Of "frightening cultural relativism" and "regressive cultures"

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...524630,00.html

And although more and more voices tell us that we -- the former colonialists and imperialists -- have lost the right to judge other cultures, we know just as well as this girl that this marriage is wrong. I believe that there are regressive cultures. In an era of political correctness, this is a tricky statement. But there is no other statement that can be made about this image. We behold a regressive man, who is taking what he has purchased. (...) They ask themselves: Who are we to believe that it is inhumane to sell an 11-year-old girl? Who are we to impose our values so vehemently on the Afghans, on this man and on this girl?
I don't have a clue who we are. But I know that this universe is not only a universe of iPods, Disneylands, CO2 penalties, tax write-offs, and New Year's sales in our department stores. No, I know that this is also a universe of human rights. I know that this universe is deeply shaken -- right down to its core -- by the suffering of this lonely, lonely little girl.

I wholeheartly agree. Primitive remains to be primitive - no matter how much relativism and self-denial the West is putting into his effort to make enemies of civilisation strong, while weakning the West himself. After all, we are so far ahead of them that we have realised and amdit that what our forfathers once did, was wrong - while they are stuck at the point where they do like that - and defend it and see no wrong it it and even try to impose their ways on ethically superior foreign cultures.

Keep in mind - the image is the picture of Aghanistan's face the West tries to support when fighting the Taleban. It is what still would be there if the Taleban ever would be removed again and kept away. It is the face of Afghan co0ntemporary culture.

Maybe a war then not only to remove the taleban, but also the Afghans, then? Hardly.

[Letum]

There are certainly parts of cultures that are immoral and so, it is a noble endeavor to
try to change such things. In the past this role has been played by religious
missionaries, particularly Christian ones, and more recently by human rights charities like
the International Women's Liberation Movements. A good job they do too.
I don't think any politician would disagree with that, so I fail to see how it could be
"politically incorrect".

I think it is a shame that our government and others do not attempt to put more
pressure on countries that still have such medieval approaches when it comes to
protecting their citizen's human rights.

That said, the last 20 years have seen huge improvements world wide in both
developed and developing nations.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

At the same time, she realizes that what is happening to her is not right.

One must wonder though, how would the author know this? Did he read the girl's mind?

Did every person in the world in our entire history who was married through omiai or any other form of arranged marriage, or political marriages ... etc, feel that way?

It is probably possible to use utilitarian calculations to create an argument for free marriages by suggesting that the amount of love (happiness) flowing will generally increase. But how can the author figure the girl will "feel something is not right."

Why does he then proceed to assume that the man is completely oblivious to his wrongdoing? Why does the girl get to feel it is "natural but not right" but the man must feel "natural and right" to an immoral act?

Love Is a Word from the Decadent West

As for the arrogance of assuming that love is something invented by Western society ... assuming that a biochemical process is "invented" by Western society ... sigh.

It is probably accurate to say that in a society of arranged marriages, love is subordinated to other priorities (with the female's love generally more subordinated). But that's a whole different case of lemons.

[joea]

F PC that's just wicked!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

One must wonder though, how would the author know this? Did he read the girl's mind?

Did every person in the world in our entire history who was married through omiai or any other form of arranged marriage, or political marriages ... etc, feel that way?

All that does not matter. It is an 11 year old child we talk about. And if you ever would have dealt with little children, you would know that children do not feel well about being raped at that age. We call it pedophilia, and we have penalties for it. Right so!

It is probably possible to use utilitarian calculations to create an argument for free marriages by suggesting that the amount of love (happiness) flowing will generally increase. But how can the author figure the girl will "feel something is not right."

Maybe you would do that, but I doubt that many would follow oyu nin that.

Why does he then proceed to assume that the man is completely oblivious to his wrongdoing?

Becasue he was raised according to these traditions, and never learned to imagine different ways.

Why does the girl get to feel it is "natural but not right" but the man must feel "natural and right" to an immoral act?

Becasue you can have a fate you imagine not to be able to ever chnage - and still see it is not right, and the man is not the victim, while the child is.

As for the arrogance of assuming that love is something invented by Western society ... assuming that a biochemical process is "invented" by Western society ... sigh.

It is probably accurate to say that in a society of arranged marriages, love is subordinated to other priorities (with the female's love generally more subordinated). But that's a whole different case of lemons.

