|
On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:07 Shiori wrote:I am absolutely baffled that people are defending the practice on the grounds of "it's their culture." I think a lot of time is being wasted with Danglars' sort of sophistical point about where the line between harmful and merely temporarily uncomfortable should be drawn. Actually, Danglars' point is a good one, but I don't think it's relevant to this issue because, wherever the line is drawn regarding awful traditions vs okay ones, FGM is definitely on the awful side. I don't think anyone disputes that. With that in mind, I don't really think there's anything Western nations can do about it short of yelling at these tribes until they stop mutilating their women. I don't really think that fundamental rights like the right to not have your body utterly mutilated at a young age (after being indoctrinated in misogyny) is something which culture should supersede. you can not justify the goodness of the 'personal freedom' idea, when you impose yours onto others. False dichotomy. Nobody's freedom is being impugned when someone says that FGM is bad and should be abolished. Why? Because the women who "consent" to FGM are not in a position to give informed consent, as they have been pressured/indoctrinated by a misogynistic philosophy; this should be obvious. Whose freedom is being infringed if we say that FGM is a massive imposition on personal freedom? no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works. what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes. you have been indoctrinated too. So what are you suggesting? My indoctrination wherein cutting little girls is unacceptable is equivalent to a different indoctrination where cutting little girls is just fine? it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins. if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable.
That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is.
|
On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:07 Shiori wrote:I am absolutely baffled that people are defending the practice on the grounds of "it's their culture." I think a lot of time is being wasted with Danglars' sort of sophistical point about where the line between harmful and merely temporarily uncomfortable should be drawn. Actually, Danglars' point is a good one, but I don't think it's relevant to this issue because, wherever the line is drawn regarding awful traditions vs okay ones, FGM is definitely on the awful side. I don't think anyone disputes that. With that in mind, I don't really think there's anything Western nations can do about it short of yelling at these tribes until they stop mutilating their women. I don't really think that fundamental rights like the right to not have your body utterly mutilated at a young age (after being indoctrinated in misogyny) is something which culture should supersede. you can not justify the goodness of the 'personal freedom' idea, when you impose yours onto others. False dichotomy. Nobody's freedom is being impugned when someone says that FGM is bad and should be abolished. Why? Because the women who "consent" to FGM are not in a position to give informed consent, as they have been pressured/indoctrinated by a misogynistic philosophy; this should be obvious. Whose freedom is being infringed if we say that FGM is a massive imposition on personal freedom? no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works. what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes. you have been indoctrinated too. So what are you suggesting? My indoctrination wherein cutting little girls is unacceptable is equivalent to a different indoctrination where cutting little girls is just fine? it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins. if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable.
OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue?
|
If its performed by a trained doctor in a clinic or hospital female circumcision is just another safe procedure. Don't get me wrong, I am against male or female circumcision 'just for the hell of it', though some advocates claim that it reduces the risk of contracting HIV/STD's ect.
It used to be common practice in the US until the early 60's along with male circumcision but it just faded out. Whoever has had sex with an African (North African) woman who has had the tip of their clitoris removed under anesthetics in a clinic environment is just as capable of having an orgasm.
Again, I condone both male and female circumcision as barbaric backwards practices and feel that at least the person being circumcised should have a say in the matter but if it is done in a controlled safe environment you can not condone female genital mutilation and yet support the male one... but meh, guess I will wait for someone to compare me to Hitler
|
People are not deep thinkers by their nature. They don't grasp principles, but only special cases. That's why ten years ago the UK was defending the rights of Holocaust deniers like David Irving, whereas today it's arresting people for offensive Twitter statements. They don't realize the inconsistency because they never understood the principle of freedom of speech; rather, they only took a few soundbytes.
