Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

Hmmmmm, later you claim to be unable to get into heads of other people. That what they encounter in the sex act itself is patently obvious. That they feel satisfied is not contingent on sex being the same.Some men get off with nearly whole arms shoved up their backsides, that does not mean they are not satisfied in the same way as another guy who is not.What the quoted section suggests to me is that based on their cultural experiences the role of pain as "outside" of sexual activity, does not exist. In fact it is mandatory. How is this different than full-fledged SM? Are you claiming people into SM, some forgoing orgasm even, cannot be satisfied?And your guess at what I meant by L-K's explanation about discrepancies with earlier studies was not correct. I was referring to her discussion of how earlier investigators may not have received adequate feedback from interviewees, based on their own ignorance of the cultures. L-K began by getting the same type of feedback as earlier studies, when a person more familiar with the culture explained she was not asking questions in the right way. She was essentially asking them questions that were taboo to answer in the way she asked... or did not make sense. After she learned how to communicate with them, she was more accepted by the interviewees and given much more detailed info... opposite from earlier studies.For a person with a CA degree you should be familiar with this kind of thing occurring. Her account was a powerful indicator (to my mind anyway) that a breakthrough had occurred and this information more reliable. Apparently so did you medline article. Sure they can dictate a monoculture. Anyone can dictate anything they want.I think you mean they won't have the practical ability to make everyone think or act a certain way. In that case I would agree.However, it can have such instilled by law and people that do not act as such thrown into jails... or other. Ironically my statement was in part an agreement with a point you appeared to be making that the FGM cultures might be creating a monoculture. Now you ask for my evidence?On the OAU and other international agreements, you have totally skipped dealing with the fact that these things are generally negotiated agreements and that they can (and often do) involve some amount of compromise and coercion... particularly poorer nations coerced by more powerful groups.I am not claiming that no one in the OAU liked the agreements, or that no one in Africa liked such things. I am claiming that in all likelihood the agreements were part of negotiations, with some being sacrifices to gain some benefit rather than outright ideological fervor. And further, that they may not all view the tenets of the conventions as meaning what we might take them to mean, or apply them in teh same fashion. Further still, especially given the fractured nature of African societies and the imbalance of power within the poor ones (or non democratic ones) it is a bit hard to say that what delegates of the OAU say are actually representative of the thoughts and desires of Africans per se.This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's understanding how these kinds of things get made. Its diplomacy.What's more, whether they agreed to enact them or not (let's say for true patriotic fervor for human rights!!!!), does not mean they were correct or consistent in doing so. They could have all voted for which God is right, that would not make it so, or right for them to have done so.And yes they are just legal contracts, or perhaps less than that sometimes? Mission statements? How is that a dubious claim on my part?

---

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 tried to find the studies you cited online, but could not find a full article... just the abstract... so I wasn't able to determine what the studies meant (i.e. the meaning of the %s was not explained) or whether the studies the lit search was using were valid.I'm not claiming anything other than I couldn't find them. If you have a link to the full text I'd read them.Now, in trying to find the full paper I did run across this interesting abstract... Pleasure and Orgasm in Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C). Catania L, Abdulcadir O, Puppo V, Verde JB, Abdulcadir J, Abdulcadir D.
J Sex Med. 2007 Nov;4(6):1666-78.
Despite the obligatory bookend appeals to human rights and women's rights, the study says something very interesting.Note the highlighted yellow results. Look at the research date? Note the results.It appears that they found what L-K did, mention "other research" which found the same, and are advancing the concept that modern ob/gyn/urologists still don't know what makes a woman tick. Apparently clitoral structures remain, ones modern medical types do not recognize, even in the worst FGM cases... sufficient to deliver orgasms. What's more, delivered in pretty sufficient numbers. They rate higher than the others.Now what?

---

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

{deleted}Edited by Silent H, : Believe our debate is not aided with so many different exchanges at once, collapsing three last replies into one...

---

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

{deleted}Edited by Silent H, : Believe our debate is not aided with so many different exchanges at once, collapsing three last replies into one...

---

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

Okay look, I am skeptical of Rrhain's claim on this, but he has made a point and I did give you stats showing people really do suffer. This includes due to the nature of the cutting and not just botched operations.To say one group suffers more painful experiences therefore the painful experiences of the other aren't just as real is a bit sexist... given this context. There are plenty of women in the Sudan... what does that mean? And it is odd to cite men likely in 1st world countries who'd get better medical care in general.Let me ask you this, if they were able to do FGMs in a way that produced no pain at the time, and did not require pain or risk during future events (such as pregnancy), would that make you any more for the procedures?

