Not allowed to work because of my avatar?

You will see the answer if you ask yourself, "What kind of culture would I rather live in?" and give yourself an honest response.

There is a constant tension between amalgamation and assimilation on the one hand, and separatism and exclusion on the other. In the absence of vigilance, there is absolutely no guarantee that reason will prevail in these matters, not even here--especially here, perhaps, in the US where there has always been a deep-rooted impulse toward authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism that is just as strong as the contrary impulse toward tolerance and liberty.

Because of that, I advocate intellectual discipline. There is another form of complacency, where the desire to accommodate different viewpoints at any cost overshadows the reality that some of the people who hold those different viewpoints would like to control the rest of us and in turn deny our right to differ with them, and will surely do it if they can gather the resources to do so.

So the point of my position is, we must always be very sure that we understand where the line falls between celebration of cultural diversity and acceptance of oppressive separatism. We need to be able to recognize points at which people who call for greater cultural autonomy are advocating measures that will be destructive. I think introducing intellectual rigor into these kinds of discussions helps achieves that. I think we can and should adopt what is best from every culture, but we also have to be sure that we continue to exclude what is worst about every culture. We can only do that when we have an intellectual framework that acknowledges the problem and enables us to understand what is really best and what is not.

Everybody can always come up with a reason for what they believe or do. Lots of times they act out of gut emotional responses and don't really have a reason until we ask them about it, at which point they come up with words that have nothing to do with why they acted as they did.

All forms of reasoning are not equal. The fact that one person is standing in a dense fog and cannot see the elephant charging toward them from 30 yards away does not mean the elephant is not there, nor does it mean that the person 100 yards away with the infrared goggles who "can" see the elephant is absolved from responsibility for warning the benighted person who is about to be run down.

We must have the courage of our convictions or we are lost, all over the map of human endeavor, not just in this particular area. We will be paralyzed, unable to recognize bad stuff and work against it.

And there is also the problem that even if we don't seek to impose our views on others, there are others who will seek to impose their views on us. They regard us as weak, and if we don't defend what we believe, we *are* weak, and we will lose the freedom to act on those beliefs.

No, sorry, this is where my cultural tolerance ends. Female circumcision is not equivalent to male circumcision - it is clitoridectomy - they cut the whole thing off. The male equivalent would be removing the entire penis. Sometimes they sew things up down there too, just to make sure, so the woman needs to be sliced open again when she gets married. It causes all sorts of medical problems and it's not uncommon for women to die from the complications.

Just because this needs to be done for a girl to be considered marriageable in her society does not mean it is in any way voluntary. This is a thing that is done to children (yes, just for once, think of the children).

When my son was 9, he made friends with a Somali girl in his class. This little girl was mysteriously absent from school for an entire term. When she returned she had stopped speaking and never said another word for the following 18 months. Guess where she had been?

All that said, I wouldn't equate one just plain wrong cultural practice with an entire culture. For example, I personally don't think it's right to circumcise baby boys either unless there's a medical reason (although obviously it is a far less damaging procedure and, it could be argued, that as it's generally done when they are babies they won't remember the trauma), however I wouldn't dismiss the whole of American culture just because male circumcision is widespread there. I'd also fight tooth and nail for a woman's right to wear a headscarf if that's what she wants to do, but slicing off any chance of a child's future satisfactory sex life is a bit ... well, permanent.

ETA: how did we get here from discussing whether a furry should be allowed to work in a human-avatar focussed club?

Like speaking a pidgin language made up of words and syntax from all the other languages?

Well yes, and coming from an American viewpoint, I agree with you. It's not always done to children, young women coming of age to marry, also. Again, it's 'our' viewpoint. The child you speak of, her parents felt it was something they had to do, it's their culture. We feel it's wrong. They feel we are wrong and need to mind our own bizness. Marriage is paramount in these cultures, and young girls that have not been circumcised don't have a chance. The clitoridectormy is only a partial (only, right, jeesh). For the full momty, even the vaginal lips are removed. Having a satisfactory sex life is not what these people are looking for, for their females. They figure if it's bad enough, hurts enough, they won't go out looking for extramarital sex. It's horrible, I agree. But what about 'us' says horrible, to someone else? Again, it's all about who's doing the opining.

Well, pidgins don't really have syntax. They are, however a fertile breeding ground for Creoles - brand new baby languages with a syntax all of their own, which develop as a new generation grows up and turns the pidgin into their first language. Fascinating stuff!

Mostly, it is done to children.
The child I speak of lives in England. With fluent english as a second language, familiarity with another culture and a secondary education (she is still here, aged 14, and making good progress), she has more chances in life than the vast majority of her countryfolk, in spite of the psychological damage she suffered as a result of her ordeal. Where I live, it's common for girls from certain parts of the world to disappear at around this age, although the more affluent manage to find doctors here who will perform the procedure.

This sentence really bothers me - "Having a satisfactory sex life is not what these people are looking for, for their females"

What about what "their females" might be looking for (if they still had the equipment) for themselves?

I think the right to at least aim for a satisfactory sex life is a very basic human right, because it's a biological thing, like eating or reproduction. Cutting off somebody's sex cuts off part of what makes them human (or even animal). It's cruel and it's wrong, and there are very few issues I feel this unequivocal about.

The trouble with cultural relativism, when taken to extremes is that you reach a point where no human activity can ever be considered wrong, as long as it's accepted practice somewhere on the planet. Anyway, better stop before I Godwin.

Which is one reason English is so hard to learn.

Why, what did you THINK I was referring to?

If it's horrible to the people it's being done to, that's enough for me.

You got a few options here.

