Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

It is my belief the concept of human rights is currently being used as a pretext to destroy cultural diversity. In a debate with Crash in another thread this belief was given some support. My original attempt at an OP on this topic turned into a tome rather quickly, so I'm going to switch my methodology. This OP will not advance my full argument, nor answer all the questions posed to me earlier by Crash, and he had some very good ones. Hopefully, however it will set the stage for an adequate debate where these things can all come out.To my mind, the term "Human Rights", is a misnomer. It is more aptly called "Individual Rights". It is not a set of objective rights that all humans have by right of just being born human, nor is it a set of rights that all humans would agree with or apply in the same way to the same issue.It was developed within Western Culture (WC), from earlier cultural concepts of individual autonomy being more important than societal institutions/function/stability. I will define WC briefly as the amalgam of norms/values/political beliefs within European Nations, as well as those directly created or influenced by--- to the extent they ascribe their normative systems to--- European expansion.As a member of this culture, I grew up exposed to it and am a fervent individualist. I believe in protecting the individual rights of others, and broadening those rights as far as possible. Along these same lines (a theme I will not develop, to save space) grew the concept of national rights, or community rights. Within a nation one has individual sovereignty others cannot cross. On a larger scale, each nation has a sovereignty that other nations cannot cross.This idea of national sovereignty included cultural sovereignty and was a natural extension of the idea of individual rights. As individuals they had the right to organize and behave as they wished among themselves... to continue their own traditions. Being outside our own nation and culture meant their worldviews and ways could directly conflict with ours and be quite offensive. Beyond a political allegiance to this concept, I am a moral relativist that holds there is no single valid culture, and so I have no ability to judge (beyond a personal preference) other cultures. And moreso, I believe there is inherent value to cultural diversity, so that human experience and intellect does not stagnate in a monoculture.Crashfrog argued that human rights are objective and belong to the entire "human community". As such he has a right, and obligation to fight injustices he sees according to that framework of rights, regardless of borders and any impact on other cultures.Does a human community actually exist? That seems like a convenient imaginary concept similar to what the Catholics and Protestants used long ago to "save" other cultures from objective harm as they viewed it. Isn't there simply a human species, just like other animals, in which there are different human communities, just like other animals? For example there is no "wolf community" such that one wolf, or pack, suddenly gets entry to all others by virtue of being the same species. Individual packs would use force, or flee if such an attempt were made by an outsider. Same goes for humans.Second, while an appeal to the human community to enforce "human rights" sounds logical, aren't other individuals in other cultures human? If they invented their own concept and called it "human rights" derived naturally from one's just being human, do they have an actual obligation to apply it to every other culture, or you to accept it as real? Why or why not?And finally, while appealing to this human community, do they now have access to everything you have (in your nation), or is it just a one way thing? Is it that you get to tell them what they are doing wrong... coerce them to change so they don't offend you... then block any expectations they might have in return using the financial, military, and social protections at your disposal? For instance, in your own nation you'd have expectations of integration and accepting certain tenets, before allowing them into positions to vote and change your way of life. Isn't it unfair to expect others to change according to your desires if you do not take the time to enter their communities through their process of integration?Somehow I don't see this as a coming together to share a human community at all, otherwise they'd have a say, and a vote, in how you live. Isn't this concept in practice the creation of a 'community' where everyone in poor nations and cultures are automatically disenfranchised? If not, why not?I hope from this setup, one is able to understand what boundaries I have placed on where I (and others in the West) can legitimately (without hypocrisy) actualize personal beliefs regarding individual rights. Certainly within one's own nation (for me the US) which is their real community, certainly not in other nations which are outside of it... unless one takes the time to become a part of those others communities based on THEIR criteria for entry.This is where I'll let it start. For examples of cultural traditions that violate human rights and considered worthy of change, Crash and I were using Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). I'd prefer sticking with that, but if someone has something else I guess they can throw it in the pot.

