BB, you make a valid point and one that I've wrestled with myself. Are people outside a particular culture guilty of judging another culture unfairly; through a cultural lens of our own?

A further reading of the original post suggests this is not the case since Niger does have laws against pedophilia but only outside of marriage. Evidently pedophilia is recognized as an aberration in Niger under certain circumstances. This is canceled out if the child is proclaimed married. Remember, the article refers to prepubescent children, certainly not fully developed and arguably not in a position to make mature judgments. It in fact, smacks of the biblical mandate of patriarchal dominance over women...

BB, you make a valid point and one that I've wrestled with myself. Are people outside a particular culture guilty of judging another culture unfairly; through a cultural lens of our own?

A further reading of the original post suggests this is not the case since Niger does have laws against pedophilia but only outside of marriage. Evidently pedophilia is recognized as an aberration in Niger under certain circumstances. This is canceled out if the child is proclaimed married. Remember, the article refers to prepubescent children, certainly not fully developed and arguably not in a position to make mature judgments. It in fact, smacks of the biblical mandate of patriarchal dominance over women and their subsequent demotion to nothing but chattel.

Perhaps an argument could (and probably is) made by women living in this type of environment that they prefer the security and safety they think comes out of this arrangement. To my way of thinking, this type of thought is more symptomatic of these victims rationalizing being subjected to this cultural dominance by males in this type of society. I suspect that because of a more open world wide communication there is a proportional cognitive dissonance occurring in parts of the world that adherer to these practices.

I fervently believe we need to speak out and show our revulsion over such primitive and harmful ideas.

On what grounds do you believe it to be "primitive", "harmful", and worthy of "our revulsion"? By what moral authority are your beliefs better than another's ?

You, altlib, approve of pedophilia because you have no moral grounds on which to disapprove other than your own mind. And according to your own faith, your mind is absurd because it is an accident. Accidents have no rationale. Your logic is twisted.

should be stand quiet and ignore the lives scared by this archaic practice because of cultural diversity?

By the way, you also have no grounds for trus...

I fervently believe we need to speak out and show our revulsion over such primitive and harmful ideas.

On what grounds do you believe it to be "primitive", "harmful", and worthy of "our revulsion"? By what moral authority are your beliefs better than another's ?

You, altlib, approve of pedophilia because you have no moral grounds on which to disapprove other than your own mind. And according to your own faith, your mind is absurd because it is an accident. Accidents have no rationale. Your logic is twisted.

should be stand quiet and ignore the lives scared by this archaic practice because of cultural diversity?

By the way, you also have no grounds for trust in cultural diversity because to you logic was created by man. A logic created by man cannot determine truth. So you have no grounds to claim cultural diversity is the highest good.

By what moral authority are your beliefs better than another's ?

I assume you're referring to your own moral beliefs that are dictated by your god? Am I close?

You, altlib, approve of pedophilia because you have no moral grounds on which to disapprove other than your own mind.

That bit of sophistry doesn't even warrant a reply and is both ignorant and insulting. Again, it seems that you're attempting to make a case for a morality based on religion. If so, do so without the insults.

And according to your own faith, your mind is absurd because it is an accident. Accidents have no rationale.

My own faith? Care to inform me through your psychic ...

By what moral authority are your beliefs better than another's ?

I assume you're referring to your own moral beliefs that are dictated by your god? Am I close?

You, altlib, approve of pedophilia because you have no moral grounds on which to disapprove other than your own mind.

That bit of sophistry doesn't even warrant a reply and is both ignorant and insulting. Again, it seems that you're attempting to make a case for a morality based on religion. If so, do so without the insults.

And according to your own faith, your mind is absurd because it is an accident. Accidents have no rationale.

My own faith? Care to inform me through your psychic powers what my "faith" is?

Your logic is twisted.

And yours appears to be non-existent. Care to provide a logical argument?

By the way, you also have no grounds for trust in cultural diversity because to you logic was created by man.

Of course it was. What a strange comment.

A logic created by man cannot determine truth. So you have no grounds to claim cultural diversity is the highest good.