---

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

{deleted}
Next post from me to Molbio will be a combined response from the three prior responses I made. Sorry for any inconvenience.Edited by Silent H, : thatEdited by Silent H, : Believe our debate is not aided with so many different exchanges at once, collapsing three last replies into one...

---

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 don't believe my posts in this thread have been as long as you are making out... except perhaps the first? And I have been keeping them within the length of the posts I am replying to. This is an effort I have been making since my return.I will continue to try to improve my brevity, but I think your characterization isn't quite so fair these days.That said, on abbreviations, I think they are useful and I usually don't pull them out of thin air. For example I explicitly set up WC as an abbreviation within the OP. I admit I used L-K and CA when talking with molbio without officially creating the acronym first, but I though the context would make them obvious if the prior posts had been read.I will try to refrain from their use as much as possible. However, I will not stop using WC. If someone doesn't understand what that means, then they either didn't read the OP, or they didn't understand it. In either case, I really wouldn't care what they have to say or if they are lost.Is that a fair compromise?

---

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

The stats were way back on message #60. I think someone repeated the same kind of stats later. Then why are type 1-4 all lumped under FGM? Or, why are you not differentiating between them with different terms. They certainly change the stats if we do that. ???? Compared to FGM? I'm sorry but it is NOT just a cosmetic procedure. While I am not going to act the horribly abused victim, the fact is that circs definitely can have lasting effects, negative ones including pain, even when done properly. If you want to argue degree of severity then that might be a valid position, but to reduce it to "merely cosmetic surgery" is off by a great margin.

---

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

Okay, I don't want to accuse you of playing dumb, but I don't understand how you don't understand people within nations directly influence each other's cultures (or sub-cultures if that makes it easier) through legislative force? When you start appealing to what nations agree between each other, then that is not inherently your DIRECTLY effecting another culture in another nation. That would only be the case, if you enlist your gov't to force a change within another nation. If you cannot understand that people without voting rights in their own country do not have an EQUAL say in their culture, and may have NO say in the fate of their culture, then I'm not sure what to say. That is exactly why voting rights for minorities are considered so important within western nations. See it's comments like that which really make me thing you're just trying to joke around. The formation of our nation, by splitting from yours, was an act of creating our own political system (which we could consider our political subculture splitting from its original culture to form a new one). It was NOT one nation forcing another to do something through violence.In fact, if anything it is an example of what I have been talking about since the OP. We democratically split from Britain to form our own nation... create our own community. Britain said that was not possible and sent troops to force us to obey (we didn't send troops to force you to do anything). And even after our victory over that form of coercion, Britain attempted to coerce us. Thus developed key concepts that nations do not have a legitimate right to force other nations to do what they want them to do by any and all means. ??? Again, this seems like a joke. Yes things change in relation to each other, that does not make them a single community with inherent beliefs/codes applicable to all. And your argument sort of defies the concept that was getting built around human rights anyway... was it our shared humanness or the reality that people change through interaction?After all, a community of humans will influence and change the behavior of a wolf pack they come into contact with, and vice versa. Does that mean wolves and humans are the same community with rights afforded naturally base on their very existence? Now THAT is a more relevant question (in a practical sense). But I guess I'll have to turn it around to everyone else claiming that cultural practices should be ended if they violate current concepts of human rights. What is on the table?When there are statements like the enforcement of human rights is more important than cultural diversity or national sovereignty, then I suppose it seems to me more than boycotts and argumentation are on the table. That's what I said too. I am discussing a shift toward dropping some of those limitations based on a growing power of western nations who wish to spread their own cultural concepts of individual rights.This is mirrored in comments by others... if it doesn't apply to you then I'm not talking about you... who seem to suggest limits can be dropped when the rights of "others" are violated, wherever that is. Again, the community of humankind thing. Yeah, but you also said you embraced the idea that you could fail and have the other guys win out. That is where I am suggesting there might be a problem. What if these nukers win out... are you then going to embrace it? This is another interesting point. However, doesn't this suggest you ARE in favor of dropping limits on forms of coercion between nations, when it suits your cultural understandings? Frankly I would not see reason to go to war in either case. In both, it is a society inflicting damage on itself.As it is why shouldn't another nation want to go to war over BritPop as a form of degrading humanity from their view point? But maybe you should wait to reply to this point. I am reworking my previous responses to molbio, with a more detailed line on this very point. Again, people with their documents. As it is yes I can show you this "lack". The coalition of the willing invaded a nation in violation of "documents" all had signed restricting them from unilateral invasion, without direct threat to themselves.It is roundly agreed that this was against international law regarding warfare, and has led to many violations of agreed to "human rights". That is not to mention those committed in the name of the war on terror in general... for example the ending of habeas corpus, and beginning of relatively unrestricted torture.In all cases this was done with the idea that human rights impelled us to act in the way we did, in violation of these previous limits. Bush and Co extol the concept of how anything but democratic govts are a violation of human rights, and so all others must be made to change, one way or another. And they have consistently gloated over the idea that raw military power exercised on one community in this name is creating the necessary coercive threat for others to change.

