Tragic death

[miyako73]

On being selective... My training is in anthropology, and I cannot easily condemn female circumcision the way I can with rape. Circumcision of boys is violent too but it has a cultural history/tradition. Rape is a crime, plain and simple. Big difference.

In the case of India, the majority of Hindus don't care about Muslims and their social problems. They hate each other. Hindus killed Muslims occasionally-- Gujarat riot is an example where Muslim women were raped and Muslim men murdered. So FGM in Bohra Muslim community will never instigate a wide protest in the country of mostly Hindus.

Is female circumcision wrong? Personally, yes. As an open-minded anthropologist, no.

[Delta40]

Lol. You're not going to suggest that your outrage on selective world issues is objectively based unlike the rest of us uneducated people who react subjectively are you? I imagine getting groped has nothing to do with your determination so much as proving your social theory.

[miyako73]

I'm just showing you that over there they respect cows more than women.

[Delta40]

Oh I don't disagree with you on that. I care about the plight of Indigenous people here in Australia and couldn't give a fig about what is happening in India. That's my subjectivity speaking.

[miyako73]

I care more about the rape victims because I know their story. I have said enough.

[Delta40]

Me too. gotta go to work. Have a nice day Miyako.

[qimissung]

This article might help shed some light on the importance and polarization of this issue right now. It's called "The war on female sexuality: is globalization to blame?"

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/05/the_...tion_to_blame/

It's mainly an interview with a sociologist who wrote "Of Virgins and Martyrs: Women and Sexuality in Global Conflict."

An excerpt from the article:

What Jacobson does beautifully in his accessibly academic book is differentiate between politicized Islamist patriarchy and “the broader Muslim community,” the former being “a core expression of a deeper global fissure,” he explains. “In an honor society, patriarchal and tribal traditions dictate that a woman’s body belongs to and serves the community. … An interest-based society privileges self-determination, the sovereignty of the individual over her body, and ownership of one’s own capital, be it economic, cultural, or social.” As globalization improves the status of many women, it also incites a ferocious backlash against them.

[Volya]

Rape is a problem in India. Female circumcision is also a problem in India. However it would appear that at the moment, rape is a bigger problem. That is not to say the government should do nothing about FGM though.

[Delta40]

Rape is a problem in India. Female circumcision is also a problem in India. However it would appear that at the moment, rape is a bigger problem. That is not to say the government should do nothing about FGM though.

Lol - maybe women should all be armed with semi-automatics?

[mona amon]

Rape is a problem in India. Female circumcision is also a problem in India. However it would appear that at the moment, rape is a bigger problem. That is not to say the government should do nothing about FGM though.

Volya, the practice of female genital mutilation is unheard of in India.

On being selective... My training is in anthropology, and I cannot easily condemn female circumcision the way I can with rape. Circumcision of boys is violent too but it has a cultural history/tradition. Rape is a crime, plain and simple. Big difference.
...[cut]...
Is female circumcision wrong? Personally, yes. As an open-minded anthropologist, no.

With that statement you've lost all credibility with me.

Oh I don't disagree with you on that. I care about the plight of Indigenous people here in Australia and couldn't give a fig about what is happening in India. That's my subjectivity speaking.

Most sensible thing I've read so far on this thread.

[miyako73]

Mona, that's what you want to happen-- the world not to care so the image of romanticized India will be intact. Complacency!

Did I lose my credibility because anthropologically I cannot oppose female circumcision? Oh, Miss, you have a lot of anthropologists to put down. Anthropologists are trained not to judge a culture, and they know what is cultural or criminal. The eradication of female circumcision must come from the people who practice it. Didn't your political, cultural, religious, and intellectual leaders work for the banning of the practice of sati--a wife's burning of herself to death on her husband's funeral pyre?

Personally, I find a lot of cultural practices imposed on women to be violent-- foot-binding (China), neck-lengthening (Thailand), bride-fattening (Africa), lip-plating (Africa)--but anthropologically speaking, they are no different to the violent and abusive practices in the West that are cultural or subcultural--fraternity hazing, circumcision of boys, boys forced by their fathers to attend ball camps, butt-spanking, female plastic surgeries for job advancement and strengthening of marriage, forcing children out of their parents' homes at 18 even if they live in the streets hungry, abandonment of old parents in eldercare houses,

You can question my credibility if you want. Rape to me is a crime not a cultural tradition. Prove to me that rape is an accepted part of Indian culture, then I'll shut up.

[Paulclem]

On being selective... My training is in anthropology, and I cannot easily condemn female circumcision the way I can with rape. Circumcision of boys is violent too but it has a cultural history/tradition. Rape is a crime, plain and simple. Big difference.

Is female circumcision wrong? Personally, yes. As an open-minded anthropologist, no.

I think you're letting your academic sensibility blind you to simple sense and compassion. Femle circumcision is is a crime whether it is culturally accepted in a particular country or not.

What you're saying is that if a society develops a culture of something negative - then that's more acceptable than a recognised crime. I think that is a very dangerous view, as well as being morally abhorrent.

Ad all the eamples you gave - butt spanking? (Minor) Plastic surgery? ( Chosen and not enforced), Installing the elderly in old folks homes? (In many cases 24 hour care and supervision). They hardly compare. Even male circumcision - which I view as odd, potentially damaging, and a wierd clinging to out moded views, does not have the same implications as female circumcision

[miyako73]

Neck lengthening among kayan people is a body modification related to beauty. Do you think liposuction or liposculpture not a body modification related to beauty? You really need to read surveys why Americans undergo plastic surgeries. three things always come out: job, marriage, self-esteem.

In my country, if you abandon your old parents even in an eldercare facility, you are considered irresponsible, ungrateful, cruel, abusive son or daughter your neighbors will not respect. See, if I don't think in an anthropological way, I can't understand the practice in America in which ageing parents are left by their children in the eldercare facilities.

When I say anthropological way, I don't mean this is equal to that. It means cultural relativity--what is bad or ugly for some is good or beautiful for others. Cultural relativity is not applicable to rape. Rape is bad and ugly for all except for rapists.

[MarkBastable]

When I say anthropological way, I don't mean this is equal to that. It means cultural relativity--what is bad or ugly for some is good or beautiful for others. Cultural relativity is not applicable to rape. Rape is bad and ugly for all except for rapists.

That would imply that there's

1) some objective characteristic that can be applied to categorise all practices as either (a) 'outside cultural context' or (b) 'contextual to the prevailing culture'
and
2) some objective morality that can be applied to categorise the 'outside cultural context' practices as either 'good' or 'bad'

Rape, you say, can be categorised as 'outside cultural context' and 'bad'. Altruism, for instance, might be categorised as 'outside cultural context' and 'good'.

The problem with that, I think, is that your logic suggests that categorisation (2) can only be applied to category (1a), because - as you have said - 'good' and 'bad' doesn't apply to category (1b).

But most people would suggest that (2) can be applied to any any practice, regardless of (1).

However, if you're right, it does beg the question of where we get the criteria for (2), if not from our own cultural context.

[Delta40]

That would mean practices such as honour killings are contextual to the prevailing culture and cannot be considered good or bad. Of course one may still have an opinion but I'm happy to respect the practice for these reasons...

This also blows my opinion about gun laws in the US out of the water (damn!)