A response I wrote to an article on Child Marriage;

This is a great question, Glennn. You are making the point that in Western culture, a "grown man" will have very little in common with a "girl". The "grown man" will have finished high school and probably college. He will be working maybe as an computer programmer or a machinist and will be paying a car loan. A "girl" in Western culture will be worrying about getting braces and arguing with her parents about whether she is mature enough to get a cell phone. We all understand these roles and how they work in our own culture. I don't think that your understanding based on Western values applies to indigenous cultures.

What do two members of an indigenous community have in common?

Well, they share a culture. They have a shared understanding of the values of their own community. They share the same music, and food and games. They share the joys and hardships of the environment in which they live. They share family and friendships and ideas and community.

Indigenous people have their own culture. They have knowledge that you don't have a clue about. They have deeply held beliefs that you would have difficulty even understanding. They have their own ideas about the world and their own sense of identity. You don't have any knowledge of any of this.

You are a White person making judgments about an indigenous culture that you know nothing about.

Understanding the maturity gap between a girl and a grown man has nothing to do with my Western values.

And the power dynamic.

Yes. It says something about a man who would rather have a marriage relationship with a child than with an equally mature woman.

White people have often considered indigenous men to be savages when they dont accept Western cultural beliefs. It is not suprising how you feel about them. You are making no.effort to understand their culture.

These are real people in real indigenous communities like the Yanomami. You have made it clear you disapprove of their culture. It doesnt make their existance any less meaningful.

I would still like to know if you think that efforts by Westerners to interfere in their culture are appropriate. Chai's use of the term "power dynamic" was an interesting choice of words.

What kind of genital mutilation are you referring to?

The World Health Organization (WHO) classified FGM into four broad categories in 1995 and again in 2007:

Type I: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce.

Type II: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora.

Type III: Narrowing of the vaginal orifice by cutting and bringing together the labia minora and/or the labia majora to create a type of seal, with or without excision of the clitoris. In most instances, the cut edges of the labia are stitched together, which is referred to as ‘infibulation’.

Type IV: All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.
________________________________________________________________________________

Which one are you referring to?

Anyway:

FGM is condemned by a number of international treaties and conventions, as well as by national legislation in many countries. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being,” and this statement has been used to argue that FGM violates the right to health and bodily integrity. With FGM considered as a form of violence against women, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women can be invoked. Similarly, defining it as a form of torture brings it under the rubric of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Moreover, since FGM is regarded as a traditional practice prejudicial to the health of children and is, in most cases, performed on minors, it violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child. An interagency statement on FGM, issued by 10 UN organizations, was issued in 2008.

I'm refering to "partial or total removal of the prepuce", type 1 therefore.

But that's where you draw the line, right?

I don't draw any line. Just saying that adults shouldn't cut their kids' genitals.

As an adult, you can cut your own genitals any way you want. But don't do it to them babies. They can't express consent, and they wouldn't if they could. It's needlessly painful and it's debilitating.

That seems to be very hard for you to understand, for some not so mysterious reason... :-)

There are cultures that cut the shaft of an adolescent boys penis as part of a coming of age ritual. There are boys who die from this ordeal every year. Somehow this doesn't get the same outrage.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion concerning what side I take.

Trust me when I tell you that there is not one person on this site who would agree endorse that practice.

Yes, but I don't see anyone writing posts on this topic either. The Western narrative is of girls as victims who need to be saved. When a cultural practice doesnt fit the narrative, it is largely ignored.

What side do you take on the issue of (infant) male circumcision?

I certainly can't get my moral sense to agree with that. Can you?

It's an unnecessary, pointless practice.

I am a White American with the shameful heritage of colonialism. My moral sense shouldn't count for much outside of my own country.

Your heritage is only shameful if you knowingly continue to engage in practices which you are of the belief of being harmful and/or wrong. Morally reprehensible even.

Your heritage of colonialism, in itself is not where the fault is found.

I would go further and state that your moral sense shouldn't count for much outside of your own head, but mind you, inside your head it does count for a lot.


La morale ne vaut que pour soi ; pour les autres il y a la loi et la miséricorde.
-- Compte-Sponville