some things should be criminal always. We stand up against slavery and child labour (sort of), that does not imply that disagreeing about music will become a crime. Of course not. As I mentioned before, the cultures that do not support women's rights will try and change our culture. Being a culture that does support women's rights we will try and change their culture. I don't follow. If we believe in natural rights, why should we not feel the compulsion to make those natural rights universal? How does that compulsion lead to the giving up of those natural rights?If we manage to convince other people that certain cultural practices should be abandoned, how does this mean that we give up the right to free speech, for example?

I apologize if it looked like I was simply calling you a name. That wasn't my intention. I didn't say, you bigot. I was characterizing the kind of statement. I guess I could (should) have said biased, subjective, or strictly personal?The point was that it was an intense personal dislike you had with regards to an aesthetic. I have not seen anything certain about this. While I used to think that was true, I have seen conflicting accounts, and within one of the links I gave it is stated that that is a myth. If you have data I would be interested in clarification.On the lip disks, while problems may occur they are not "lots of problems", and certainly not things which can't be dealt with. I am putting this in comparison to full health risks like those posed with the outright surgery involved with FGM. It is just exaggerated piercing and yeah, oversized has to lead to some practical difficulties... but clearly BOTH men and women face the same hurdles posed by the disks.The reason I brought up men using the same BodMod is that it undercuts a concept that it is related to sexism, or oppression. I think your speculation may be right, but that doesn't undercut the validity of any of these acts. We're ALL trying to figure out our lives in one way or another. I highlighted a portion of your statement above because I think that does play a part in traditional rituals. These people suffer on a daily basis much more than people in the 1st world. It may be that these rituals capture that, take back some power that the world has over them, by showing that they can handle the suffering inherent to their lives. Well I agree with your statement, but I'm not sure that argues for our having to coerce them either. And I would add it doesn't seem like the men get a lot of choice in their lot either. While the women get the worse deal, the lives of the men aren't exactly great either.In traditional societies all people tend to be bound be expectation and ritual. Society is MORE important than individual choice. And certainly parents are viewed as the rightful decision makers for their children, rather than the children getting a say. I can see how that is different, and not something you or I would want for ourselves or are children, but is that invalid? Why?In this case I'm sort of cutting to the question of absolute morality, or the universality of individual rights. Can these other systems be objectively judged? How?This does not deny your subjective appraisal of them.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard