'The Pink Tax'

1) I don't believe western culture is perfect or even superior to any other culture.
2) I don't even believe that western culture or any other culture is homogeneous or determinant.
3) I do think there are laws of physics that are universal and that there are cause-effect patterns that are undeniable.
4) I don't think that western culture should be criticized for its short-coming less or more than any other cultural traditions. All culture should be critiqued when it is found to fail or misrepresent. In other words, all culture can and should improve, just as all individuals should learn and improve.

I agree with you until point #4, then you have a problem. You are using the word "improve" without defining it. Western people will have one definition of the word "improve", people in other cultures will have a different definition... and that is the problem.

"Equality", as an idea, is sacred in the Western culture. We worship equality, it is at the core of our moral values. It is the way we view the world. This is not a universal value at all, many cultures don't value equality at all... other cultures place a greater value on things like social stability, harmony and tradition.

There is no reason that "Equality" is important in a universal sense, there are great cultures that thrived and prospered without the Western fixation on it. Yet, when a Westerner approaches culture, the assumption is that a more equal society is a better society.

This is just one example. It is a challenge to drop your own biases when you encounter people from other cultures. I don't believe that there is any universal moral authority that you can use to define what is an "improved" society... it comes down to judging one culture using the moral standards of another.

You can't drop your biases. You have to reflect on them and understand the deeper cultural logics in them. You can and should also do this with other cultural logics that aren't immediately understandable for you. When you do this successfully, you should begin to come to a realization that different cultures and cultural differences are superficial variations within what is really a universal culture. It is like studying different languages and seeing the similarities, shared features, etc. Then, go take a look at the tree that includes all languages and realize they have all evolved from the same primordial grunting.

Humans are a single species and the very possibility of recognizing truth across cultural differences shows that there are universals. If you focus on superficialities that make cultural differences seem more salient than commonalities and universalities, that is unconstructive bias toward fragmentation and, ultimately dishonesty. Anthropology exploits such dihonesty to make human culture appear richer than it is, the way a chef or a food critic exploits the nuances of a particular meal or dish and downplays the fact that it is made from the same basic ingredients available to anyone to create any number of varied results.

Here is the core of our disagreement. When Europeans impose their cultural values indigenous cultures, the implication is that the Europeans have the right to do so because their values are closer to some absolute truth of what a culture should be. This is the core justification for colonialism.

Your language example is an interesting one. I have studied a few different languages... and I am proficient in two. They have vastly different grammars, rules and roots. If you want to use a language, you accept its rules. You express ideas according to its rules. I have never once suggested that one language should change to be like another language. You use the language you are using (and if you are good, you don't think about any other language while you are speaking).

I see no evidence for a "universal culture" or a "universal language".

In some aspects they were right and in others wrong. They were wrong in not listening to indigenous wisdom and recognizing value in cultural practices that were foreign to them. But you also can't say that the indigenous people and cultures were perfect in every way. Humans and their cultures are always developing and progressing. Many people cling to flawed beliefs and traditions out of bias where all cultural traditions are concerned.


That's like when people say they see no evidence for evolution because no 'missing link' has been found between humans and other primates.

No language has ever developed in isolation from a previous language. Language evolve the same way species do. Just as organisms are all various expressions of DNA, language and culture are all various ways of expressing cultural universalities.

It is some silly myth in your head--you have not demonstrated that this is the case on even a limited basis, let alone across any particular culture. You have not, of course, identified the culture in which this is occurring. The relationship of June and Ward Cleaver no long applies in the United States. (I assume that is the culture to which you refer, given that your use of English is that of the American idiom.) This is teapot tempest and product of a fevered imagination. Unless and until you can demonstrate that this alleged inequality characterizes whatever culture you are referring to (after having contradicted yourself with "everyone understands culture is heterogeneous" immediately followed by "It is a cultural pattern/traditions . . . "), this is all a load of old BS. Establish your premise (which you have not done on any other than a grossly outdated anecdotal basis) if you expect to be taken seriously.

Do you just come on on-line to whine about vague notions that you have?

You are talking about "right" and "wrong". Can you tell me which of your moral beliefs are wrong? That is the problem. When you have a disagreement with someone from another culture, all you have is your belief. You don't have any way to judge.

