The Abuse of Children
This is not where wil's thread started. But this is where it went. And became quite rancorous, along the way.
The hysteria about "child brides" - as Muslimwoman has pointed out - stemmed from the misinterpretation of wedding photographs by the western media. And this hysteria was compounded by the blogosphere - which has no "Corrections Column" like old newspapers used to have. The blogosphere is a dangerous rumor-mill with no safety valve.
In the west, stories about children push intense emotional buttons in people. Due to their powerlessness, we sentimentalize children and stories about them become, all too easily, sensationalized.
Both c0de and Tao Equus - in their different ways - tried to ground the "child bride" / "abuse of children" issue ... in something real.
Not sensationalized. Not sentimentalized.
But instead of opening up a window of understanding, Brian (as moderator) had to step in and edit-out 'personal attacks' from c0de's posts and issue Tao Equus a 'time out' from posting which has lasted for nearly two months.
So I step rather nervously into this arena.
(Dangerous turf.)
& & &
Context.
Context.
Context.
& & &
Buying brides:
"Dotal marriage" (dowry paid to bride's family), as a practice, can only be found in 4% of world cultures - according to social-anthropologists. A practice found, here and there, in eastern Eurasia and in the Mediterranean basin.
Child Brides:
The "age of consent" and the concept of "old enough to marry" has evolved over time in all cultures, on a values level. Religion has had some - but minimal - influence upon this issue. Modern governments have set specific ages of consent and of marriage as a matter of 'public policy.' These are things politically negotiated within each nation-state and within their regional and local government bodies. While cultural heritage and religious beliefs certainly enter into the mindset of those establishing 'legal age' for sexual activity, this issue is largely a practical legal question in all nations. It's a question of 'how best to regulate society' ... Societies, to prevent anarchy, need to set limits on interpersonal relations. Most citizens accept those limits. And most authority figures turn a blind eye to those persons who - harmlessly - bend laws to fit their own individual peculiarities. 'Public policy' is about making society - as it currently exists - work. Defining limits, but not making those limits too rigid. Those who try to impose the values of their cultural heritage or of their religious belief-structure upon society ... risk destroying 'society' as an effective, flexible mechanism for regulating human relationships. Risk - by seeking 'perfection' - the fitting of every citizen into one single (rigid) cookie-cutter mold. In which case, society would - functionally - cramp-up and grind to a halt. And something far worse than anarchy would be the result. (Totalitarianism. Society as a prison.) ... No. 'Age of marriage' is not a secular (cultural-heritage) issue nor a sacred (religious-belief) issue. 'Age of marriage' is a practical (imperfect), present-centered civic issue. And it is best that it stays that way.
& & &
C0DE:
The practice of early betrothal for females is what is ancient. Something the West has relatively recently stopped practicing. Let me ask you something, have you ever studied sociology and anthropology? Do you know how recent the entire concept of the "adolescent" actually is? Do you know that it is an entirely artificial economic invention? Are you aware that historically, economic models are what govern the age of marriage, and not concepts of morality? That these moral judgments that people like you are so happy to apply to such practices are completely hypocritical?
c0de is correct. Social-anthropologists have pointed out that most of the world's cultures have consciously treated their 'women' as an economic asset or deficit, till quite recently. A female child born to a poor family in China or Egypt was frequently drowned in the local river. Females, when raised to 'adolescence,' were often married-off as quickly as possible to unburden their family of them. (But young boys of poor families were often sold into servitude, too, due to economic hardship on the family - so the economic exploitation of children was not just that of girl-children.) The big empires - Roman or Gupta or Han - established empire-wide laws on many subjects, which had a liberalizing influence. But they generally let local customs stand, unchallenged, where family and clan 'livelihood' was concerned. The only way to effectively rule an empire is to defer to local customs in most things.
But social-anthropologists also point out that the custom of 'paying for brides' (like the Palestinian instance) is a custom peculiar to economically marginal farming and herding communities in the Mediterranean basin. (Not Northern Europe nor the Americans nor Sub-Saharan Africa nor the Indian subcontinent.) It is part of an extreme "honor and shame" culture found broadly throughout the Mediterranean basin during ancient times, but found there - today - amongst only the most economically marginalized villages and nomadic herders. (There is an obsessive emphasis on keeping their marriageable women utter 'pure.' A brand-new unopened product. Far exceeding the 'virginity' mandates of most cultures.) This practice predates Islam, predates Christianity, predates Judaism (as a monotheistic religion). And was little changed by these religions, with passing of time. (Where this practice disappeared around the Mediterranean basin, it was probably due to urbanization. Not 'moral outrage.')
Northern Europeans and early Americans, yes, did (once upon a time) treat their women as economic property. But c0de is incorrect to assume that they did so in anything like the same manner. (Read on the subject: Julian Pitt-Rivers, Pierre Bourdieu, John Peristiany, Stanley Brandes, David Gilmore, Jane Schneider.)
& & &
Under a capitalistic free-enterprise system, a woman is considered an economic 'free agent.' Under capitalism, a woman should not marry till she is of-an-age when she can, conscientiously, make that decision for herself. And can do whatever economic bartering there is to be done, for her own personal benefit (not for the benefit of family or clan). She should have due say in any legal contracts she is party to.
Maybe it is just me, but - till a better system comes along - the capitalist system is a good economic model for a woman to live within. Free choice. (I just hope the 450 Palestinian women in Gaza had that same free choice.) It is not a matter of morality. It is a matter of rights.