1. Change your appearance.
2. Work somewhere else.
3. Get a credit card and buy L$.

Unlike in RL, you are able to change your race, gender, appearance at the click of your mouse, and above all this, you don't even need to work *at all*.

IMHO: Comparing this issue with RL racism and the holocaust is bordering on an insult.

We ARE speaking a pidgin language made up of words and syntax from all other languages. English is about as "impure" as they get, and is derived from Old Saxon, Old Danish, Latin, Old French, Modern French, and about a kazillion other languages that have contributed loan words. The syntax is as much a blended monstrosity as the vocabulary (which is why so much English syntax makes NO SENSE!).

And it reflects cultural change too: "sheep, and "cow" for instance, are Old English, but when we speak of the meats derived from these, we use Norman loan words, mutton and beef, because post-1066 AD, only the Normans could afford to eat them!

On top of which language is ALWAYS evolving. As should culture.

So there!

I'm . . . not sure . . . that I see anything to disagree with here, really.

EEK!

Scylla, there is absolutely no point in getting into an argument here. You remind me of me. We both know English is a "living" language that draws upon every other language for sustenance, There is no such thing as "pure" English. Hence we have regular and irregular verbs for example. And "regular" verbs are foreign imports from "Romance" languages. You are absolutely correct. But dont fight it here. You'll end up like me.

This. (And all the other stuff spinster said about female circumcision).

A key clause here, I think, is of course "taken to extremes." Determining what is acceptable about any culture (including always our own) DOES require the kind of intellectual rigour that Esquievel calls for. But then I'd argue that ANY important choices or decisions that we make require that.

Cool. I'm up for some pie. How about you?

Oh Jig, I've been flamed so badly on this forum at times that I'm still applying poultices to the wounds.

But persevering through it (and limping only a little) I've found that there ARE people who want to talk about things that matter, and can do so respectfully and intelligently. Everyone I'm speaking to now ... Esquievel, spinster, Treasure, Argent, and the others ... fits into that category.

It doesn't mean I don't get hit by the occasional fireball. But I've actually learned a great deal from this forum, on a wide variety of subjects. So I've decided that it is, mostly, worth it.

YAY!!! PIE!!!

That's good to know. I'm bailing out while I can still type without ruining my keyboard. It's just NOT worth it for me. I lack patience and I am not a particularly nice enough person to handle it all.

Thank you for getting my point!

Most people will choose the culture they know.

But, if you ask this of an American, keep in mind that we are mostly descended from people who were the ones in their own cultures and home towns who stood up and said they were not gonna take it any more. Whether due to a wish for better working conditions, to own land, or persecution of various types. The thing I am most proud of about my country is that some still see it as a place to find relief from such things. (The numbers may be dwindling, admittedly - and when someone talked to me about emigrating, I recommended Canada instead, to be honest. Less crime, for one.)

I can see your points about the various topics you and I briefly discussed. But, I disagree that it is quite so voluntary in the west, things like adapting one's body to be more marriageable and to fit in. You said yourself it had to do with one's self esteem. Why should a woman - I can't be too graphic here - surgically alter the appearance of that part of her anatomy, just to fit in or be more marriageable? And isn't that the exact same reason it's done in cultures which embrace FGM?

To Treasure, I see your point too and I do not have the same experience or vantage point in the discussion. But, not all in those countries embrace FGM. I remember a quite disturbing photo from Life Magazine in which a 12 year old girl is being held down, this was in Egypt, held down by two adults while a third cut at her with a scalpel. The look on her face clearly broadcasted she did NOT want this to happen. And then, of course, Waris Dirie.

Scylla there are some who compare the across the board circumcision of male babies to FGM, and I can see their point also, although it *usually* does not interfere later with physical functions (there are cases where it has, again I can't be too graphic I will leave it to the imagination) and rarely would result in death, especially as it's done in a surgical environment rather than with crude unsanitary tools. But, male babies are usually not anesthetised, just as female children are not with FGM. I find that barbaric in itself.

Nor is FGM something that only happens in 'other countries' - not with immigration. People bring their cultures with them, and doctors in Western countries have seen the after effects, and some have tried to repair it.

I missed the question, but if someone asked me what kind of culture I'd like to live in, I'd have to say Iain Banks' "Culture".

Well, in cultures that embrace FGM it's forced on people. I think that's a significant difference from what happens here. There are women in the west who do these things as a more-or-less cold-blooded career/financial calculation. For them it's not a matter of self-esteem, it's a belief that it will get them better money in their chosen professions. That's not always the case, of course, but it's their decision to make. There are women who do it because they believe it will make them more attractive and more likely to find a relationship. I know they believe it but I doubt that it's really true. I would bet if someone conducted a study they'd find that cosmetic surgery has little to no effect on the ability of western women to establish stable loving relationships. In societies that practice FGM, I would bet that Treasure is right; that's it's virtually essential. Then there are the women who do it out of low self-esteem. Often they have people who are close to them telling them not to do it, that they don't need it, but they do it anyway.

It is definitely not a good thing that our culture encourages people to feel inadequate unless and until they achieve some artificial standard of human beauty. But I don't agree that this negative reality compares in intensity or scope to the negative reality of FGM in other cultures.

I enjoy a fine acidophilus culture, myself.

Bit puzzled by your saying that since you also say it's forced on them. I tend to think it's forced on most, although in some cases pressure might win out first. But some literally run for their lives from FGM.



Actually I agree with you there.

I just disagreed, if you were saying this - that there is no equivalent here. (Western countries.)

I think women's bodies are considered public property in many ways, all around the world.

Sorry for the confusion. I jammed it all into one paragraph. I was saying that FGM is forced on people, while cosmetic surgery in the west is voluntary--though undertaken at times because women have been misled as to its value.