Culture v. culture on the global scale

[KillerMuffin]

I've been considering this for a bit.

What right does one culture have to judge another culture? By what standards are these judgments allowable?

The Islamic nations--for the most part--view even what we'd consider mild family TV to be pornographic. Take Frankie and Annette's beach movies. Couldn't get more tame without a nun habit, yet some cultures view this as pornography.

The West sees certain types of criminal punishment as cruel and inhumane, yet Singapore finds a public caning to be effective and just.

Then you get into interesting things like human rights. In certain cultures, women are chattel or inferior people. Some Afghani woman was just fired from her position in the government because she didn't properly cover her head while spending time with the Bush family in Washington. There are cultures out there where women are not allowed to work outside of the home or get an education.

To us, that's wrong morally and culturally. It's inhumane. To that culture, it's normal and any other method is immoral.

Do we, with our liberated female-equalizing culture, have a right to dictate to a different culture where women are not liberated? How did we get this right? What makes our way right and their wrong? When does one culture become more morally right than another?

 

[70/30]

Like lance said before, CAMEL-jockeys see BAYWATCH once and they're paranoid and/or addicted. I think a big part of the males' lust results from them not seeing skin of their own females. If everyone in Saudi went topless (prolly fry from the sun tho) then males prolly would appreciate their female's beauty more and they'd be like us but without the PORN SUPERHIWAY. Once they got that then they'd get our 50% divorce rate real quick.

 

[sexyguy2]

Once they got that then they'd get our 50% divorce rate real quick.

Not necessarily

 

[sufisaint]

Unfornately cultures are dying in this world and turning into an ugly mass culture (based on the lowest common denominator) like whats happen in the United States...we used to be strong independent individualist and now we are greedy, voyueristic consumers..

 

[horny_giraffe]

Yup, KM. I agree that that's a problem with moral/cultural relativity. If we tolerate other cultural norms with the idea that it's all about their own cultural context--where do we draw the line?

The best thoughts that I can come up with it that we try to deal with groups of people collectively. That brings in the problem of where culture starts and ends.

Does a government represent a culture? Is there a world culture? A universal culture? A culture of one, or two?


"Then Abraham approached him and said: 'Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city?....Will not the Judge of the earth do right?'"

Genesis 18:22-25, from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.


Thoughts?

 

[asenath]

Why is divorce a bad thing? Is it better to stay in an unhappy marriage?

 

[70/30]

Not necessarily

I'm not crysede, I'm just doing the ICE QUEEN a favor by saving her thread.

 

[70/30]

Why is divorce a bad thing? Is it better to stay in an unhappy marriage?

It's just easier to make that decision these days. Really, I don't think half the couples that get married should, so maybe it is a belated good thing.

 

[asenath]

It's just easier to make that decision these days. Really, I don't think half the couples that get married should, so maybe it is a belated good thing.

I think a lot people just move in opposite directions. That's life I guess.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I'm not crysede, I'm just doing the ICE QUEEN a favor by saving her thread.

Every thread's a winner.
And every thread's a loser.
And the best that you can hope for
Is that they die comfortably

You gotta know when to post 'em
Know when to roast 'em
Know when press reply
Know when to troll

You never count your post totals
when you're about to reply
There'll be time enough for countin
When your squealin's done.

Or, for those not musically inclined, if the thread's not interesting to you, don't post to it.

 

[superlittlegirl]

This is an issue I have struggled with, specifically in context of female genital infibulation. On one hand, it's obviously a brutal practice that maims and kills women in the interest of keeping men's jealousy at bay. I would like nothing more than to see the practice eliminated completely. On the other hand, is it not culturally imperialistic for me to foist my view of "civilized behavior" onto a culture that values such a practice as a safeguard to the sanctity of marriage?

 

[KillerMuffin]

That's a good poing, slg. Particularly when we practice a similar mutilation in our own culture on boys. While it doesn't have lasting harmful effect sexually on the whole and female mutilation takes away sexual pleasure, it does give off a taste of hypocrisy.

What is right and what do we base right on? Our cultural standards or theirs?


But, there's also the fact that mutilating someone simply because she's a girl and girls should not experience sexual pleasure is biologically wrong. The clit was put there for a reason and that reason wasn't to be removed.

The problem with moral relativism is that it does allow inhumane things to happen. It lets widows and children starve to death because the dominant culture in their area does not provide for them.