What a load of drivel. I tell you what willhelm, go back to your church and prey for forgiveness for being so arrogant and intolerant.

Are people outside a particular culture guilty of judging another culture unfairly; through a cultural lens of our own?

By what moral authority are your beliefs better than another's ?

Good discussion. I don't think we can have it both ways. There is no way for one country to "liberate" another from whatever seemingly dark practices occur without someone else calling them a big fat bully. "We know better" looks pretty on a banner, but the arrogance alone would prevent others from welcoming any rescuing.

I don't think "outsiders" can expect to change another culture. I think the true change will come from within a culture. That is why education, especially ...

Are people outside a particular culture guilty of judging another culture unfairly; through a cultural lens of our own?

By what moral authority are your beliefs better than another's ?

Good discussion. I don't think we can have it both ways. There is no way for one country to "liberate" another from whatever seemingly dark practices occur without someone else calling them a big fat bully. "We know better" looks pretty on a banner, but the arrogance alone would prevent others from welcoming any rescuing.

I don't think "outsiders" can expect to change another culture. I think the true change will come from within a culture. That is why education, especially for women, is so important. Give them the tools to make the changes themselves.


P.S. I am so sick of hearing "it's all good unless it hurts someone." Who is judging that, exactly? I'm with Willhelm (bring on the fire). Without a moral code that doesn't originate from man's own mind, the only measuring stick for a culture is who's stick is the biggest.

Let me have it.

Regarding my own opinions. I entirely support the pragmatic goals of the women's movement. However, I differ with ideological feminism on many points especially where it borders on misandry.

In regard to cultural diversity, in every culture men's predilections as to what is desirable and undesirable regarding the relations between men and women is determined by their sense of propriety, i.e. their conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech and their fear of offending against conventional rules of behavior especially between the sexes. In short, the customs and manners of polite society. That women have had no influence regarding such customs would be a ruse par excellen...

Regarding my own opinions. I entirely support the pragmatic goals of the women's movement. However, I differ with ideological feminism on many points especially where it borders on misandry.

In regard to cultural diversity, in every culture men's predilections as to what is desirable and undesirable regarding the relations between men and women is determined by their sense of propriety, i.e. their conformity to what is socially acceptable in conduct or speech and their fear of offending against conventional rules of behavior especially between the sexes. In short, the customs and manners of polite society. That women have had no influence regarding such customs would be a ruse par excellence. Male and female roles are defined by the expectations of both sexes.

As for patriarchy: No doubt, the notion of root cause is one of those myopias still required for assigning blame. However, the origins of customs are more multifarious, their causes several and complex. Not something one can easily blame on anyone or anything, least of all patriarchy.

Lastly, Lets' get back to those pesky feminists. Feminist are fond of deconstructive analyses so we might think they would deconstruct patriarchy. Not! Rather, it is precisely within the conventional top-down, and abusive sense of social power that feminists define patriarchy, i.e. as a system created by men and imposed upon women. In this sense, patriarchy is little more than feminist code for "male c...

As for patriarchy: No doubt, the notion of root cause is one of those myopias still required for assigning blame. However, the origins of customs are more multifarious, their causes several and complex. Not something one can easily blame on anyone or anything, least of all patriarchy.

Lastly, Lets' get back to those pesky feminists. Feminist are fond of deconstructive analyses so we might think they would deconstruct patriarchy. Not! Rather, it is precisely within the conventional top-down, and abusive sense of social power that feminists define patriarchy, i.e. as a system created by men and imposed upon women. In this sense, patriarchy is little more than feminist code for "male control" or some imagined dominance of men in sexual matters, take your pick. Both are, of course, viewed as essentially abusive in character. Perhaps feminists who appropriate deconstruction to make their marginal views privileged will someday be shocked to find their own views being deconstructed in the academia they currently dominate.

If you could provide a moral code that doesn't come from man please present it. If you wish to use the Bible, Koran, or other religious texts be prepared to back up your assumption that they don't come from man.

I can appreciate this question, AL. Obviously I believe that God established a moral code for man. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. I hesitate to get into a debate on the existence of God (or His word) with you. I'm certainly afraid I'd be outmatched, as I am not as well-spoken as you.