Yet whenever we turn to a subject involving people with brown skin, everyone becomes a philosopher. The very fundamental principles of existence are questioned. What is pain? How do we know that pain is bad? What really is truth? Is truth merely our Western-centric version of truth? Does truth really vary between different communities with different perceptions of the truth? What right do we have to say that female genital mutilation is wrong? Were the Nazis wrong? Is anything wrong? What is the law, and how does it distinguish right from wrong? Do we really need juries? What is the use in innocent until proven guilty? Is it a reasonable procedure to use violent force against someone because you feel a little affronted? Does logic really matter, or do you just follow your "heart"? What is the use in freedom of speech? Is it okay to arrest people if they make offensive remarks on Twitter? Etc.
|
On July 27 2013 23:36 Zeo wrote:
If its performed by a trained doctor in a clinic or hospital female circumcision is just another safe procedure. Don't get me wrong, I am against male or female circumcision 'just for the hell of it', though some advocates claim that it reduces the risk of contracting HIV/STD's ect.
It used to be common practice in the US until the early 60's along with male circumcision but it just faded out. Whoever has had sex with an African (North African) woman who has had the tip of their clitoris removed under anesthetics in a clinic environment is just as capable of having an orgasm.
Again, I condone both male and female circumcision as barbaric backwards practices and feel that at least the person being circumcised should have a say in the matter but if it is done in a controlled safe environment you can not condone female genital mutilation and yet support the male one... but meh, guess I will wait for someone to compare me to Hitler
Female circumcision doesn't reduce the risk of contracting STDs to my knowledge. And yes it can be safe if done properly like any other minor surgery, but we both agree that it's wrong and speaking against it is fine and encouraged 
On July 27 2013 23:38 GreenGringo wrote:
People are not deep thinkers by their nature. They don't grasp principles, but only special cases. That's why ten years ago the UK was defending the rights of Holocaust deniers like David Irving, whereas today it's arresting people for offensive Twitter statements. They don't realize the inconsistency because they never understood the principle of freedom of speech; rather, they only took a few soundbytes.
Yet whenever we turn to a subject involving people with brown skin, everyone becomes a philosopher. The very fundamental principles of existence are questioned. What is pain? How do we know that pain is bad? What really is truth? Is truth merely our Western-centric version of truth? Does truth really vary between different communities with different perceptions of the truth? What right do we have to say that female genital mutilation is wrong? Were the Nazis wrong? Is anything wrong? What is the law, and how does it determine right from wrong? Do we really need juries? What is the use in innocent until proven guilty? Is it a reasonable procedure to use violent force against someone because you feel a little affronted? Does logic really matter, or do you just follow your "heart"? What is the use in freedom of speech? Is it okay to arrest people if they make offensive remarks on Twitter? Etc.
Can't go wrong with a response like that. Wouldn't want to risk having an opinion or anything.
|
On July 27 2013 23:36 Zeo wrote:
If its performed by a trained doctor in a clinic or hospital female circumcision is just another safe procedure. Don't get me wrong, I am against male or female circumcision 'just for the hell of it', though some advocates claim that it reduces the risk of contracting HIV/STD's ect.
It used to be common practice in the US until the early 60's along with male circumcision but it just faded out. Whoever has had sex with an African (North African) woman who has had the tip of their clitoris removed under anesthetics in a clinic environment is just as capable of having an orgasm.
Again, I condone both male and female circumcision as barbaric backwards practices and feel that at least the person being circumcised should have a say in the matter but if it is done in a controlled safe environment you can not condone female genital mutilation and yet support the male one... but meh, guess I will wait for someone to compare me to Hitler
Yeah, you can cut a lot of things of people in a "safe procedure" if you are a doctor. You could probably even remove legs or arms or eyes in that way. That does not make it right to do so.
I am against cutting off any pieces of children, be it male or female ones. It does not matter if it is done in a safe way (well, it does matter, cutting them of in an unsafe way is even worse, but still). However, for male babies they basically cut off a part of skin that is not overly needed. Still not a nice thing to do, and it should not be done. On females, the parts being cut off are far more important. I must say that i have not have sex with anyone who has parts of their genitals cut off, so i can't speak from personal experience here, but from what i read there is prolonged pain involved, difficulties when urinating, and also difficulties when having sex. That is simply horrible.