 

[Pyper]

This is a tough question. I would have to say the limits of culture end where human rights begin, and I'll take the definition of Amnesty International for human rights.

This means that things like Female Genital Mutilation are a no-no, because they violate a body against the owner of that body's will, or before their ability to choose whether they want it done or not.

But by this definition we also have to look at ourselves (the American culture). Many countries consider us barbarians for continuing to implement the death penalty. This would have to go under the international code of human rights.

 

[Pyper]

That's a good poing, slg. Particularly when we practice a similar mutilation in our own culture on boys. While it doesn't have lasting harmful effect sexually on the whole and female mutilation takes away sexual pleasure, it does give off a taste of hypocrisy.

What is right and what do we base right on? Our cultural standards or theirs?

There is an important difference between circumcision and female genital mutilation when it comes to human rights. Circumcision is traditionally performed to enhance the male sexual power- it is an act of goodwill that leaves no visible lasting harm on the person it is performed on.

Female genital mutilation is designed to eliminate sexual pleasure- it is an act of subjugation and violence that causes multiple long term side effects that often lead to death.

 

[KillerMuffin]

That's true, Pyper. However, circumcision--no matter the intention of the practice--is still genital mulitation. Why can one culture practice genital mutilation and frown on another culture doing the same? Subjugation to one culture is the norm to another culture. Why is one culture right and the other culture wrong?

 

[Pyper]

That's true, Pyper. However, circumcision--no matter the intention of the practice--is still genital mulitation. Why can one culture practice genital mutilation and frown on another culture doing the same? Subjugation to one culture is the norm to another culture. Why is one culture right and the other culture wrong?

Well, Muffie, I thought I explained that.

True, circumcision is genital mutilation, but it is done with the intention to benefit the mutilee. It causes no lasting harm to the mutilee. I doubt many circumcised males in this country would want to go back to being uncircumcised for the rest of their lives. Also, it appears in most cases to have health benefits to the mutilee. The foreskin is vestigial- it is an evolutionary holdover of our mammalian heritage and serves no useful function. Whew.

Therefore, circumcision is not a human rights violation.

Female Genital Mutilation (semantics, semantics) is done with the intent of subjugating the mutilee. The intent is to eliminate pleasure and cause pain. The lasting effects are typically life-long pain during menstruation, urination, intercourse, and childbirth. It often leads to death. Most women do not want it done and are unhappy that it was done to them. Several have fled their countries to avoid it. The organs that are mutilated are not vestigial- they are vital to the reproductive and sexual life of the individual.

Therefore, FGM is a human rights violation.

Edited to add a little clarifying paragraph- I consider the practices of another culture to be morally wrong when the people within the culture who are being affected by those practices feel abused and wronged themselves. If women on whom FGM was performed had zero problem with it, I probably would not feel so strongly.

 

[superlittlegirl]

I consider circumcision of baby boys to be brutal. There is no medical reason for it-- it is a supposed hygeine thing, but we have access to all sorts of running water and soap these days, so why carry on a tradition that started in biblical times? It's easy enough to teach a little boy how to take care of hygeine-- as easy as it is to teach him to brush his teeth.

It's culturally accepted, enforced, and largely unquestioned. But the fact that it's done to baby boys who have no mode of expressing the true degree of pain that results from it seems just as unaccepatable as doing it to a marginalized group of women whose voices are suppressed.

I do not think the practices are comparable from a medical context, because genital infibulation is usually done to women in filthy conditions and with little or no aftercare. It's horrendous, and brutal. But would it be any more acceptable to do the process under sterile circumstances under the supervision of medical personnel?

We pedestalize ourselves as being so pro-sexuality and liberated, but it is only a fairly recent cultural phenomenon that women (as an overwhelming percentage) have been encouraged to be aware of our biological sexual functions. Suppression of sexual awareness, a thing of the recent past in this country, seems to me a metaphorical equivalent of clitoridectomy.

Women who seek amnesty to escape genital infibulation are not generally received with open arms as emigrants to our country. Are we so evolved (as a culture) that we can criticize the practice yet not consider the situation dire enough straits to provide tangible assistance beyond social criticism?

 

[patient1]

Interesting topic.

Off the top of my head, while slavery, gay-bashing, wife beating, body modification, & child exploitation, etc., etc., may be common in one culture or another from time to time, I think I go with the "consent standard" . No permission, no oppression.