---

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

Holy sh... Wow, many excellent posts. I mean really, everyone brought something to work with on this one. In fact it's a bit much for me to take on all posts at once (though I did read them all before writing a response). Since Flies got here first (and really when don't flies get places first?) let me start to work with his post... Note: Since we are using FGM, people should probably take some time on their own to get to know about it. I'm going to create a separate post on FGM, that has some facts and asks some questions raised by those facts.Now... Excellent point, and I agree with you that blending is inevitable to some degree. I understand why my OP suggests an argument for stasis. Heheheh... now I can elaborate!You're right that the nature of the world, and cultures, is change. As it is, stasis within a culture would be the same as the stagnation I was criticizing in a world monoculture, only on a smaller scale. I DO NOT believe cultures have to be trapped in amber, nor that cultures shouldn't blend. My argument relates to HOW that should happen, not whether.Most have made the point that cultures will inevitably influence, or try to influence each other. But isn't there a polar difference between change intitiated when ideas are exchanged during the course of trade/tourism, and the intentional change of one by another through coercion? For example, the Spanish conquest of Central and South America was direct force applied to a culture to pull it apart so it would match the Catholic ideal. Isn't that something we--- those who value individual rights and national sovereignty--- would view as unjust and so oppose?If the argument runs that cultural change happens, and they (cultures) are all aggressive anyway, so there is nothing to be thought unjust or detrimental in such activity, then I don't understand how the Spanish subjugation, nor any missionizing efforts can consistently be criticized.IF such things can be criticized then aren't limits on legitimate mechanisms for change (of another culture) recognized? If so, what are they? I am arguing for a limit at no active coercion based on military or economic disparity. What is wrong with that kind of limit? Brenna mentions something that will be brought out further in my FGM info post. There is much misinfo in the west about FGM. But for right now I'll assume your description and argument is correct.It would not destroy OUR culture to ban homosexual marriages, nor homosexual acts themselves. In fact a majority of people (or at the very least nations) dislike homosexuality and have active laws against it at some level. If the argument runs that globalization is inevitable, a middle sought amongst all cultures, what does that say for the future of homosexual rights?Or will it be, as I would suspect, that we would argue that this part of our culture is NOT on the table for discussion. Well why shouldn't it be, if the reasonable result is global consensus on norms, and the consensus is that homosexuality is wrong? I don't think it's fair to play the cowardice card. While some might use such an excuse to avoid action, there can be very brave people who simply do not believe interfering with members of another culture, unless it is impinging on their own nation and rights, should do anything. It is a sense of respect and reciprocity.This will mirror somewhat my earlier question, but you ask when should we step in, how long should we ignore something like this (an injustice)? That's a valid question. Put another way... How long should other nations and cultures ignore injustices they see in our nation/culture? When should they step in?You presented an example where you WOULD want others to step in, but it was predicated on a subject you don't want. Imagine it is something you like, but they view as an injustice (or "wrong" for whatever reason). And should they be able to argue that you just like it because you were brainwashed from childhood to like it? Wouldn't your response be, who cares how I came to be this way if I like it? Isn't that all that matters... particularly for an individualist?Remember your points regarding FGM and MGM will be addressed in the other post. To everyone else, I hope this post addresses some of your own criticisms/questions. I will get to another post soon, concentrating on points I did not see raised in this 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