Both should not happen, but one is far more disgusting then the other.
|
On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:07 Shiori wrote:I am absolutely baffled that people are defending the practice on the grounds of "it's their culture." I think a lot of time is being wasted with Danglars' sort of sophistical point about where the line between harmful and merely temporarily uncomfortable should be drawn. Actually, Danglars' point is a good one, but I don't think it's relevant to this issue because, wherever the line is drawn regarding awful traditions vs okay ones, FGM is definitely on the awful side. I don't think anyone disputes that. With that in mind, I don't really think there's anything Western nations can do about it short of yelling at these tribes until they stop mutilating their women. I don't really think that fundamental rights like the right to not have your body utterly mutilated at a young age (after being indoctrinated in misogyny) is something which culture should supersede. you can not justify the goodness of the 'personal freedom' idea, when you impose yours onto others. False dichotomy. Nobody's freedom is being impugned when someone says that FGM is bad and should be abolished. Why? Because the women who "consent" to FGM are not in a position to give informed consent, as they have been pressured/indoctrinated by a misogynistic philosophy; this should be obvious. Whose freedom is being infringed if we say that FGM is a massive imposition on personal freedom? no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works. what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes. you have been indoctrinated too. So what are you suggesting? My indoctrination wherein cutting little girls is unacceptable is equivalent to a different indoctrination where cutting little girls is just fine? it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins. if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue?
that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy.
On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins.
if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is.
ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here.
mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins.
|
On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:
ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here.
mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins.
There comes a time in an argument when the only sensible thing to say is
No. This is not what we are doing here. No wars. I don't know if you're doing some kind of cheesy thought experiment and you're being clumsy and confusing on purpose but stop it.
|
you can't come to a country, spread democracy, then agree with FGM. democracy is a package deal.
(and stop thinking at wars as only being fought with guns and cannons and pitchforks and torches. whenever a winner emerges, a battle was fought; sometimes it's even a civilized battle/war)
|
On July 28 2013 00:19 xM(Z wrote:
you can't come to a country, spread democracy, then agree with FGM. democracy is a package deal.
(and stop thinking at wars as only being fought with guns and cannons and pitchforks and torches. whenever a winner emerges, a battle was fought; sometimes it's even a civilized battle/war)
Did you mean disagree with FGM? It's confusing.
Also are you suggesting that we need to agree with everything that's done in any "democracy" because the fact that it's a democracy makes everything right?
Democracy: Do anything you want.
|
United States43897 Posts
On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:07 Shiori wrote:I am absolutely baffled that people are defending the practice on the grounds of "it's their culture." I think a lot of time is being wasted with Danglars' sort of sophistical point about where the line between harmful and merely temporarily uncomfortable should be drawn. Actually, Danglars' point is a good one, but I don't think it's relevant to this issue because, wherever the line is drawn regarding awful traditions vs okay ones, FGM is definitely on the awful side. I don't think anyone disputes that. With that in mind, I don't really think there's anything Western nations can do about it short of yelling at these tribes until they stop mutilating their women. I don't really think that fundamental rights like the right to not have your body utterly mutilated at a young age (after being indoctrinated in misogyny) is something which culture should supersede. you can not justify the goodness of the 'personal freedom' idea, when you impose yours onto others. False dichotomy. Nobody's freedom is being impugned when someone says that FGM is bad and should be abolished. Why? Because the women who "consent" to FGM are not in a position to give informed consent, as they have been pressured/indoctrinated by a misogynistic philosophy; this should be obvious. Whose freedom is being infringed if we say that FGM is a massive imposition on personal freedom? no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works. what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes. you have been indoctrinated too. So what are you suggesting? My indoctrination wherein cutting little girls is unacceptable is equivalent to a different indoctrination where cutting little girls is just fine? it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins. if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins.
if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins.
Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion.
|
On July 28 2013 00:22 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 00:19 xM(Z wrote:
you can't come to a country, spread democracy, then agree with FGM. democracy is a package deal.
(and stop thinking at wars as only being fought with guns and cannons and pitchforks and torches. whenever a winner emerges, a battle was fought; sometimes it's even a civilized battle/war) Did you mean disagree with FGM? It's confusing. Also are you suggesting that we need to agree with everything that's done in any "democracy" because the fact that it's a democracy makes everything right? Democracy: Do anything you want.