---

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

Just a sec brenna, don't get me wrong. I am with you on doubting Rrhain's claim. I even agree that type 2&3 FGMs are more severe than male circs.I am simply rebutting any idea that they are less equal if the issue is lack of consent, existence of pain, and permanent disfigurement.I did notice that FGM can be divided into 4 categories, however I don't really see them being used by anyone here except me, who brought them up when describing the nature of FGM. Furthermore, you have repeatedly been using FGM. If you actually hold to your argument (as posed to Rrhain) then you should NOT be using the term FGM... just Type 2&4. Right? That is totally incorrect. It doesn't even match general knowledge of the procedure. Now remember I am not claiming equal severity to Types 2&3, but they have other effects, even if done properly.As far as your whole argument about sanitization... that could be true for FGM too. Lack of hygiene is not inherent to FGM... though the issue of later hygiene (based on built up wastes from infibulation are normally). Also, you have clearly not seen how circs are carried out in the same regions that FGMs are. I WISH I had the tape to post here. I watched one once and nearly lost my lunch. It is just as crude and dirty as an FGM. As far as MGM goes, that includes more severe practices such as subincision.When you ask about being offended, I think it was that you had used the term "merely", as if to suggest cosmetic (in the descriptive sense) was nothing. I might add that FGM is cosmetic surgery, under that same concept.

---

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

Brenna, read more carefully. I did not say they CANNOT. That's what mod was asking. I restated it much more clearly from a practical standpoint. Yes anyone can try to change their culture. However... if you do not have a right to vote within your community you do not have EQUAL say in the culture (as those with votes can have you physically stamped down and so minimize how much influence you have), and may have NO say in the fate of their culture (depending on the stomping).I tend to think advocates of women's rights, black civil rights,and homosexual rights would agree with that assessment. In jail or dead is a very hard place from which to affect the society (though it can be done). I stand astounded by the naivete. No one is forced to agree to anything at the UN, and all nations fully support the stated agreements within the same way and with the same understanding. Is that what I am understanding you to be saying? Because the UN says so? No I don't understand that, not one bit. What is it some sort of religious council that tells you how you have to feel? I'm not intending sarcasm with that question at all.The UN is a political body that can be disbanded at any time. I really don't get that what they say has any meaning greater than what the international body of autoworkers would have to say about life. Great, okay, this is where I see a direct contradiction to what was said above (or what I thought you saying) about the UN. First of all the UN passed a resolution which really did allow the US the space to interpret the meaning to their own end (so they couldn't be firectly censured). So if it was unanimous or with majority support means everyone actually agrees? That all interpretations are the same?Furthermore that they could not stop the US from acting, or rather that no nation attempted to stand up against the US (and friends) sort of undercuts their initial agreement at the UN, if it violated individual rights, right?Finally, what the US did CAN be described as acting in the name of human rights. Bush has done so himself, and a poster in another thread said he was right (even if his intel and motive was wrong). The Iraqi people really were suffering under a despot. Many dying and being tortured, overtly. If the idea is that FGM should be stopped because of it leading to torture and death (even if mistakenly well meant), why couldn't Bush decide he should try to stop active torture and death (when intentionally inflicted as such)?I don't get how he would be acting unusually... unless there are limits to how people should effect other nations and cultures?

