Tragic death

I see you posting articlesbecause you can't argue the issue yourself. Putting up articles in support of your ideas really doesn't impress. I note that a few of your articles were 6 years old. Here is the UN's take on FGM:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...tal-mutilation

Nov 2012. I wonder why the UN doesn't listen to this cultural relativism.

Anyway, all this is a distraction from the main debate which was all our criticism of rape in India.It was thought that your position seemed to criticise the whole culture as tolerating rape was more extreme. Is the problem inequality and the status of women which means that rape is unreported?

I often add articles to support my arguments. I don't see anything wrong with that. However the whole female circumcision thing deserves it's own thread. Why not start one, Miyako? The topic of this one, as you pointed out, is the rape case in India.

Well I post those articles because they have the names of the people whose writings you should be reading to understand the other half of the debate--like Dr. Ahmadu, who belongs to the community that practices female circumcision and supports it as a way for cultural self-determination. The funny thing is that I have tried to argue my points in an anthropological way because we are talking about culture. All you have are parroted stances of cultural imperialism and reported dramatics by outsiders.

Yes we should be talking about rape because there is no culture that sanctions it. Let's talk about it because it is bad, ugly, and criminal even to the eyes of anthropologists, and I have no qualm/dilemma in talking about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

<rape> is bad, ugly, and criminal even to the eyes of anthropologists, and I have no qualm/dilemma in talking about it.

---

As you have no qualms in talking about it - what is it that anthropologists dislike about rape?

First, if it's a female anthropologist, the fact that she is a potential victim, she should hate that violent act. Why I hate rape? Because I was once a victim; aren't some of my poems obvious? Second, it ruins the dynamics in family, community, and society. Anthropologists know that the typical perpetrators of rape are the relatives of the victims. Third, anthropologists are law-abiding citizens too. If your grandmother doesn't want her tax money used to pamper a rapist, I too don't want my tax money wasted on such a beast.

Have you been raped and reported it to cops and been told "It's your fault because you want to be a woman"? I have. Is that honest enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

If it's a female anthropologist, the fact that she is a potential victim, she should hate that violent act. Why I hate rape? Because I was once a victim; aren't some of my poems obvious? Second, it ruins the dynamics in family, community, and society. Anthropologists know that the typical perpetrators of rape are the relatives of the victims. Anthropologists are law-abiding citizens too. If your grandmother doesn't want her tax money used to pamper a rapist, I too don't want my tax money wasted on such a beast.

Have you been raped and reported it to cops and been told "It's your fault because you want to be a woman"? I have.

---

Personal experience, then, and close personal identification with the victims. Understandable.

However, you're not considering FMG from the same standpoint.

(Incidentally, I wouldn't bring my grandmother's wishes into this. If it were up to my grandmother, I'd be at war with you, and anyone else who wasn't born within about two miles of her house.)

FGM have supporters who do not want it banned. If anthropologists condemn FGM, they "other" those people who support it. Othering--the cardinal sin in anthropology-- is not the objective of anthropologists who adhere to the strict code of their profession. Got it?

Rape has no supporters but rapists. Why equate rape to FGM?

The perpetrators of FGM are women--mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers. The perpetrators of rape of women are men. Again, why equate the two?

If men are the perpetrators and society (usually a male hierarchy) does nothing to stop it, why can't one argue that it is has cultural relativity? After all, the women are forced to marry them afterwards because culturally it is appropriate to do so. Are you going to argue with that too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

How can I romanticize when I don't judge a culture or a cultural practice. Really? I'm posting these articles to show you how an objective mind of an anthropologist works. That's why I said beforehand that I would rather talk about rape than female circumcision--which I abhor personally but cannot criticize anthropologically. Now you're calling me a "romanticizer"? also as a trained anthropologist I want to see the change in the issue of female circumcision to come from inside (emic) rather than outside (etic).

You choose to side with those who want female circumcision banned totally. Anthropologists who stick to the sound practice of their discipline cannot choose the same stand you have because there are those who want female circumcision. Othering should not be the aim of anthropologists. What anthropologists do is connect the two opposing groups or views and find a compromise or let the change happen within.

---

I honestly don't understand your viewpoint even after so many posts, so I think I'd better stop with this post. I can understand that anthropologists don't make value judgements. Neither does any other scientific study. Surely there are numerous completely objective scientific studies of various aspects of the phenomenon of rape, murder, pedophilia and so on. However you (and that Dr. Ahmadu) have made value judgements by saying that the practice is not as bad as it seems. Anthropologists don't judge. But you both have done so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

Nov 2012. I wonder why the UN doesn't listen to this cultural relativism.

---

i was wondering about this, and I suggest that cultural relativism merely allows inhumane and damaging practices to continue whilst it is claimed that a less damaging practice is being done. Many people don't like change, don't like being told what to do, don't like their traditions to be questioned and will persist when all about have decided that they really should stop now.

Your relativist Fuambai Ahmadu in the article in in support of it only with provisos - which i would suggest would be difficult if not impossible to monitor. Perhaps the UN thought an outright ban was the only way forward.

While I have serious issues with the concept of consent and how it is applied asymmetrically to African practices of female genital cutting,

The way forward is to look for solutions that would empower women (and men) to choose what to do with their own bodies.

My position is “pro-choice” on any form of female and male genital modifications

The concept of consent? For women in some countries? It's ok if they choose to do it, but as the Guardian articles I posted show, it's often about underage girls and compulsion.

It is your problem if you can't understand this one:

FGM have supporters who do not want it banned. If anthropologists condemn FGM, they "other" those people who support it. Othering--the cardinal sin in anthropology-- is not the objective of anthropologists who adhere to the strict code of their profession.

Anthropologists are expected to be always neutral when they study two opposing forces in a culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

It is your problem if you can't understand this one:

FGM have supporters who do not want it banned. If anthropologists condemn FGM, they "other" those people who support it. Othering--the cardinal sin in anthropology-- is not the objective of anthropologists who adhere to the strict code of their profession.

Anthropologists are expected to be always neutral when they study two opposing forces in a culture.

---

I think it is the anthropologists' problem. Some things are just not to be taken neutrally. That is clearly the UN's position.

Have you checked what countries have the veto power in the United nations?

Dr.Ahmadu wants compromise, and she wants the change to happen within not from the cultural imperialists. Dr. Ahmadu, afterall, is a circumcised anthropologist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I think it is the anthropologists' problem. Some things are just not to be taken neutrally. That is clearly the UN's position.

---

That's for Mona, Paulclem.

If you want to talk about culture and cannot argue anthropologically, you better shut up. I would shut up too if you talk about genetics and I cannot argue with you biologically.

Cultural is sociological; sociological is not necessarily cultural.

In a complacent multicultural society, one cannot say that complacency is cultural. Maybe it's out of fear and hopelessness that they are complacent.

What do others think? Are the anthropologists right?

I have to say the cultural relativism aspect has been interesting, and I can see where it stops judgement by nations on others' practices. In the case of FGM, I think they are wrong.