>- female circumcision;
>- arranged marriages;
>- bondage of children for family debt;
>- multiple wives;
>- dowries;
>- fetus sex determination for the purpose of aborting female fetuses;
>- killing female infants;
>- letting cows wander the streets;
>- beggars with bosses;
>- "banking" in Muslim countries;
>- the power of Imams in controlling the people;
>- elections with 1 person on the ballot;
>- child labour;
>- common 'property' (i.e. not owned by someone);
>- legally killing females who 'dishonour' the family;
>
>Good point.
>
>In my book, the concept of protecting individual rights is an irreducible primary. It doesn't matter to me what part of the world we're talking about. So any system that recognizes an individual life as a standard of value doesn't need to hear reasons or rationalizations from other mindsets in the name of "cultural relativism".
>
>Many of the items above (involving murder and mutilation) are clear violations of individual rights, some (1-man ballot, dictatorships, slavery) are the politico-economic corollary of such, and others are cultural by-products (arranged marriages).
>
>Now for things like dowries, multiple wives, cows wandering in the street, I don't agree with them, but they're a little further down the chain. It would be fantastic if that were all we had to debate!

No big argument from me as far as **my** beliefs are concerned. But it seems that the concept of "individual rights" is interpreted differently widely, and likely as much for religious or cultural reasons as anything.

Using "female circumcision" as an example (individual rights and mutilation), many cultures or religions practise male circumcision. Is there that much of a difference between the two that one should be acceptable and one not? I honestly don't know, but they both sound gruesome to me.
There are parts of the world where "beggars" are 'owned' by a master of some kind and the master may even have the beggar mutilated to offer begging 'advantage'. Apparently with the consent of the beggar him/her self. The beggar gives the 'take' to the beggar boss and the boss provides food, clothing, transport, etc. Sounds abominable to me, but people seem to do it, so who am I to tell them to stop?
To me it's utterly unbelievable that women in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere I suppose) are not allowed to drive, vote, glance at non-familial males, etc. But then I remind myself that women only got the vote here less than 80 years ago and that women weren't encouraged to do many things at all until the 60s and a near revolution. So who are we to tell these other people to be different?... "We" learned and I expect they can/will too.
Dowrys are apparently outlawed in India yet they still figure very prominently in marriages. Something tells me the people value the practise more than their government does.
Most of the things I listed have similar considerations. My view is that we can encourage change but that's about it. Forcing changes simply is asking for trouble and making enemies where none are needed.

Look, also, at how attwmpts to force change only get us into trouble by showing hypocrisy.
We are all pleased that Afghani women can have their lives back, teaching, and working and walking burkhaless and smiling at whoever they want. Yet because we need Saudi Arabia's (and Kuwait's and Yemen's and ???) OIL we make little mention of similar transgressions in those countries. And the grand-daddy of them all - trade with China. a 1-party COMMUNIST country with full control over all of its people and sending them off to work in factories 6 days a week on 18 hour days for $2.50 a day (before paying room and board) with conditions that cannot be operated in here. But corporate profits are so so so GOOD that all the factors we hold near and dear are out the window based on a statement like "a rising tide raises all boats" or "trade is the way to reform" and other trite falsehoods. In matters like this I can see plainly how the OTHERS SIMPLY DON'T UNDERSTAND "THE WEST" EITHER.



>
>Kevin