NineOneFour wrote:It probably helps to hold that view if you are male and without a daily required dose of empathy.

Having said that, I don't really see anyone in this thread that totally resembles that...

You're right. I'm carrying over frustration about this issue that didn't start with this thread. I just have almost no patience for the idea that respecting culture is more important than preventing suffering.

Seth wrote: One need only look at the unintended consequences of cultural interference over the ages, particularly interference with Aboriginal culture in Australia and American Indian culture in the US and Canada to understand that there can be grave, extensive and generational unintended negative consequences in imposing one culture's judgments on another.

But the destruction and marginalization of Aboriginal and Native American cultures was not motivated by a desire to help them. Of course, there were always people willing to say this and some who really believed it, but they were not forced to leave their land because Westerners wanted to stop certain practices in their societies; they just wanted the land. The hugest blow to their societies came from epidemics of Western diseases, greatly reducing their numbers and toppling many of the social structures they had in place. In the case of Native Americans, relocation and the destruction of habitat for their game made their previous ways of life far less reliable, if even still possible. Of course, trade relationships had started way before then, and often they had weakened the traditional lifestyle before any sort of habitat destruction and imperialism had began.

What I'm getting at is that the true devastation doesn't come from mistaken attempts to alleviate suffering through the application of Western values. Many times it comes from bad luck (like diseases they completely lacked immunity to), but, when it is manmade, it comes from a disregard for the feelings of people of a different group and a disrespect for their existing societies.

Cultural imperialism always thinks it's superior, that's why it's so dangerous to engage in it without careful consideration in advance.

I completely support using our knowledge of the culture of groups who engage in FGM in our efforts to reduce the practice, but I don't think I'm blinded by imperialists urges when I say mutilating genitals is worse than letting them grow naturally. Mind you, I don't have to be Western to think this way. Leaving genitals as they are is the default around the world.

What if eschewing the practice leads to a lifetime without children, without family, without social acceptance and as an outcast in one's own village? What if this fate is far worse that the temporary pain, and the risks associated with the procedure, that is suffered, according to the social mores of the particular society? Are those potential consequences to be ignored? Could it be that the cure is worse that the disease in some cases? Or is this of no concern to you?

Again I raise the fact that most FGM is performed by WOMEN of the village who themselves were subjected to the procedure at the same age. I find it difficult to accept as a given that these practices have absolutely no cultural value within the context of the culture in which they are practiced. This is not to say that I condone the practice, but it is important to recognize that like other forms of bodily mutilation, there are cultural benefits to the practice that appear to outweigh the physical negatives within the context of the individual culture involved, and that we must use great care in interfering with social customs of societies that we do not fully understand.

Okay, how about if accepting the practice leads to a lifetime of pain and infections, difficulty bearing children, and pain and lack of desire for and enjoyment of sex? Wait, accepting it definitely leads to those things! Of course an educational program that gave girls options, or even just a law that prevented others from making the choice for them would also address many of the social customs arranged around FGM. I can't remember exactly where this was, but I remembering reading in an Anthropology textbook that, in Somalia, men often preferred to marry women who had undergone less extreme forms because they enjoyed sex more. I can't help but think that once the illusion that it is a necessary evil was dispelled that many of these problems you raise would take care of themselves.

But why should there be cultural benefits to a practice like this?! The aim of any campaign to eliminate FGM would be to minimize the social consequences of not being mutilated. Education about other cultures, the overwhelming majority of which do not practice FGM, and better anatomical and sexual education would help to loosen the oppressive grip of tradition, which tells the members of these societies that this is necessary to be clean and beautiful.

Western culture has a nasty habit of imposing cultural imperialism on any society that it comes across, and this is the genesis of much evil in the world over history, so due care is required when arguing for it.