---

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

Shit, I was just about to post my 3 reply roundup, when I saw this next post of yours. Let me read it all and integrate its discussion into the post I had ready to cut n' paste.Now I am well behind on other things... I really thought I could cut n' paste and get the heck out of here for a while. So, please also excuse the fact that I may not get back to you for a bit. While it may be by tonight, it could easily be not till after this weekend.Hmmmmm, maybe I should have left those three posts as they were. Ah well. And by the way, why act on the high horse? I had three replies to you, which I've been condensing (they all said so). Its a bit of a cheap shot to act all put out in a new post when you know a person is working on submitting an answer in the mean time. And contrary to your assertions, I have not been fond of any study. I have welcomed any more detailed research that could be provided. ANY with ANY CONCLUSION.Sheesh.

---

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

Howdy Brenna. I don't understand how you don't realize all of your statements end up defending my position.Let me break this down as simple as I can (because it can be complex). The UN is a political body meant solely to work out practical issues between nations. It is not about building norms, except in rules regarding direct contact between two nations. You are right that people have conceptualized it as greater than a practical instrument, including growing vague meanings into concrete normative expectations.However, it is still just a practical tool, and no matter what wonderfully worded documents anyone signed (or all of them), they are simply going to do what is in their interest by defining these things according to their own norms and needs. The UN generally has better success when it stops acting like morality cop.By the way, I am about to post three things to molbi. The one on FGM contains a link directly pertinent to the ongoing debate about FGM v MGM. You might find it interesting.

---

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

My intention was to simply condense three replies, with an extra set of links. However, after reading your last post (and trying to find articles you cited) I've got more to discuss and a single post would be huge. Hence I'm creating more than one post, each on a single topic.Among the insults you threw at me was the charge of armchair anthropology. We are all... as far as I understand... armchairing it here (though as you will see in later posts I have grown to suspect one of us is in a Lay-Z Boy recliner...heheheh). Not one of us is flying off to start our own studies. The only question is how much work we're putting into understanding each other's arguments, providing (in good faith) evidence that might be pertinent, and understanding that evidence (ours and others'). This post is about understanding each other's arguments.The focus of this thread, as set out in my OP, is an ethical and political debate. I'm NOT arguing how cultures, communities, and nations are-- or should be-- defined by modern Cultural Anthropology. That would be a semantics issue with no relevance to the ethical and political argument at hand. As long as I set out definitions for the terms I am using, that should be fine enough. Requests for such citational "proofs" of common or scientific usage indicates a lack of clarity on what the real debate is about.That said... FGM was put forward as an example "cultural practice" for use in debate. In this case, requesting citations for statements made about FGM is pertinent. Though ultimately it is more important for others to define their own Ethical and Political position, than to knock mine. It is important to note-- if you could not figure it out from the OP-- that my position did not rest on the nature of FGM. It could be as horrible or as nice as anyone can imagine. Such things are irrelevant to me. Thus to me, the debate on the nature of FGM (and any evidence provided), is a secondary debate on the state of scientific methods and knowledge regarding that topic.Finally, coercion as an instrument of international political power is an assumption made by the OP. Not in the sense of any specific case, but that it is a tool available to any group with power over another. Some examples were given to start generating limits on its usage. One was the Spanish conquest of Central America, another the US's actions in the war on terror.During this discussion international documents were raised as if to point to real world consensus on a definition of human rights. When I mentioned coercion as plausible mechanisms behind such agreements, I was asked to cite sources for such a thing. But that is to miss the point entirely. We can agree for sake of argument... especially to save time and space... that absolutely no coercion ever takes place during international agreements. That does not make what they agree to objective reality, logically mandated, nor actions taken consistent/justified (ethically or politically).For example, the world body as a whole can announce that Jesus Christ is our savior, that the second temple must be built so that he can return to save humanity, and direct vital world resources to that end in the name of all humans on the planet. Such a thing wouldn't make those claims real, nor count as evidence that it could be. Likewise that many or all world bodies institute an agreement claiming that human rights are inherent to all humans, and that cultural traditions are not important compared to protecting "human dignity"-- as if that were not itself an artifact of cultural origin--, and that cultures only exist to improve the existence of individuals-- so that they can be judged by that measure accordingly--, does not make those concepts true or consistent.To engage in that logic is to commit the fallacy of Appeal to Authority or Majority.To end with a citation that works as a nice example of what I am talking about with regard to coercion as a tool, and FGM as an example, here is an excerpt from an article in the NY Times (linked to a free version at another site) : So what we have is a NY Times article positively spinning women's rights groups using the power of Islamic Faith to enter an elderly woman's home against her will so that male Islamic religious leaders can blackmail her emotionally (fear of God), and financially (fear of enforced restitution based on Sharia Law) to end a cultural practice they claim is about male domination, and then cajole other women into the same... not to mention view herself and all others as damaged victims, where they used to feel proud and happy. The layers of irony and hypocrisy are many fold as an onion, and stink just the same.I hope that's obvious coercion. Anyway, the next two posts look at elements of the problem my OP discusses (evidence for my usage of terms and their reality), as well as evidence regarding the nature of FGM. Edited by Silent H, : to molbi

