Poll: Is the encouragement of Feminism/Women's Rights, a form of Cultural Imperialism?

[caselj01]

If people are trying to export western values (like feminism) to other countries (such as the middle east) then yes, that could be described as a form of cultural imperialism. But then again, the abolition of the slave trade was a similar case, and yet nobody seems to complain about that. Just because it technically fits under the label of imperialism doesn't necessarily mean its morally or ethically wrong.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Just because it technically fits under the label of imperialism doesn't necessarily mean its morally or ethically wrong.

I think that this response is something that I can completely agree with.

 

[peruvianskys]

Yes. Anytime one culture tells another what is "right" or "wrong" its passing judgment on their culture based on its own culture. A basic tenant of anthropology is that you shouldn't judge other cultures by way of your own culture. Doesn't mean people agree with this idea.

What about female genital mutilation or female infanticide? After a certain point, cultural relativism does not excuse blatant violations of the most basic human rights. It's not "imperialist" to say that the forceful covering of women is wrong; it's just a universal application of a logical concept. I'm all for cultural understanding and reasonable tolerance, but there have been cultures and beliefs throughout time that have simply been incompatible with a reasonably free and just society. I don't much care about the burqua so long as women have the right to choose for themselves, but it's silly, not to mention dangerous, to pretend that every culture is on equal footing morally.

Gah, this whole topic disgusts me. Islamic culture is not inherently mysoginistic, just some aspects where Fundamentalist Islam rules supreme. And as any Christian should know, a Fundamentalist version of a religion has nothing to do with that religion at all. They tend to pick and choose which bits from their given holy book that they want to believe in, and then make up the rest of the rules and traditions in a way that best suits the people in power.

I disagree immensely that a fundamentalist version of a religion or cultural system has nothing to do with the religion itself. Fundamentalism is just the strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines, and if those doctrines (which, mind you, are right there in both the holy book of the religion as well as its entire history) lead to terrible human rights abuses, then it is the fault of the religion being fundamentally adhered to. In many ways, you can best understand a religion by looking at its fundamentalists because they give you the most basic, traditional and strict look at what that religion teaches.

If a religious text or tradition can be turned into a death machine simply by people actually doing all the things it commands, then that certainly does reflect on the merits of that religion. A good example of this is Jainism. Their "fundamentalists" do exist and they manifest that traditionalist viewpoint by not leaving home after nightfall so that they can be sure they don't step on any bugs. You won't find radical Jain fundamentalists blowing up buildings because that prescription of violence simply doesn't exist in their religious philosophy; no amount of strict adherence or fundamentalism could find such abusive behavior in their religion. On the other hand, it's really fucking easy to see justification for such violence in the Quran, for example. So if the fundamentalists, aka the people doing what the religion actually says you should do, are killing civilians and murdering women, then I think that shows at the very least that such behaviors are easy to justify with the Holy Book of whatever religion you're looking at.

 

[Azahul]

I disagree immensely that a fundamentalist version of a religion or cultural system has nothing to do with the religion itself. Fundamentalism is just the strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines, and if those doctrines (which, mind you, are right there in both the holy book of the religion as well as its entire history) lead to terrible human rights abuses, then it is the fault of the religion being fundamentally adhered to. In many ways, you can best understand a religion by looking at its fundamentalists because they give you the most basic, traditional and strict look at what that religion teaches.

If a religious text or tradition can be turned into a death machine simply by people actually doing all the things it commands, then that certainly does reflect on the merits of that religion. A good example of this is Jainism. Their "fundamentalists" do exist and they manifest that traditionalist viewpoint by not leaving home after nightfall so that they can be sure they don't step on any bugs. You won't find radical Jain fundamentalists blowing up buildings because that prescription of violence simply doesn't exist in their religious philosophy; no amount of strict adherence or fundamentalism could find such abusive behavior in their religion. On the other hand, it's really fucking easy to see justification for such violence in the Quran, for example. So if the fundamentalists, aka the people doing what the religion actually says you should do, are killing civilians and murdering women, then I think that shows at the very least that such behaviors are easy to justify with the Holy Book of whatever religion you're looking at.

See, that's the thing. Fundamentalism never really takes into account what the religion is about, but rather use literal interpretations of a religious book to force others to fit their world view.