See the context. For muhammedan teaching, human rights as well as "love" for the satanic creature that a woman is is very much just a word from the decadent West indeed. Were we talk of love, Muhammedanism is about controlling satanic energies, and talks about non-humans, who are life-stock to breed and produce new MALE humans and fighters for islam. BTW, you can have arranged marriages (bad enough) - and still deal with adults only. It still means that offsprings are regarded as property of their parents, and often they try to make a profit from arranging marriages that does not focus on the man's and woman's interests and desires, but those of the parents. but this is not the focus of that essay.

You really try hard not to see the point, do you. Your relativise exactly in the same way the author is criticising. Seeing different habits in the context of different cultures is all nice and well - but you get carried away by it and are no longer able to see the difference between good and evil, perpetrator and victim, and seeing a crime taking place - defined on the ground of humanism as the deciding standard.

You do not destroy half a childhood, treat children like meat and marry and rape them. If you can't see that and think you must start a pseudo-intellectual debate on why it maybe all is not so bad - then I can only be sorry for you. It is not an appendix in some academical piece of work we talk of - it is a little child. And if it is done like in this essay's example in many places, many times a day - it still remains to be wrong.

Not by Western standards - but by human standards.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Skybird

All that does not matter. It is an 11 year old child we talk about. And if you ever would have dealt with little children, you would know that children do not feel well about being raped at that age. We call it pedophilia, and we have penalties for it. Right so!

Most people do not feel well about being "raped" at any age.

As for the minimum age of marriage, a worldwide view will say that it varies - from 9 in Yemen. 12 is in Brazil, 13 in New Hampshire (by now we are talking the US here now), 14 in Paraguay, Russia, and several US states like New York, 15 is in Hawaii and Georgia... 11's young but taken a worldwide and historical view, it just isn't a black veil of evil.

Becasue he was raised according to these traditions, and never learned to imagine different ways.

Entirely agree. But that's my point. Why is it assumed the man, because he is raised according to the traditions, will "never learn to imagine different ways" and thus feel no remorse, while the girl, equally raised according to the same traditions (and being a girl in such a society will have even fewer external references to work with) will somehow know it is wrong?

The question here is the ability to perceive Western (or modern) moral norms without the appropriate external references.

Becasue you can have a fate you imagine not to be able to ever chnage - and still see it is not right, and the man is not the victim, while the child is.

You are imposing on the girl that she might actually feel like wanting to change rather than being so set in the ways that she never even considered the possibility that someone would disagree, let alone it being wrong, or herself being a victim.

The point is not so much about whether it is right or wrong rather than the author's arrogance that the wrongness is so self-evident (even as he calls humans savages whose advancement to the present might as well be a small miracle) that he can presume the girl actually feels it is wrong (of course, men would never see it).

By the way, even her dislike of the issue is entirely separate from the concept that she feels it is wrong. Take the crude example of a pig going to the butchers. It almost certainly is not thrilled about being sliced apart, but that's far from it feeling it is wrong. Similarly, we do many things in our lives that we don't like, but that's a whole separate issue from us feeling it is right or wrong - we do many things that we are aware is wrong because we like to, and vice versa.

See the context. For muhammedan teaching, human rights as well as "love" for the satanic creature that a woman is is very much just a word from the decadent West indeed.

Having read the Old Testament, I can say that if you take Biblical stuff literally, the Bible is roughly there. Oh well.

BTW, you can have arranged marriages (bad enough) - and still deal with adults only. It still means that offsprings are rgarded as property of their parents, and often they try to make a profit from arranging marriages that does not focus on the man's and woman's interests and desires, but those of the parents. but this is not the focus of that essay.

Frankly, there are two parts of the whole business that are wrong: the age and the coercion (though I must say the latter actually bugs me more). IMO, the wrongness of coercion is far closer to a universal standard since the beginning of civilization than the question of marrigeable age.

Not by Western standards - but by human standards.

Human standards ... hmm, the arrogance in calling what is in fact a horribly recent phenomena and presuming it is the norm for all of human history. One can of course say that the world will be better off following modern Western standards, and the West should make greater efforts to spread it (I'll agree with that). But that's a different lemon from saying the modern Western standards are the human standards. Sadly, it is not.

[Skybird]

Can't help but think you make it more complicated than it is.