---

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 certainly not going to challenge whether you have a degree in Cultural Anthropology. And I readily admit the closest cred I have is a minor in Soc with a course in Cultural Anthro. That said, I was taken aback by some of the incredulous comments you made, and one night something hit me.What is a cultural anthropologist doing using feminist doctrinal analysis on the practice of FGM? How is one reducing FGM to merely an instrument of sexual domination of women, as if there are no other factors involved, and asking an inane question regarding whether the removal of that "barbaric" practice would destroy the culture? Barbaric? That comment really started to stand out. Now maybe its the fact that I was into sociology and anthro-- taking courses and such-- a long time ago and things have changed a bit. But one of the first things we learned is that culturally dependent political analysis, like feminist theory or marxism or capitalism, is contrary to Anthropology. Indeed cultures must be understood from within their own belief system to make sense of them. Cultural relativism being a working tenet of anthropology.To the members of the cultures in question, particularly with regard to FGM, they are the ones being civilized, and we are barbaric. To not cut those parts away is to remain an animal, and acting on bestial qualities that are beneath civilized humans. There are also symbolic units, between male and female, which I would think a "professional" anthropologist would understand and accept as a part of the cultural belief system.You asked if its loss would destroy their culture. It would clearly change it. What do you mean by destroy? Speaking as a Cultural Anthropologist, what does it take to destroy any culture? Especially on a piece by piece basis. To argue that way, would it destroy our culture to lose any of the individual rights we enjoy? Or how about democracy as a system of gov't? This appears to be a poor form of argument on your part. That I cannot show an entire collapse of a system, based on the removal of one element does not argue that it is not an important part of that culture which might change it dramatically. Neither does it argue that removing such a practice is right according to our own standards.Of course then there was the issue of what a culture was at all. You couldn't understand my usage. A nation as a culture??? What is that? But the term is fluid even within the field of Anthro, right? There is no fixed term especially when making comparative statements regarding different groups of individuals. Which is a culture and which a subculture? According to your nonfluid view, what could ever be defined as a culture?But assuming I should re-evaluate my word choices, I went to Wiki and found very similar usages to mine at their entry on Nation, from which... You can find my defs and usages similarly explained at Wiki's entries on...Culture, and American Culture, and Western Culture. Heck let's just throw in a link so you can check my crazy ideas about Cultural Anthropology while we're at it. Now I'm not claiming that Wiki is infallible or a full academic resource. However, it seems to undercut any incredulity you had at what I've been saying or the plausibility of my defining things as I have.Interestingly, while I was there, I found they had a link to monoculturalism. It's even mentioned in the quote above. Sadly I thought I was sort of popularizing the term... but the fact is that it's already in use in the EXACT MANNER I HAVE BEEN USING IT! Of course you weren't completely alone on expressing incredulity at people advocating such a thing. The following are excerpts from Wiki's Monoculturalism entry (actually part of their Multiculturalism page). It will run from description, to advocates of such, and some examples of success for that movement. For anyone familiar with my personal history, the above examples may explain why I am particularly sensitive to this movement, and quite negative on Hirsi Ali. I loved the Netherlands pre-monoculture takeover, and Ali was greatly responsible for the xenophobic movement which directly cost me the first attempt at getting citizenship there. It was with some personal delight to watch her movement turn on her, trying to strip her citizenship, as she had successfully done to so many others. Hehehe, she even left before I did. That she came to America to spread those same policies through the same neo-con org that gave us the Iraq War has not escaped my attention, and is rather aggravating.Anyway, given the above, if you (molbio) want to continue acting like you've no clue what I am talking about, why you can just bloviate me.... heheheh, kidding. I don't lose my religion until next post.

---

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