Let's take an example of Fundamentalist Christianity in America. A good chunk of the "pro-life", or anti-abortionists, are Fundamentalist Christians. Their reasoning, of course, is that it is wrong to kill, a position backed rather clearly by the Bible. Simultaneously, most of these same Fundamentalist Christians are pro-Death Penalty. Fundamentalisism, as a doctrine or ideology, may mean a literal interpretation of a religion's religious texts, but at the same time it very rarely gets used as anything other than a means of pushing a particular political agenda. The use of Islam to promote patriarchal society in the Middle East is in the same spot here. It has nothing to do with the religion itself, or the traditions (like wearing the burqa) that surround that religion. Rather, it is about a group of men trying to preserve their hold as the uppermost echelon of society.

 

[KarlMonster]

Question: Would anybody care about this if the same region wasn't largely identified as a terrorist hotspot?

Of course, women have the right to act subservient to men, if they choose to. There are plenty of women in America who still do, and while I personally find that attitude quite depressing, I have no right to force them to stop.

If I'm not greatly mistaken, I believe that a majority of America's own religious extremists have equally biased views on gender roles. Many practicioners aren't all that extreme, either.

I've reflected before on the idea that "Western" (Westernized) is often an idea without an inherent direction, or source. There are areas of the West that badly need to accept "Western" ways.

 

[Olrod]

If they don't mind, is it because they're trained to not mind?

 

[Stublore]

Yes. Anytime one culture tells another what is "right" or "wrong" its passing judgment on their culture based on its own culture. A basic tenant of anthropology is that you shouldn't judge other cultures by way of your own culture. Doesn't mean people agree with this idea.

Ahh yes, good old moral relativism!
If a culture for example thinks that the way to get rid of AIDS is to have sex with babies can I say that's bad idea? You're damn right I can, and I can also say with justification that my culture which does not and would not dream of doing so is superior!
Is modern Democracy superior to the Aztec culture?
Darn tootin' it is!
Is saying such Cultural Imperialism?
Not in my book!

Original question:
My answer:
No it's not Cultural Imperialism.

 

[Soviet Steve]

Imposing your own morality on someone because yours is superior is imperialism, but I do view womens rights as something important. It isn't something we can impose and expect any decent results however, it has to come from within muslim societies for it to have cultural validity to them.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Depends on which culture happens to be right. And, it's obvious to me that mine is.

Yes, if I had grown up in a different culture, I'd feel differently.

But, since I have grown up in a Western democracy, equality and human rights are massively important things, and nobody is allowed to disagree with me.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Encouragement? No. Defining Democracy by how close they are to us? Very much so.

What Westerners, in general, don't understand is how much of a pedestal women are given in Arabian countries. For instance, the first three rows of seats on a bus are reserved purely for women. Even elderly males MUST give up their seats for lades.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I think we have no room to talk until our culture stops treating women like sex objects. While it may not be all over the mainstream media it's totally still going on, and rape in America is still running strong too.


Honestly, I think America just likes to talk shit about other cultures as a way of ignoring it's own glaring flaws. When was our last year without a war again?

Ding Ding!

Can we try to handle some of our many, MANY domestic issues before starting a moral crusade elsewhere in the world? Hasn't the ENTIRE PLANET gotten pissed off at America on more than one occasion for acting like the Captain Planet of Justice or something?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think we have no room to talk until our culture stops treating women like sex objects. While it may not be all over the mainstream media it's totally still going on, and rape in America is still running strong too.


Honestly, I think America just likes to talk shit about other cultures as a way of ignoring it's own glaring flaws. When was our last year without a war again?

Ding Ding!

Can we try to handle some of our many, MANY domestic issues before starting a moral crusade elsewhere in the world? Hasn't the ENTIRE PLANET gotten pissed off at America on more than one occasion for acting like the Captain Planet of Justice or something?

This is true, but problems at home are no more a reason to ignore larger problems elsewhere, in the same way that the existence of problems somewhere else means there's no reason to complain about local issues.

It's not (or at least shouldn't be) a one or the other thing, both can be done.

 

[NeutralDrow]

...is a form of Western cultural imperialism? What do you guys think?

Recommended reading: Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism. It deals extensively with this general subject, through essays on things like the role of women in the Iranian revolution, two opposing essays on the role western feminism should take in Islam, sex and birth control education in Brazil (and the contrast to western notions of "sexual liberation"), subjects that note how in much of the world, women's and men's rights issues coincide, etc. Also a chapter on black lesbians in American literature that felt like an odd one out.