However, I think this discussion and your original question are interesting, especially because you are not religious. How does mankind establish a moral code for it...

If you could provide a moral code that doesn't come from man please present it. If you wish to use the Bible, Koran, or other religious texts be prepared to back up your assumption that they don't come from man.

I can appreciate this question, AL. Obviously I believe that God established a moral code for man. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. I hesitate to get into a debate on the existence of God (or His word) with you. I'm certainly afraid I'd be outmatched, as I am not as well-spoken as you.

However, I think this discussion and your original question are interesting, especially because you are not religious. How does mankind establish a moral code for itself that is universal? If all men are created equal, who decides what "right" is? Does everyone have the right to decide for himself?

I guess this really gets into how cultures are formed. How do cultural norms become the norm? How do customs cross cultural lines? Do we (as a species) have a responsiblity to each other? And, if so, where do we draw the authority to change another culture's customs to suit our own?

Surely there is a book you can recommend for me. I obviously need one.

Why not blame these Nigerian customs on Satan? That's what Christian missionaries would do.

1. I don't believe in Satan
2. I'm not christian or a missionary

In any case AtlLiberal, you impute too much, not just to the Nigerian
way of life but to those with whom differ on this subject matter.

Then please explain the justification for these actions.

Male and female roles are defined by the expectations of both sexes.

Except when those expectations are dictated by male dominated religious laws which women have no say so in formulating.

Lastly, Lets' get back to those pesky feminists....

This may simply be my own perspective but it se...

Why not blame these Nigerian customs on Satan? That's what Christian missionaries would do.

1. I don't believe in Satan
2. I'm not christian or a missionary

In any case AtlLiberal, you impute too much, not just to the Nigerian
way of life but to those with whom differ on this subject matter.

Then please explain the justification for these actions.

Male and female roles are defined by the expectations of both sexes.

Except when those expectations are dictated by male dominated religious laws which women have no say so in formulating.

Lastly, Lets' get back to those pesky feminists....

This may simply be my own perspective but it seems that your seem to think of feminists as a monolithic entity, devoid of diversity and marching in lockstep to a man-hating beat. I've not found that to be the case at all. In fact, the term feminist seems almost quaint. I tend to view this not so much a male/female issue but a human rights issue. I do believe in the equality of the sexes and the equal opportunity of both sexes. There should be no argument that women in many parts of the world have led a second class existence, prevented from rights and privilleges enjoyed by men.

The argument of cultural and political complexity you allude to no doubt holds weight but shouldn't draw away from obvious insults that this clip refers to. Cultural mores areen't static or entombed in dogma (though some desire for this to happen).

Perhaps feminists who appropriate deconstruction to make their marginal
views privileged will someday be shocked to find their own views being
deconstructed in the academia they currently dominate.

I find it odd you refer to these views as marginal as though to diminish their importance. Also I don't agree that feminism dominates academia in today's world. In many ways it's still a male based environment but both sides are rapidly coming to see the folly of not utilizing 50% of the populait

@bignosemousie


Your comment is very good. Though I don't share you belief in a god you bring up valid and interesting questions.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

The so called Golden Rule predates Christianity and probably most organized religions as we know them today. I suspect it originated in some form or another because man is a social animal and to get along was to survive. As we advanced socially this was incorporated into all the major religions of the world.

I hesitate to get into a debate on the existence of God (or His word) with you.

Nor do we need to. The question I find most interesting has to do with how we should view other cult...

@bignosemousie


Your comment is very good. Though I don't share you belief in a god you bring up valid and interesting questions.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

The so called Golden Rule predates Christianity and probably most organized religions as we know them today. I suspect it originated in some form or another because man is a social animal and to get along was to survive. As we advanced socially this was incorporated into all the major religions of the world.

I hesitate to get into a debate on the existence of God (or His word) with you.

Nor do we need to. The question I find most interesting has to do with how we should view other cultures? Should they be held to the same norms as the culture that we live in? Are cultures in differing stages of development? Have we found actions of other cultures that have been shown to be harmful but are not addressed because we don't wish to offend others. How far does personal harm have to go before we overcome the taboo of criticizing other cultures?