This post addresses the realities of FGM itself. People have thrown out a lot of descriptors regarding the practice which seem to indicate a general ignorance about how it is done, by who, and why. Admittedly, though I was able to spot some clear misconceptions, I was also ignorant to some large degree and did some learnin'!In the link above, you will find a good discussion of FGM. Instead of belaboring what has been claimed vs fact, I'll just stick to the facts. It has a limited general geographic range, especially compared to male genital mutilation (MGM) which I'll address later. It also comes in different forms, from a direct parallel to western MGM (just removing the hood which exposes the clitoris), to removal of all external genitalia (covering even the urethra) so that only a small hole remains. This might lead to the first question which would be if the degree of alteration matters to its morality, or applicability to "human rights"?In any case, there are varying reasons for this procedure. While the procedure (and we can use the most damaging one for our example, though keep in mind that is not the only kind) and its necessary follow ups are definitely tortu-ous, in the sense that it is excruciating, and oppress-ive in the sense that it has a binding obligation to the women who undergo it, calling it oppression and torture indicates an active intent on the part of those doing it which I don't think is accurate... or fair?The people within these cultures do not set out to hurt and make life worse for the girl (and surely not to make it more likely their children will die, right?). Indeed where better treatment is available they seek it out. When things go wrong they get the girl help. To the contrary, given their cultural beliefs about sex and genitalia, they believe they are improving the chances for a better life for the girl in question. And more to the point those doing it are almost invariably women who have had it done themselves, and want the chance for a good life for their daughters, grand daughters, etc. To this it might be noted how much status/prestige it comes with. The most severe form is called "pharonic" and is dated back to ancient egypt, where actual PHARAOS had the procedure, and it would be odd to think of them as oppressed. By tradition, okay, but then that is different than being oppressed by people.While their beliefs about sex and genitalia may seem ignorant, scratch that... ARE ignorant... these cultural standards are strong and not open to edicts, as history has shown. Passing laws, or other forms of enforcement has only increased resentment by those who practice it, and pushed it underground where the health risks are increased (hmmmm, just like abortion).Ironically one of their ignorances, have been repeated as factual here. While some women have had reduced or eliminated sexual pleasure, it has been found that most women have not had that problem. In fact , and we are talking the one's with total organ removal, are capable of more than satisfactory sex lives, including orgasms. While I can understand their myths, I was surprised to find people here thinking that a human body would not make up for a missing clitoris. The idea by some men that a clitoris alone is what makes a woman capable of having an orgasm is sad news indeed. Here's a study on that very topic. Note that it was western cultural ignorance which often led to a misunderstanding of the effects of this procedure on sexual gratification.This is already longer than I wanted to write, but I guess I'd like to ask so what if it did cut off sexual pleasure? Is sexual pleasure the only value a human life has? Would a woman's life mean nothing without it? And if sexual pleasure is important, does that mean cultures which don't cut off a clit, but are repressed sexually in general needing of change?This leads directly to my next point which is that attempting to end this practice by fiat, and in the nature of calling it such horrible things, and the women who have gone through it "mutilated", sort of does double damage. It in all practicality tells these women they ARE worthless, enforces them to hold that view (which seems cruel to me, especially the ones that feel their life is okay as is). And it sets up mechanisms which halt its ability to change as women who have had it and value it, don't want to view themselves that way. They will resist such commentary and any other information (which might be valuable) they could be given.Okay I should really wind this up quickly. Here's another article from the author on sexual satisfaction by those with pharonics. This author is no fan of the procedure and does view it as really horrible, ultimately a cultural instrument of sexual control (ironically failing due to ignorance of biology) in a sexually repressed society, and would like to see it end. Yet she lays out what I just did. Its very hard to end a cultural tradition. It is ingrained with views about the world as well as self. Legislation and other enforcements have had terrible backlashes. But there is something much more interesting in this article.While pretty much everyone here has suggested cultures affecting others is somehow natural and "good", the author above relates that it is spreading due to the pharonic cultures moving in to nonpharonic ones. So... is that good? If not, why not? Isn't this the natural "averaging" people talked about?And perhaps more interesting than that, pharonic FGM has actually increased in its severity in recent years due to EDUCATED women from these areas traveling to the West and discovering our "vaginal tuck" surgeries to make sex better for men and women alike. Yes it should be mentioned that the West has its own version of FGM, and it is catching on and growing. Albeit here is it Body Modification, and not allowed on the young.What's more the author, including citations from others, suggests that FGM is sort of a vicious cycle of traditional expectations regarding beauty and chastity, combined with the economical issues of health care in those areas. The practice generates a lot of money.Anyway, to wrap up on FGM, isn't it valid to see it as a form of extreme Body Modification, which these societies incorporated centuries ago, and do not view individualism in the same manner we do? Is there something inherently wrong with that? And if we can see that attempts to "save them" often have the reverse effect, isn't it better to provide them with methods to ease the problems associated with the practice, rather than to make it worse just to satisfy our own condemnations?By the