On the specific subject of burqas and the like in western countries...almost invariably yes, it is. It's a bit of an irony that the issues surrounding those garments (and hijab in general) are precisely opposite in countries that enforce them (not as many as people seem to think) and in countries that have bans on them. In the latter category, it's not always "cultural imperialism" (several are Muslim majority countries, like Syria and Turkey), but it does generally boil down a debate of freedom of cultural expression versus a number of arguments that are at best vague (like some "security" reasons that get blown out of proportion) and at worst Orwellian (especially "assimilation" related reasons...though it's probably my American perspective lashing out at that).

 

[Kopikatsu]

I think we have no room to talk until our culture stops treating women like sex objects. While it may not be all over the mainstream media it's totally still going on, and rape in America is still running strong too.


Honestly, I think America just likes to talk shit about other cultures as a way of ignoring it's own glaring flaws. When was our last year without a war again?

Ding Ding!

Can we try to handle some of our many, MANY domestic issues before starting a moral crusade elsewhere in the world? Hasn't the ENTIRE PLANET gotten pissed off at America on more than one occasion for acting like the Captain Planet of Justice or something?

This is true, but problems at home are no more a reason to ignore larger problems elsewhere, in the same way that the existence of problems somewhere else means there's no reason to complain about local issues.

It's not (or at least shouldn't be) a one or the other thing, both can be done.

It really can't. How can you expect a country to get another country on the straight and narrow if they can't even keep their own shit together?

Its like trying to give someone advice on their love life when every relationship you've ever had has ended very badly.

 

[A Weary Exile]

They should have the choice of whether or not they want to wear a burkha, which I doubt most of them have. That's the real problem, not the act of wearing a burkha.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It really can't. How can you expect a country to get another country on the straight and narrow if they can't even keep their own shit together?

Its like trying to give someone advice on their love life when every relationship you've ever had has ended very badly.

For all it's faults, the West is comparatively good on that issue. It can work to bring others up to its standard, as it works to improve that standard.

Yes, they can't hope to fix everything overseas when they can't at home, but improvements, no matter how small, are still better than nothing.

 

[Gigano]

Sure it is.

I see no problem with that; any culture that discriminate against women - not to mention what it does in regard to homosexuality, apostasy, and polytheism - needs a good kick to the face. Or several, until a few features have been rearranged.

Human rights are absolute. They shall adopt into their culture this most basic respect for individual human rights, the basic requirement for having any civility or decency at all. And if these governments will not change it themselves, then it must be changed for them.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

I disagree with the practice, but one should be free to believe what they wish, regardless of how I or anyone else feels. As long as it does not harm the person(s) in question I see nothing wrong with it.
It's important that the woman has the right to choose, having the choice is a deeper celebration of Women's Rights.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes. Anytime one culture tells another what is "right" or "wrong" its passing judgment on their culture based on its own culture. A basic tenant of anthropology is that you shouldn't judge other cultures by way of your own culture. Doesn't mean people agree with this idea.

What about female genital mutilation or female infanticide? After a certain point, cultural relativism does not excuse blatant violations of the most basic human rights. It's not "imperialist" to say that the forceful covering of women is wrong; it's just a universal application of a logical concept. I'm all for cultural understanding and reasonable tolerance, but there have been cultures and beliefs throughout time that have simply been incompatible with a reasonably free and just society. I don't much care about the burqua so long as women have the right to choose for themselves, but it's silly, not to mention dangerous, to pretend that every culture is on equal footing morally.

And now we see the problem of being a "watcher". Which value do you hold higher, letting people think there own way or imposing your thoughts. When does a sin become so great it violates an invisible barrier and you may impose your own will to stop it? Now there's a hard question.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Yes. Anytime one culture tells another what is "right" or "wrong" its passing judgment on their culture based on its own culture. A basic tenant of anthropology is that you shouldn't judge other cultures by way of your own culture. Doesn't mean people agree with this idea.

Ahh yes, good old moral relativism!
If a culture for example thinks that the way to get rid of AIDS is to have sex with babies can I say that's bad idea? You're damn right I can, and I can also say with justification that my culture which does not and would not dream of doing so is superior!
Is modern Democracy superior to the Aztec culture?
Darn tootin' it is!
Is saying such Cultural Imperialism?
Not in my book!

Original question:
My answer:
No it's not Cultural Imperialism.

Go look up what ethnocentric means. Consider if its a bad thing or a good thing. It's an interesting question.