While I have problems with the death penalty in particular, I would say that a person that harms another without the victim's consent would forfeit the criminal's rights not to be punished against the criminal's consent.

 

[Pyper]

Interesting topic.

Off the top of my head, while slavery, gay-bashing, wife beating, body modification, & child exploitation, etc., etc., may be common in one culture or another from time to time, I think I go with the "consent standard" . No permission, no oppression.

Damn. Exactly what I was trying to say in two sentences.

 

[WaxNWane]

I consider circumcision of baby boys to be brutal. There is no medical reason for it-- it is a supposed hygeine thing, but we have access to all sorts of running water and soap these days, so why carry on a tradition that started in biblical times? It's easy enough to teach a little boy how to take care of hygeine-- as easy as it is to teach him to brush his teeth.

It's culturally accepted, enforced, and largely unquestioned. But the fact that it's done to baby boys who have no mode of expressing the true degree of pain that results from it seems just as unaccepatable as doing it to a marginalized group of women whose voices are suppressed.

I do not think the practices are comparable from a medical context, because genital infibulation is usually done to women in filthy conditions and with little or no aftercare. It's horrendous, and brutal. But would it be any more acceptable to do the process under sterile circumstances under the supervision of medical personnel?

We pedestalize ourselves as being so pro-sexuality and liberated, but it is only a fairly recent cultural phenomenon that women (as an overwhelming percentage) have been encouraged to be aware of our biological sexual functions. Suppression of sexual awareness, a thing of the recent past in this country, seems to me a metaphorical equivalent of clitoridectomy.

Women who seek amnesty to escape genital infibulation are not generally received with open arms as emigrants to our country. Are we so evolved (as a culture) that we can criticize the practice yet not consider the situation dire enough straits to provide tangible assistance beyond social criticism?

This is one of the smartest posts I've read in a long while.

 

[patient1]

Damn. Exactly what I was trying to say in two sentences.

Thank You. Too bad the discourse ended so soon.

 

[horny_giraffe]

When you argue against female circumcision, it's just setting up a straw man just to knock him down. Most people of Western European cultures are going to agree that such a practice is inhumane. You're preaching to the choir--to those that already agree with you.

Meanwhile, while the attention is diverted to the straw man, KM's question still remains: What rights do cultures have against violation?

They obviously have their own cultures, just as we have our own. Should we say that the United States should only enforce judgements according universal agreements of the U.N.? The United Nations does not represent consensus, but at least we are giving other countries a chance to say something. Or should we take matters into our own hands and judge other countries by what we or our leaders think is right?

If other nations were martially stronger than the U.S.--would that make their views automatically correct by some Nietzschian logic?

 

[A Desert Rose]

I've been considering this for a bit.

What right does one culture have to judge another culture? By what standards are these judgments allowable?

The Islamic nations--for the most part--view even what we'd consider mild family TV to be pornographic. Take Frankie and Annette's beach movies. Couldn't get more tame without a nun habit, yet some cultures view this as pornography.

The West sees certain types of criminal punishment as cruel and inhumane, yet Singapore finds a public caning to be effective and just.

Then you get into interesting things like human rights. In certain cultures, women are chattel or inferior people. Some Afghani woman was just fired from her position in the government because she didn't properly cover her head while spending time with the Bush family in Washington. There are cultures out there where women are not allowed to work outside of the home or get an education.

To us, that's wrong morally and culturally. It's inhumane. To that culture, it's normal and any other method is immoral.

Do we, with our liberated female-equalizing culture, have a right to dictate to a different culture where women are not liberated? How did we get this right? What makes our way right and their wrong? When does one culture become more morally right than another?

We don't have the right to judge others, just as they have no right to judge us, but do so anyway. If you use this board as a criteria the American culture is judged as harshly by those who are citizens of other countries, as anything I have read here written by Americans. One example is a female Canadian who just a week or so said here that "you Americans wonder why we fucking hate you."

It is like comparing apples and tractors. Makes no sense to try and judge one culture by another's standards. It is illogical and a waste of time to even attempt to do so.

What I am saying is, there is enough judging to go around. "We" do not have a corner on that market.

Good thread KM. Thank you.

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Re: Culture v. culture on the global scale

It is like comparing apples and tractors.

I love this line. May I borrow it?

TB4p

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Re: Re: Culture v. culture on the global scale

I love this line. May I borrow it?

TB4p

It's all yours, doll. ~smile~