If all men are created equal, who decides what "right" is?

The way we always have. By applying common sense and a generous dose of empathy and an understanding of what is the most good for the situation and the people involved. If you're looking for a magic solution there is none. Even religion adapts and changes though not quickly enough and is constrained by dogma appropriate for the time the rules were written but increasingly out of date in a wold that the writers of religious works could not have envisioned.

Do we (as a species) have a responsibility to each other?

We'd better. In a world that has the potential for self annihilation it becomes increasingly important. The world, through technology shrinks every day and more and more people are exposed to differing ideas and values. I imagine this frightens some people very much. They feel a loss of control.

By what authority do you place your beliefs above another's, atllib?

I don't.

Is there a problem with the question? If so, then what?

No. The problem is with you, willhelm. You are arrogant and combative. You pose as intelligent by assertion only. We've had this same tiresome conversation in the past and I've learned that you simply wish to irratate and provocate. You seem to believe that I am the arch enemy liberal stereotype and quite frankly I'm tired of the same neocon bumper sticker sloganeering coming from you. I'm through dealing with you. I've realized that we will never come to terms and that you are not willing to agree to disagree. You must be righ...

By what authority do you place your beliefs above another's, atllib?

I don't.

Is there a problem with the question? If so, then what?

No. The problem is with you, willhelm. You are arrogant and combative. You pose as intelligent by assertion only. We've had this same tiresome conversation in the past and I've learned that you simply wish to irratate and provocate. You seem to believe that I am the arch enemy liberal stereotype and quite frankly I'm tired of the same neocon bumper sticker sloganeering coming from you. I'm through dealing with you. I've realized that we will never come to terms and that you are not willing to agree to disagree. You must be right. I find your comments usually off topic and personally abusive.

Have a nice life....

The so called Golden Rule predates Christianity and probably most organized religions as we know them today.

I agree it predates Christianity, but I don't believe it predates God. Of course, you have a different timeline than I do, because I shun science. LOL.

The way we always have. By applying common sense and a generous dose of
empathy and an understanding of what is the most good for the situation
and the people involved.

I trip over "what is the most good." I can certainly see how parents would feel that an arranged marriage is better than letting the son or daughter choose. This word: good, seems so arbitrary.

How far does personal harm have ...

read more»

The so called Golden Rule predates Christianity and probably most organized religions as we know them today.

I agree it predates Christianity, but I don't believe it predates God. Of course, you have a different timeline than I do, because I shun science. LOL.

The way we always have. By applying common sense and a generous dose of
empathy and an understanding of what is the most good for the situation
and the people involved.

I trip over "what is the most good." I can certainly see how parents would feel that an arranged marriage is better than letting the son or daughter choose. This word: good, seems so arbitrary.

How far does personal harm have to go before we overcome the taboo of criticizing other cultures?

Again, I think the word harm is so arbitrary. I'm sure I could define harm as it applies to me, but I wouldn't speak for you. I think the method for influencing change in cultural norms is the stickiest wicket. Shaking our heads or shaking our fists....

I don't like it when my own culture tells me what is acceptable.

How far does personal harm have to go before we overcome the taboo of criticizing other cultures?

I think we do criticize other cultures.

We can see this at work with whaling, Cuba, the US.

Couldn't a case be made for either side in these issues? Whaling is a cultural thing, but it's killing off the whales. Cuba is doing just fine, but we should give Cubans a chance at representation. The US is a racist pig, but no it isn't.

In regards to prepubescent marriage, in what manner do we criticiz...

How far does personal harm have to go before we overcome the taboo of criticizing other cultures?

I think we do criticize other cultures.

We can see this at work with whaling, Cuba, the US.

Couldn't a case be made for either side in these issues? Whaling is a cultural thing, but it's killing off the whales. Cuba is doing just fine, but we should give Cubans a chance at representation. The US is a racist pig, but no it isn't.

In regards to prepubescent marriage, in what manner do we criticize?

I think the Founding Fathers made sense to recommend staying out of other countries' business. Then again.... where would many places be now? (What a loaded question).