I'm out of patience for this idea that Western culture is the source of "much evil in the world over history." Imperialism is pretty much the way of powerful societies throughout history and all over the globe-- the Guptas, the Mughals, the Ottomans, Mali, the Abbyssids, Babylon, the Mongols, etc. are all non-Western empires that come easily to mind. I want to spread the value of not mutilating genitals because I truly think that is the best way to increase happiness and reduce suffering, not because I'm in love with any and all Western values. But, the fact that pressure against FGM would be coming from the West and might be construed as imperialist wouldn't deter me from advocating that we do it.

epepke wrote:

jodiebug wrote:But the destruction and marginalization of Aboriginal and Native American cultures was not motivated by a desire to help them. Of course, there were always people willing to say this and some who really believed it, but they were not forced to leave their land because Westerners wanted to stop certain practices in their societies; they just wanted the land. The hugest blow to their societies came from epidemics of Western diseases, greatly reducing their numbers and toppling many of the social structures they had in place. In the case of Native Americans, relocation and the destruction of habitat for their game made their previous ways of life far less reliable, if even still possible. Of course, trade relationships had started way before then, and often they had weakened the traditional lifestyle before any sort of habitat destruction and imperialism had began.

That's an interested and multifaceted statement.

Note that intent isn't everything. There is a thing called "reality" that seems to be unpopular these days. Intent doesn't really trump reality, and this applies to intent to harm as well as intent to benefit.

Since you broke the suit of infectious diseases being spread to Native Americans, there is a story going round that White people spread smallpox amongst Native Americans by giving them blankets used by smallpox patients. Given a modern understanding of how smallpox works, and given the transportation systems of the time, the probability that anybody actually got smallpox from a blanket is so close to zero as makes no odds. One might as well worry about catching HIV from a toilet seat, based on the best current understanding of disease.

Undoubtedly, Native Americans caught smallpox from Western invaders, but it was almost certainly due to the normal human contact that we know spreads smallpox. The blankets didn't matter. But they make a really appealing myth. The myth is so strong that people have suggested that there might be some sort of small carrier, despite the fact that no such carrier has ever been found, even though smallpox is amongst the most studied diseases in history.

True, but at least one white guy actually tried to massacre Indians by giving them smallpox-infected blankets, so it's not wholly a myth.

epepke wrote:Undoubtedly, Native Americans caught smallpox from Western invaders, but it was almost certainly due to the normal human contact that we know spreads smallpox. The blankets didn't matter. But they make a really appealing myth. The myth is so strong that people have suggested that there might be some sort of small carrier, despite the fact that no such carrier has ever been found, even though smallpox is amongst the most studied diseases in history.

For some reason, many educated Westerners seem desperately attached to the idea that the West is nothing but a source of strife for the idyllic native cultures of the world. They want to believe that there is something inherently wrong with Western culture or even just white people (as they will often pretend that non-whites raised in the West are somehow not members of Western culture). I see this as obvious racism. I'm not trying to get all Youth for Western Civilization here, but I see the contributions of the West systematically under-appreciated and the faults magnified.

I simply find it insulting to the rest of the world that Westerners would see themselves as the only people with the terrible knowledge of violence or exploitation. The idea that Westerners have no "native" culture, as if White people are aliens on earth, set apart from the "earthier" races that aren't smart or powerful enough to mess up nature's balance, is patently ridiculous. It's a twisted form of self-aggrandizement.

Why people want to believe there is something naturally more evil in them than other human beings is beyond me. But it isn't a harmless belief, as it turns out. It makes people question whether we should discourage FGM, at the risk of appearing to be too confident in our views on torture.

I dunno. It makes sense to me.

Same.

Seth wrote:

OHSU wrote:

Seth wrote:That it is a cultural thing in some places suggests that the consequences of not submitting to the practice are worse than doing so.

That would only be true if women submitted to the practice. They don't. It is forced on them as children. It should not be the privilege of the parent to choose genital mutilation and the risk of crippling or death on behalf of the child. I have already agreed that a mentally competent adult should have the right to consent to any physical mutilation she chooses for herself. But that's not what we're talking about here, even though your choice of words implies it.

The simple fact in these countries is that there is a direct relationship between education and choosing not to participate in FGM. The most well-educated frequently opting out without any inflence outside their culture. This indicates that the social consequences you have mentioned can be eliminated simply through education.

The solution to the problem is to ban the torture and mutilation of non-consenting children AND to educate people to eliminate social consequences of non-participation.

Again, this fails to explain why it is forced on children by their mothers and other women who were in their time subjected to the same mutilation. In America, infant boys are commonly circumcised, ostensibly for health reasons, and Jewish boys are circumcised for religious reasons. Parents make this decision based on cultural practice, and the same is going on with FGM.