way, Flies brought up MGMs, asking if this was being done to men if there wouldn't be a huge outcry over it? Well... it is, and there isn't. While it is true that "decapitation" does not always (gulp) occur, it does happen (if you saw how some tribe do it, you'd know why), along with other health problems associated with the MGM in general, and with poor hygiene conditions. Circumcision is much more common in the world than is FGM, and there are no laws against it in the west where we DO have laws against FGM. Hmmmmmmmmmm... But Circumcision is not the only form of MGM. Oh no. I'll leave out modern Body Mods such as splitting the whole thing in half, but traditionally there is pearling and subincision. Subincision is done on very young boys and is quite... nauseating.Yeah, so where's the uproar? My guess is because "violence against women" is considered worse than violence against men, its "victims" genitals more juicy to talk about, and young girls much easier to move the public's imagination. It is true that men are not intended to be "decapitated" as the harder FGMs are, but my guess is that is only because it would make reproduction virtually impossible. Is an erection and ejaculation possible without a head? This I do not know, but I can't imagine it would be easy, even if sensory-wise a man's body find new ways of gaining pleasure.But on MGMs, while some men do cry out about how horrible it is, and I personally don't like the fact that I had no choice and had suffered some minor issues from it... I gotta say my sex life was not impaired by it. I've had plenty of O's, and probably more than I needed. I don't feel that I'm "damaged", a victim, and less valuable. It pisses me off when anti-MC advocates make it seem so horrible and destructive. I'm sort of in the anti-MC crowd politically, but let's get a grip.... oh. Sorry.In any case, it makes me think of these women who by all accounts MOST do have pleasure and it is being mandated that they view themselves as total victims, because WE view them that way. I think with time... when biological facts make their rounds, as well as financial improvements... this practice will die down somewhat naturally, at least not be as extreme.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing one's own culture makes sense because one is a part of that culture. I mean I'm not sure how that does not make sense.As I do agree, change will occur. The question is on limits. Thus we can start with you can change anything everywhere no matter the means, and whittle it down from there. I am arguing that the concept of individual rights itself, those rights I demand for myself which cannot be negotiated away, sets the shape for that final whittled product.I would take it, that someone outside of my community (the largest unit of community we have) does not have a legitimate right to force change on my nation... whether we choose to change because we like an idea from the outside is another matter. If some nation attempted to do such a thing I would say that is unjust and attempt to stop them any way I could. If I found my nation was not in a position to stop it, I would declare it simply unjust and defend it on the personal level.The problem is, from my perspective, what happens to those nations who cannot defend themselves when WE have the power. It would be hypocrisy to know I'd fight it in the one case as unjust, and then demand it in the next. They can't judge me, I can't judge them. They shouldn't forcibly change me, I shouldn't forcibly change them. Well that's a bit tricky, but for all practical reality it is the nation. In your case that might extend to the EU.Can we agree the "British invasion" of the 50s/60s was not the same thing as Spain's conquest of Central America? That perhaps the latter is not considered a just method anymore, given international law regarding national sovereignty as we set up based on individual rights? This appears contradictory. That we do something hypocritical does not argue hypocrisy is the best method.I mean sure I like individualism, but there are things we stop people from doing... what limits do we have on THAT? Or do we expect from the concept of individual rights? Not everything is on the table. I didn't claim that all things will become criminal, and didn't mean to claim that all things thought criminal will be uniform throughout. I meant exactly what you said above. And in that situation, disagreement itself will be criminal. Where will people turn, when the whole world has that single idea and the will to enforce it.Sounds great if you happen to agree with what everyone else does. Yeah, I get that and agree. Doesn't HOW they do this make a difference?Or is it really just dog eat dog, and we should not worry about the hypocrisy? I mean you come off with this attitude, yet don't you argue the absolute moralists are in error and should not be foisting their beliefs on others? If you took the position that whatever they can get away with is fine, then I might feel your position was more seriously held. First of all you sort of blew by one of the important questions I asked in my OP. What do you mean by "natural rights"? Is that like natural law? I'm not trying to be sarcastic in this question.I posed that there were originally individual rights, which are what we claimed for ourselves from governing institutions. We said in future gov'ts we would demand these things beyond negotiation. Since then it has slowly morphed into a campaign of "human rights" as if they belonged to everyone... i.e. are objectively true... and so must be brought to everyone in the fashion that we understand them.And that's the problem. We secured these rights from... YOU GUYS!!! Heheheh. Then we made sure we had them secured from our own. While it is nice and all to think that others might pick this up, I'm not sure why there is a burning need to FORCE that on everyone. I mean in that case Bonaparte was fantastic, so is Bush.Other people of other nations, and so cultures, have their own track going. While they might change to the way we think in the course of things, I can't buy intentional coercion of them as consistent. Convince? I said convincing is fine. Figurative war of ideas is one thing. Literal war (economic and military) is something altogether different.If one really believes the LATTER is okay, then you have de facto given up free speech. You believe that if someone can come in and use military or financial power to limit your speech, that's okay. Unless you are going to hold a hypocritical position of fine for me, wrong for you.Right?

