BD, "People ARE equal.. we know this, but CULTURE is the keystone to understanding how communities operate. If you mess with the culture (EVEN though you may not agree with it from YOUR western understanding) you might well destroy a WHOLE society."

Interesting coming from a former missionary who appears to still support missionary inteference in other cultures.

Laurie and Ena well said.

Guys settle down. Have another read of the article, the author is not pushing an extremist position. The popular idea that women should be in charge because they would naturally do a better job than men is challenged (and quite well at that). Questions are asked about priorities. You may not agree with everything but rather than a wholesale attack on feminism identify the bits that really concern you and what alternatives you would suggest.

Keeping women subservent because that keeps the peace hardly seems like a viable approach.

R0bert

At its base, this article is less about feminists and feminism than it is about fundamental human dignity (not "rights", incidentally), and the way civilizations move gradually from antagonism and confrontation towards amity and cooperation.

I like William Gibson's quote "[t]he future is already here - it's just unevenly distributed." suggesting that there will always be instances where some folk appear to be ahead of the game, while others haven't quite caught on yet. Trying to bring everyone up to speed simultaneously is as futile and painful as attempting go back to some imagined golden age.

Differences in speed of progress are always highly visible (for example, I vividly recall my first sighting of an East German Trabant on a West German Autobahn back in the late eighties) but ultimately merge into the scenery. It is to be hoped that as Cambodian society becomes more open to external influences, these arcane practices will gradually disappear.

Incidentally R0bert, you raise a point that I have been meaning to ask for a while.

Boaz, when you went off on your missionary work to our North, did you abide by their customs and observe their culture, or did you import your own?

As a corollary, do you expect your wife to "always highly obey [her] husband" back in Australia? I suspect so, since it would explain why she didn't object when you raised your hand against your daughter.

You go so far as to hint that we might do well to revert to their approach:

>>I heard from a Cambodian friend at Gym, about how his cousin (in Australia) married a 'traditional' girl from there, and my friend commented that "she will be rock solid, and stay with him through thick and thin ...for life" gee.. now that would be a tragedy for Australian marraiges and society hey ?<<

Slaves in the southern US states had similar loyalties to their masters, and stuck with them through thick and thin. Is that an aspect of their culture that you admire too?

I read the article to my husband and in particular the part about the woman obeying. For some reason I struggled with the words. His reaction was that it sounded good to him.....

I guess if you don't take it to the extreme and if woman and men were more focused on what they could to make things better for each other, rather than what the other could do to make things better for them, for sure the world would be a better place and there would be much less marriage break ups and heartaches.

Good comments Laurie, Ena, and R0bert. I didn't want to get into arguments with the anti-feminists. They are as rabid as the feminazis, and just as helpful :(

All cultures are not equal, and cultural tenets that need to destroy a particular group of individual's human ego to artificially build another group of individual's human ego reflect a deficient culture. Individuals in the advantaged group can then abuse their situation, further degrading the other; in other words, one group is 'happy' in the others 'misery'.

Gentlemen, are you really for that?

If we offer aide like food, money and medical supplies to people in third world countries because these people are deprived of these things and are the victims of poverty…
then we can also offer information, opportunities and education to people who are deprived of these things (in this case women) and are the victims of a violent culture.

Whether you like feminism or not should be irrelevant- there are people who are misinformed and simply deprived of knowledge of the REAL options and possibilities that exist apart from the rubbish they are being told as children about having to blindly obey another person. Whether these people/children are men/boys or women/girls shouldn’t matter.

I value human rights more than I value tradition or culture, therefore I believe that empowering the Cambodian women is the right thing to do. By informing and helping them we do not oppress them or manipulate them- we offer them choices.

Culture should not be used as an excuse to block equal rights.

Besides, poverty is related to women's rights issues.

Nothing gives me more joy than to be picked on as a 'former missionary' who supposedly 'imposed' his culture on indigenous people.

Though clearly the story of my wifes people that I've explained a few times has not gotten through. They themselves approached the missionairies who were working among a different tribe, and they simply wanted to be taught about Christ and the Gospel. Its as simple as that. The culture changed as they grew in Christ, but it was their choice, not our direction. Somethings happen by default, like tunes for worship songs... yes, it would have been so nice if they used their traditional chants, BUT as I found out later, many of the old ones had too closer link in their minds to the "spirit realm" when they heard those tunes. Now.. they can begin to recapture them and apply Christian words.

Laurie.. I think you are extrapolating your understanding of feminism on the broader movement. I take issue with one of your points, "Women want as much choice as men".... what I struggle with there, is you separating men and women so much, and it just seems to be promoting '2 individuals' in marraige rather than 'one flesh'.
The choice thing is almost a mantra these days... an ad catch phrase... but when 2 people become 'one' BOTH of them lose a lot of choice, because of the bigger choice they made to be together as 'one'. (I'm not shouting there :) just emphasising)

I reiterate, that if a culture has a value system where the woman is urged to love and please her husband, as the article says, and ALSO if men are taught to appreciate their wives, and respect and love them... what's the problem ? This is indeed the Biblical picture.