^^
If everyone votes to have the death penalty by stoning or burning at the stake, so be it; that's democracy for you. The only thing you get with the spread of democracy is majority vote.
|
I think there is no point discussing this issue. This is just one of many symptoms of societies clinging to religious or tribal norms. The women in that poll werent lying, they really support this. The shit they have to put up with due to their traditions causes a lot of agression but it can not be directed towards the cause of the problem, because obviously religion and traditions are beyond criticism in those countries. Thats why the agression gets redirected and takes on forms that is congruent with the norms - stoning sluts, chopping off thieves hands, mutilating children and so forth.
Singling out issues and fighting them is really a waste of time. Spending resources to fight a symptom is futile, as long as the cause still exists. Unfortunately getting rid of the cause is nothing we can significantly influence, just a nudge here and there and hope these societies rid themselves of the dominating influence of religion and silly traditions eventually which will probably still take a looong time. In the meantime we can of course sidestep the real issues by saying "look, I respect your religion and traditions, but.....". No. Stop being inconsequential. What kind of fantasy world is this, where we can tell ourselves we are so respectful of other peoples religious believes and traditions, as long as they alter the aspects we cant help but get outraged by.
Its kinda annoying how people nowadays want to have it all ethically, "harmful practices? Terrible!" "cultures and religions? I love them all!". Its bullshit. Either you go the route of freedom of religion and so forth and let them burn women, mutilate children, punish all kinds of things in draconic ways or your standpoint is that there is indeed a superior way of regulating society by ethics, science etc. and that outdated concepts like religion and tribal traditions have to disappear or at least their importance be diminished drastically so they dont dominate daily live and social interaction anymore.
|
well, at least the name of the guy who started the thread is fitting
|
On July 28 2013 00:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:35 Shiori wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:20 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:On July 27 2013 23:07 Shiori wrote:I am absolutely baffled that people are defending the practice on the grounds of "it's their culture." I think a lot of time is being wasted with Danglars' sort of sophistical point about where the line between harmful and merely temporarily uncomfortable should be drawn. Actually, Danglars' point is a good one, but I don't think it's relevant to this issue because, wherever the line is drawn regarding awful traditions vs okay ones, FGM is definitely on the awful side. I don't think anyone disputes that. With that in mind, I don't really think there's anything Western nations can do about it short of yelling at these tribes until they stop mutilating their women. I don't really think that fundamental rights like the right to not have your body utterly mutilated at a young age (after being indoctrinated in misogyny) is something which culture should supersede. you can not justify the goodness of the 'personal freedom' idea, when you impose yours onto others. False dichotomy. Nobody's freedom is being impugned when someone says that FGM is bad and should be abolished. Why? Because the women who "consent" to FGM are not in a position to give informed consent, as they have been pressured/indoctrinated by a misogynistic philosophy; this should be obvious. Whose freedom is being infringed if we say that FGM is a massive imposition on personal freedom? no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works. what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes. you have been indoctrinated too. So what are you suggesting? My indoctrination wherein cutting little girls is unacceptable is equivalent to a different indoctrination where cutting little girls is just fine? it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins. if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. OK, so? What exactly are you trying to argue? that winners don't need justification and that playing the vigilante card, is just disguised hypocrisy. On July 27 2013 23:34 Djzapz wrote:On July 27 2013 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
it's not about right or wrong (fine or not fine), it's about who wins.
if they win, your (grand)kids would end up believing that cutting little girls is acceptable. That seems off topic, nobody's talking about going to war. Advocacy is not to be dismissed... I guess you can "win" with pressure but yeah... Not sure what your angle is. ideological wars are the bloodiest and this is what we are doing here. mine is right, yours is wrong so let's see who wins. Your argument is morally bankrupt, you are advocating the abdication of rational judgement, the thing that makes us better than animals, in favour of ideological passivity. You can bitch all you like about how it's all subjective and the winner decides what is normal and good but it's not true, maybe not everything I believe is right and true and good but I'm damn sure that my belief that you shouldn't cut off the clitoris of girls and sew their vaginas shut isn't one of them. Sure enough to impose my beliefs on others who disagree. People disagree all the time but that doesn't mean that there aren't right answers, it just means some people are dumb. What's worse than the dumb people though are people like you who have so little conviction that they'd rather see evil go on in front of them than take a stance, at least the dumb people don't know they're dumb, you claim to look at all the evidence and yet can't come to a conclusion.