---

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

Cool post. This is true, but then it is people choosing to live in, or continue, a culture that is "oppressive" to our standards. Our own standards may be oppressive to others. Hell, I think our modern standards are oppressive.Indeed, the idea of any gov't or culture or even family is the acceptance of some level of oppression. It is only the matter of degree, isn't it?I just start having problems riding down others and acting like I've got the end all be all solution to how they should live. Ahem... I did. That was my OP. If you are talking about spreading information and letting them work things out, I don't have any problems with that at all. We would not prevent that from happening in our society as that is a part of individual rights and not contrary to the concept of our national sovereignty.I agree with you that much of these kinds of things are erroneous concepts. I'm going to disagree that its religion. While religion may be used in some parts to back it up, its been shown that these things predate any of the current religions. It is cultural tradition, which newer religions have simply recognized. In some areas religion is being used to stop the practice. Religion is simply a tool.Its stunning the degree of ignorance that has gone into shaping some of these practices. Clits as long as goosenecks so the men will feel ashamed? Sheesh. That whole piece was nice by the way, but I'm going to stress where I disagree. Individual liberty is simply a socio-political concept like democracy or capitalism. For those that wanted greater individual autonomy, this concept was taken to explain and to some extent justify their actions.As I said to Mod, while it might be nice that others decide to pick it up, there is no reality that people must organize themselves this way. It is possible for humans to view society as more important. You know what I mean? That reduces the applicability of individual rights, or universality anyway. Some people would deny it straight to your face... doesn't that sort of argue it ISN'T universal?In any case, something else falls out of that concept. If you believe you have such rights, then you have the right to create your own communities without interference with other like-minded individuals. And these can in turn restrict the coercion of other groups. This right is demanded, and it is called sovereignty.Even if one wants to apply individualism universally, aren't these other cultures just individuals who have chosen to group themselves as they have, with all their whacky concepts and self-oppressions to live a traditional life that they find value in?I think one of the problems here is that this involves not so much these people, but that it involves children. We want to say that they are individuals and that the parents should not be able to do X with them. But isn't that their right? Isn't that part of individual rights, or rather couldn't they view parental rights to continue their traditions as they see fit as an individual right?Certainly that's what Jews would claim regarding MGM.In the West we have recently been gripped with an hysteria about children. Its as if all children must be communally raised. That their most natural caretakers are not the parent, society can and should raise them, and in the way the majority likes.I just can't agree. If this is what those parents really want, then I'm not sure how I could agree they don't have that right. Yes it would conflict with the child's individual rights, BUT THAT IS ALWAYS THE CASE WITH CHILDREN. There is no sense that a child is left free reign and without coercion toward someone's expectations, and that can include physical damage to suit norms.If that next generation does not like it then they have the power to change it, or maybe they'll end up liking it... in which case who am I to say anything. Those that did not like it and cannot change it are very unfortunate. People like this can be found in every culture. It is an unfortunate reality of this world.But to wrap up on a positive note, I really do agree that providing better medical support, and accurate biological knowledge is not synonymous with coercion. Change from that route is something else.