There are two flawed assumptions in what you are saying

1. That there is some universal absolute truth; that you can judge "right" and "wrong" outside of your cultural bias.

2. That judgement is the correct judgement. That when you disagree with indigenous cultures it is possible to know for certain that you are right, or if you were wrong you would recognize it.

Our culture is now the dominant culture in most of the world. Our culture is also has the military and economic power that it grabbed through process of domination, conquest and destruction of indigenous cultures.

I don't think that makes us any better judge of morality.

I don't think you can free your mind of wanting to attack and prove me wrong to actually understand anything you are citing me as having said. It's ok. I read this kind of endless strawmanning day in and day out in the news. I understand it's more important to you to fight against views you disagree with than to really understand them, but is there really any point in me discussing anything with you in the goal of clarification?

There are too many misconceptions in your post to unpack them all. Yes, there is right and wrong and truth. You seem to appreciate anthropology, so how is it do you suppose that an anthropologist can come to understand a 'different' culture except by learning the culture and discovering that it makes reference to universal meanings? Anything in any culture is just a manifestation of human psychology trying to make sense of a reality that is governed by universal physical mechanical laws that apply the same everywhere.

We disagree then. I don't believe there is any absolute moral truth. I do believe there are physical laws. But all cultures operate under the same physical laws, and yet come up with very different understandings of morality.

When you say "universal"... do you mean "human" or do you really mean that there are moral values that apply to even non-human entities. Do ants operate under the same universal moral code that you suppose humans operate?

Is this still about pink plastic razors.

The straw man here is the bullshit you're attempting to forward in this thread. You have not demonstrated that this culture (once again, I assume that you refer to the United States, based on your use of English) can reasonably be characterized by the attitudes you have described.

What's going in your response is that you cannot answer the criticism, so you characterize the criticism as a personal attack, so that you can dismiss it, rather than answer it. You have made a claim. You have not offered a shred of evidence that your claim has a basis in reality. Get over it, and deal with it.

Evidence for what? That the US contains more than one cultural tradition? That culture is fluid and variable and changing, not static and defined and homogenous within borders? What evidence do you need for that? Have you ever looked up close at culture in actual reality or do you just read about it in anthropology journals?

Why? Do you have something to say about the topic or are you just being critical for the sake of being critical?

Critical about what??? Isn’t this supposed to be the pink tax and how unfair women are to men? Did you change your mind????

Critical about what, exactly. You post posts devoid of content. All they do is react to me as a poster for the sake of getting in my face. If you don't have any content to post, could you just please spare me the drama of a pointless interaction?

I don’t know what your issue is with people here. Is there anybody on the forum providing you with the soft fuzzies you need? I see you as very puzzling, but I frankly don’t need to solve every puzzle I run into, just the ones that interest me. So, think about it this way......perhaps in person I might understand what your angst and anger are all about (I have lived thru teenagers) I do understand the confusion some very young folks have over all things fair and unfair....it’s tough. Life is nuanced, you may not see it now, but at some point you might understand and also understand you can live up to your standards and still allow yourself to re-evaluate how you judge others. You have stated sex is bad unless you are willing to bear children, good for you. I believe you also think women shouldn’t spend as much on themselves so they can afford to spend more money on men. That’s fine, I already know a lot of women who choose to live that way, in fact some of them deny their children so the boyfriends or husbands can put nifty rims on their cars or spend time at the track or hang out with the boys. I guess that makes them happy. So to each hisvor her own.

You really should consult with McGentrick, he’s the guy you need for affirmation. He already has the number of all the bothersome women who dare to post here. Cheers kiddo.

If my drama bothers you more than your drama bothers me, put me on ignore, I’ll miss you, but I’ll be ok, so will you.

I'm thinking no...

I guess your right. Apparently it’s about a scolding for anybody that dares to comment. Oh, and by the way Neptune, you have officially been scolded. You smarty pants

That's a complete weasel response. You are the one who characterized American culture as giving women an unfair advantage in terms of paying for things when in the company of men. That's what you have failed to provide evidence for. Then you get all snotty with me about diversity and a lack of homogeneity, when you are the one who starts with a premise describing that behavior as universal. Poor you--thinking is hard!