3 ms·
> No. More like "I'm going to catch you, hold you down whilst you struggle, and circumcise you". Please give me an answer to this one. It's hard to have any so
by einhverfr 13y ago
> No. More like "I'm going to catch you, hold you down whilst you struggle, and circumcise you". Please give me an answer to this one.
It's hard to have any social autonomy without some degree of bodily autonomy. If the line is between catch/hold down and merely exiling those who refuse, I would be fine with such a line. Without social autonomy nothing can get done, so there is a social imperative to individual autonomy subject to social obligations.
Now once one has not avoided a ritual context though, I don't know that I would draw the line at exiting a ritual. Otherwise you have problems with some aboriginal groups which, say, have someone pretending to be a legendary monster hold down young men and extract a tooth as part of a coming of age ceremony. Condemning something like that is in essence to take away aboriginal culture rights on the basis of white man's fiat which strikes me as very dangerous.
- chris_wot 13y agoSo what you are essentially saying is that there are indeed some things that can be said to be unacceptable, even though they are practiced and accepted by a particular culture.
- einhverfr 13y agoBut then the question is, who is responsible to change them and, if the culture at issue is unable to change the problems what can be done to enable them to move things in the direction they collectively desire. If something is acceptable it still doesn't necessarily mean that the question of who gets to decide what to do about it goes away. I still think that those questions have to rest with people from the culture. I certainly don't think that a social expectation to retire with the kids falls in that category even if it forecloses an ideal of equality for same-sex couples.
- chris_wot 13y agoThat's an interesting question, and not one that I asked.