---

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 agree. My OP was only about the idea that individual rights were some sort of universal human right, that roped everyone in and on top of demanding our action, allowed us to effect cultures any way we had to.As far as your last point on FGM not defining certain cultures... I have to differ with that. While it is not true that it must be a part of it intrinsically, the fact is that it is there (has been for 100s to 1000s of years) and is definitely important to the people of that culture (they even name the worse kind after its ancient Egyptian source). They would take it as a defining part of life there. National sovereignty comes into play, if WC nations begin bullying those within nations that have the practice, to change it. They can do it through economic or military leveraging. In other words when we decide to "police" their activity, rather than simply giving them information that might lead them to change. Good question, I actually believe they do because it really takes the people to support the tyrant. Indeed it is less a persona than a tyrannical system of persons. Unfortunately to break this initial contract (however it came about) will likely require a bit of red ink. Just to let you know I'm not the only person using the term MGM. I thought maybe I had coined it earlier but then discovered it is in use.I'm not sure why you think it is dishonest at all. FGM covers a range of procedures, including direct correlations to male circumcision (they only remove the hood). If anything I think its been somewhat dishonest for people (antiFGM advocates) to treat all FGM as the most severe kinds, and to dismiss male circ as nothing.If the question is doing something to a child without their consent, then it cuts both ways (no pun intended). If the issue is pain and complications, especially in field conditions, then the same thing goes. The only difference is when we reach the extent of damage and pain for the more severe types. Does that really make a difference such that MC should be discounted (not considered mutilation)?By the way there is also subincision which is pretty gruesome, though I will admit still not as pain inducing as type 2 and 3 FGM. This is exactly why I do not like the idea of a global monoculture. At least in the past you could move somewhere and start a new nation/religion/whatever. You could literally live outside of your original culture. Now all that remains... to protect some level of escape for people... is recognizing national sovereignty such that people can find nations whose ideas are most in line with their own.Looks like we agree on the education of kids and problems of cultural intervention by counterproductive strategies.Edited by Silent H, : lil notes

---

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

Well I'm not interested in confusing them, but they are the largest community dimension we have. That's where cultures divided themselves based on wars to set apart socio-economic divides. So, that's why I am using.I think it can be argued that there are cultures which span the nations, for example WC as I defined it is cross-national. However we have created sufficiently distinct subcultures at the national level that they do come into play. After all we ain't got no stupid kings n queens! Heheheh. But the point is "damaging" is subjective. Actually that section of our nation did lose its cultural identity when it stopped pressing witches. Go there today (ironically I was living for a short period of time where most of the killed witches came from) and it is quite quite different.Isn't your actual question whether I mourn the loss of it, or that what came out of it was something worse? I'd say no, from my own view point, but it was a loss of ignorance which was generated from within that culture.Now you tell me, when the aztecs stopped human sacrifice and native americans stopped raiding each other's camps, sometimes taking women for slaves, did they lose their cultural identity?

---

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