you still don't get it do you?.
i said DO IT!; i would fucking go there, change their damn constitution, make illegal every form of FGM there is and not give a shit about consequences.
i just wont give myself a pat on the back and congratulate myself for doing the right thing, my right thing. that would be disgusting because what i did was destroy people, traditions, believes, lives. (do you even know that the women in those countries don't even know that FGM is not done everywhere else in the world?. you go to a such woman, tell her she was mutilated and expect what?, a hero's welcome?, or expect her to cry on your shoulder?. wtf)
besides if what you said is true, that there is indeed an objective form of this rational judgement thinggie, then why worry?, they would get to it eventually ... right?.
if you did it by yourself then they should also end up to the same conclusion so then why the hurry?, why now?, why should they change their lives when you say so?.
|
On July 28 2013 00:34 diehilde wrote: your standpoint is that there is indeed a superior way of regulating society by ethics, science etc. and that outdated concepts like religion and tribal traditions have to disappear or at least their importance be diminished drastically so they dont dominate daily live and social interaction anymore.
That's my creed, right there.
|
Why not battle both female and male genital mutilation? Why just focus on the females? Oh yeah, I forgot. MGM isn't important because it's considered normal in America to cut the foreskin off a baby for no medical benefit.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 28 2013 01:00 Dagda99 wrote:
Why not battle both female and male genital mutilation? Why just focus on the females? Oh yeah, I forgot. MGM isn't important because it's considered normal in America to cut the foreskin off a baby for no medical benefit.
That happens in different threads. Both things are different problems and they're done for entirely different reasons. It's fine to take both of those things separately.
Also refer to page1, don't derail this thread and make it about dicks. Go to the dicks threads to talk about dicks.
|
On July 27 2013 17:30 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Assemble the army of democracy and freedom, there's some countries that need to be shown how to be civilised.
As much as it may suck, I think those cultures have to change their practices through themselves wanting to do it. External cultural pressure from the West is ok, but it should really stay at that. Forcing shit on others will only make it worse in the long run.
I disagree 100%.
A story for which Napier is often noted involved Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. As first recounted by his brother William, he replied:
"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs." [4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier#Service_in_India
|
On July 27 2013 23:17 xM(Z wrote:
no one is defending anything. all i'm saying is: go there, screw them over (at least one generation would be screwed over; i'd say 2 - 3 generations to be generous), say i'm sorry, throw money at them, wait untill their believes = your believes, then take pride in the fact that who had the power won. it's how shit works.
what constitutes freedom, comes from a set of beliefs. the freedom idea changes with said believes.
you have been indoctrinated too.
I think that is too much "black and white" and misses important aspects, as how change happens.
As you imply, there seem to be only two ways to deal with dilemma like this - totally keep out of it (their culture, I will not interfere) or going total domination (until their believes = my believes).
Sadly enough, this has happened a lot and still happens. But even more sad, if we only can think in these categories.
Cultures are always evolving, they have their own dynamic. There is agrowing number f.e. of African women, who want to change these tradition and are fighting for women's right. From the history of my country (although I did not live then) - Germany had a real horrifying (... hard to find words) Nazi dictatorship. We needed external intervention (War) and help afterwards (mainly the U.S.) to get rid of this. But it would not have worked, if there hadn't also been many Germans after the War, who wanted to create a democratic society.
I just do not like the argument, o.k., if you want to support change somewhere else, the only way to do it is by screwing them over. It is much more complex - "they" are not one block, and we are strongly connected anyhow (it's just how globalization works), so by ignoring it, I do also make a choice, by helping those whose power partly relies on "the world turning their view away".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