I'm asking why this is so, and what the unintended consequences of interfering with the cultural practices might be, and what the moral and ethical basis for doing so is. Is it moral or ethical to prevent the practice if doing so creates unintended, life-long consequences for the victim that are, in her cultural context, far worse than suffering some pain and risking death by infection?

Do we have a right to subject a woman to a life without family or children, living as an outcast, in order to satisfy our outrage at the cultural practices of her society?

This argument needs to look at a couple of additional factors
The fact that adults routinely impose things upon children, regardless of the fact that we can justify the practice itself or point to the reasons we do this. Parents and adults indoctrinate children so that they can create (ideally), conformant, obedient and productive citizens of the future. Schools institutionalise the social standards that we want to indoctrinate our children in. It does not work perfectly, and adjusts as it goes, but it does ultimately produce law abiding conformant citizens for the most part. We might think that adults should not decide that their childrens feet should be bound, or that they should not be circumcise, however first we should see just how much we do prescribe to our children.

No doubt there are different arguments to support the fact that we impose education, lawful behaviour upon usually reluctant children. We also encourage our children to follow fashion, eat certain diets, follow/practice sports, music. Many of these do have damaging effects upon the body, youth sport for example produces huge numbers of injuries to teenage and sub teenage children. No doubt some will protest that sport of healthy, team building, and risk is always present, but this is a moral argument, and I am not discussing the moral aspects, just pointing out that these mechanisms are ubiquitous.

There is also the fact that we look in horror at what we consider barbaric practices from other cultures and eras and yet seem to be blind to our practice of the same basic principles in our own society without question. Female circumcision is one such practice that western society looked at with horror in Africa, yet at various points, western women have been told by some of their African sisters to mind their own business and not get involved with something they did not understand. Perhaps the same argument could be applied to western women (and some men) with the practice of wearing makeup and piercing ones ears, clearly pointless, expensive and often harmful practices. Or the idea that we drop our youths into nuclear family structures, commercial institutions at an early age to be locked into a commercial sausage machine until they are spat out (much the worse for wear) at retirement. These are all social mechanisms that do not exist for the benefit of individuals.

Note I have not made any moral judgement on these mechanisms being right or wrong, just pointing out there existence. Where we find ourselves in a morally assumptive position that tells us schooling is a ‘good’ thing, without the actual need to understand or define the mechanism or provide the criteria to proves its rightness.

With issues like mutilation of various kinds, it is usually difficult to make rational decisions about social practices that we ourselves practice. If you are a member of a society that does foot binding, then you will probably support it unless swayed by an outside force, or by adjusting as new generations place their own slant upon things. The same applies to the rise in breast implants and body piercings in the west, it is also mutilation of the body to fit social expectations. The fact that we follow these, blindly for the most part, does not mean to say we like them or do not find the effects harmful or unpleasant. At a micro level in the west women are socially obliged to remove much body hair. In many cases this is an onerous chore with plenty of expense, some pain, and negative side effects. The fact is that people have very little choice and even their sense of personal distaste for this is all socially conditioned (although it feels very personal)

As a parent of teenagers I very strongly prescribe certain behaviours that I think will help my kids have some control over their lives in the future. If left to themselves, they would get lost in drugs, drink, sex and sloth. Education, sport, good food, acceptable social behaviour would all be casualties in this, so I impose (as far as possible) my desired standards. I can certainly argue the case for why I do this, but this does not make my position morally right (even though most people consider they only do things that are right or justified). Being able to morally justify why we indoctrinate children is the only socially palatable way to execute an effectively conforming system.

For the record, I am against genital mutilation, but am also against hair removal, cosmetics, and cosmetic surgery of both children and adults. I know this is something I will not be able to change, my own kids pierce their bodies, want tattoos, damage their hair and bodies with fashion – just as I did a generation ago. I also kick them out of bed at my ‘reasonable’ time, get them to school, get their homework done, get them to play sport, and try and steer them through the challenges of drink, drugs, sex etc with minimal damage to us both. But it is farting against thunder. Social forces are unimaginably powerful and my ability to control outcomes pitiful, still we are born to strive, so I succumb to both my biology and society. Amen to that.