Thanks for a great discussion AL.

but I don't believe it predates God. Of course, you have a different timeline than I do, because I shun science. LOL.

You are being facetious aren't you? And which God are you referring to? There have been a boatload of them you know. You are talking about Zeus aren't you? Or perhaps Akhushtal. No? Then how about Śamšu. So many to choose from.We've just grazed the surface. The Chinese seem to think Pangu is responsible for all of this here. My, it is so hard to come up with just the right god. OK, I'll stop. But you did bring it up...

I trip over "what is the most good." I can certainly see how parents
would feel that an arranged marriage is better than letting the s...

read more»

but I don't believe it predates God. Of course, you have a different timeline than I do, because I shun science. LOL.

You are being facetious aren't you? And which God are you referring to? There have been a boatload of them you know. You are talking about Zeus aren't you? Or perhaps Akhushtal. No? Then how about Śamšu. So many to choose from.We've just grazed the surface. The Chinese seem to think Pangu is responsible for all of this here. My, it is so hard to come up with just the right god. OK, I'll stop. But you did bring it up...

I trip over "what is the most good." I can certainly see how parents
would feel that an arranged marriage is better than letting the son or
daughter choose. This word: good, seems so arbitrary.

I think we're getting too far off topic. You ask valid questions but it might help to focus our comments on the clip instead. I think we can agree that preadolescent girls are not prepared for an adult, sexual relationship and most other cultures agree with this also. Here in the US we have laws against it. Many other cultures have also come to the conclusion that this is not in the best interests of the girl and have baned it.

Again, I think the word harm is so arbitrary.

Standing by itself, perhaps. Applied to pedophelia I don't think so. And incidently, the Bible is rife with instances of treating women as chattel, with no rights; so I guess we wouldn't want to turn to that for justification.

I don't like it when my own culture tells me what is acceptable.

Then speak up and say what you think is right.

I think the Founding Fathers made sense to recommend staying out of
other countries' business. Then again.... where would many places be
now? (What a loaded question).

Thanks for a great discussion AL.

Loaded indeed (thinking about Iraq). And thank you too. It was a pleasure.

Then speak up and say what you think is right.

Oh, I certainly don't speak every thought I have. That would make me so unpopular at parties.


I'm certainly not going to justify marrying off little girls, but I have to admit that this culture sees enough justification for now to keep it up. I don't think it's only the men that think that either. Why do some women agree with the practice? Is it because that is all they know? (Here is where educating women can go a long way towards changing things). Still, I don't think you can blame this practice solely on ignorance.

Have you read Infidel, by Ayaan Hi...

Then speak up and say what you think is right.

Oh, I certainly don't speak every thought I have. That would make me so unpopular at parties.


I'm certainly not going to justify marrying off little girls, but I have to admit that this culture sees enough justification for now to keep it up. I don't think it's only the men that think that either. Why do some women agree with the practice? Is it because that is all they know? (Here is where educating women can go a long way towards changing things). Still, I don't think you can blame this practice solely on ignorance.

Have you read Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali? I learned many things from her experiences. It really gave me an insight on women in Islam.

Oh, I certainly don't speak every thought I have. That would make me so unpopular at parties.

LOL!

Why do some women agree with the practice?

Fear of reprisal?

Still, I don't think you can blame this practice solely on ignorance.

Good point. Often we view less technologically developed areas as not as intelligent but that is a huge mistake. Although there is a statistical correllation between level of religious observation and education. This is decidedly not the same as intelligence and I bring it up merely to indicate that your comment about education could help to at least "equalize" some of the faith based laws that put women in the in...

Oh, I certainly don't speak every thought I have. That would make me so unpopular at parties.

LOL!

Why do some women agree with the practice?

Fear of reprisal?

Still, I don't think you can blame this practice solely on ignorance.

Good point. Often we view less technologically developed areas as not as intelligent but that is a huge mistake. Although there is a statistical correllation between level of religious observation and education. This is decidedly not the same as intelligence and I bring it up merely to indicate that your comment about education could help to at least "equalize" some of the faith based laws that put women in the inferior position.

Here is where educating women can go a long way towards changing things)

Whick is why I have perhaps over ambitious hopes for the internet as a worldwide window for all peoples to share their views. Through Clipmarks I've had cojnversations with people literally all over the world (although Indonesia has been remarkably quiet as has China).

Have you read Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

No, sorry I haven't. But I just downloaded a sample to my Amazon Kindle to peruse. It's one of those sciency things...sorry (the devil made me do it). Thanks for the link

Hello again, AtlLiberal,

Thanx for listening.. A word of friendly advise: When presenting your arguments, refrain from inferring what others are thinking. Such inference falls short of being an attack ad hominem, but it is as they say in law, a point of objection.
Case in point, I am fully aware that feminists are not a unified and homogeneous group. That said, I have already made a distinction between the pragmatic goals of the women's movement (human rights) and what I refer to ideological feminism (what some would call feminist philosophy.)

Elsewhere I've quote Ludwig Wittgenstein as saying, "Philosophy, as we use the word, is a fight against the fascination which forms of expres...

Hello again, AtlLiberal,

Thanx for listening.. A word of friendly advise: When presenting your arguments, refrain from inferring what others are thinking. Such inference falls short of being an attack ad hominem, but it is as they say in law, a point of objection.
Case in point, I am fully aware that feminists are not a unified and homogeneous group. That said, I have already made a distinction between the pragmatic goals of the women's movement (human rights) and what I refer to ideological feminism (what some would call feminist philosophy.)

Elsewhere I've quote Ludwig Wittgenstein as saying, "Philosophy, as we use the word, is a fight against the fascination which forms of expression exert upon us."

Please keep this in mind while I continue with my diatribe.

You and I, dear AtlLiberal, differ in our descriptive statements. To say women have been prevented from rights and privileges enjoyed by men is problematic as women are largely complicit in the status quo.. Germaine Greer eloquently argued this point some 35 years ago in her book the Female Eunuch. The assertion is also typical of cultural conveyance: It transfers our tendancy to polarize men and women to other societies. When we blithely complain about how women are treated or about women being prevented from attaining positions of status a valid question arises: Who's treating women? Who's preventing women? These assertions infer agency and that in itself is problematic. Such statements are also typical of discursive modes peculiar to our academic culture: Men are seen as responsible agents, women are not. In short, where you claim there is no room for argument (or further understanding) as to 'X', I remain open.

To continue my diatribe,

When I said feminists rely on deconstruction to argue their marginal views, I did not mean to imply these views have no merit. Rather, I was referring to arcana excluded from or existing outside the mainstream of society.
I get accused of this myself so I wouldn't dare put it down.
Sorry for the confusion.

As Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "The more abstract the truth you would teach, the more you have to seduce the senses to it."

Lastly, I view male dominance largely in terms of societal expectation (anthropological perspective) instead of something necessary intentional or inherently abusive (political theory). In my view, too much feminist rhetoric is ...

To continue my diatribe,

When I said feminists rely on deconstruction to argue their marginal views, I did not mean to imply these views have no merit. Rather, I was referring to arcana excluded from or existing outside the mainstream of society.
I get accused of this myself so I wouldn't dare put it down.
Sorry for the confusion.

As Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "The more abstract the truth you would teach, the more you have to seduce the senses to it."

Lastly, I view male dominance largely in terms of societal expectation (anthropological perspective) instead of something necessary intentional or inherently abusive (political theory). In my view, too much feminist rhetoric is predicated on overstatement, i.e. on an overly abusive view of men and an overly repressed view of women. .. We've all heard the call .... all the self-righteous moralistic drivel about men's attitudes, the myopic theories about male dominance and patriarchy, (feminist synonym for original sin) the effeminate whining about being degraded, used, abused, treated like slaves, sex objects, second class citizens, and mere pieces of property. ... All of which are perfect examples of rhetorical hyperbole. (This, I would point out, is to be expected in a society where male sexuality has been traditionally berated as naturally predatory, selfish, exploitive, and opportunistic i.e. men are beasts, while notions of feminine moral superiority have remained largely intact.)