Long Neck women - and other oppressive cultural traditions

[The_Traveler]

Here are two pictures that I shot because they incited a specific question in my mind - and I'll be damned if I can make the point without text.
This is in one of a set of 'show' villages near a fairly large town in northern Thailand; admission is charged and, I hope, the villages profit from it.
Padaung women wear coils of brass around their neck with the eventual result that their collarbones are depressed and they become 'long neck.' It obviously isn't always comfortable, as you can see by the woman wearing the cloth padding above the neck rings in the first shot. The brass rings can be taken off but the collarbones are forever depressed and it takes a week or so for them to gain reasonable strength in their necks to function normally.
When women do this, they are committing to a visible cultural tradition that forever keeps them locked in a ancient tradition - and probably imprisoned in village life.
Should the Thai (and Lao) governments try to stop this practice (as the Chinese government did with foot binding), to attempt to make a break with old traditions that essentially condemned women to live in ancient ways?

 

[Trever1t]

I don't think the government's should impose a ban on traditional, cultural habits but honestly it's less my place to say so.
I'd opt for education and self governing by and for the people.

 

[tirediron]

^^Yep^^ The government should build roads, deliver mail and punish crimminals, not tell people what to wear.

 

[runnah]

The government should build roads, deliver mail and punish criminals, not tell people what to wear.

When they can do those things properly then I will consider giving them more responsibilities.

Lew, are the women forced to do this? If so than ban the hell out of it. If not than It's not different to me than women getting bags of silicone in their chest or botulism injected in their faces.

 

[Designer]

When they can do those things properly then I will consider giving them more responsibilities.

 

[Designer]

Should the Thai (and Lao) governments try to stop this practice (as the Chinese government did with foot binding), to attempt to make a break with old traditions that essentially condemned women to live in ancient ways?

Government's going to do what a government's going to do.

 

[The_Traveler]

These people are really deep into their own culture and that culture's rules have a way disproportionate effect on women.
Another example, I didn't see any handicapped children among the hill tribes.
Considering the relatively small genetic pool, this implies that something is going on.

 

[pixmedic]

These people are really deep into their own culture and that culture's rules have a way disproportionate effect on women.
Another example, I didn't see any handicapped children among the hill tribes.
Considering the relatively small genetic pool, this implies that something is going on.

Superior genetic stock with high tech selective breeding programs.

 

[pgriz]

There are a lot of things that people do for cultural reasons. Aesthetics have a strong cultural component and deciding what is "beautiful" is usually partly determined by the cultural milieu or the cultural experience of the viewer. Having a certain "look" is often the way membership in a society is demonstrated - and by the same token, marks those who don't have that look as "outsiders". Religions are often the place where specific looks are required as a matter of faith. One's adherence to the "code" also signals the degree that someone adheres to the rules of that religion or culture. IF a person wears the "uniform" as a willing choice as signalling that they "belong", then it is their choice. If they are being coerced to wear the "uniform", then the issue is not the uniform, but the control to which they are being subjected. In addition to the clothing or decoration, there are the customs regarding body modification or mutilation (genital mutilation comes to mind, but there's also scarification, tattooing, and distortion of body parts) which often are not done by choice by the person who's being subjected to this.

It's a very complicated question. I consider myself belonging to four overlapping cultural/ethnic groups, and am often in close contact with at least two other cultural/ethnic groups, and it can be really head-spinning to be aware of what is "accepted" in each grouping. The relationship between the genders is also something that shifts in each context. In some there's "equal in all respects", in others it's "equal but different", and in others it's "unequal", with the degree of inequality dependent on the specific culture. To a certain extent, this cultural tradition is like language - if you're unilingual, you unconsciously absorb it and your expression is dictated by the language structure and conventions. When one is bi- or multi-lingual, then you become aware of how the same "thing" has a fairly common "primary" meaning, but often the associated secondary meanings vary quite widely from language to language.

In navigating through this cultural/linguistic minefield, context is everything. A cultural expression within a specific context may make perfect sense, but outside of that context can seem bizarre or demeaning. We in the West tend to prize ownership of individual choice, but that viewpoint is not globally shared. What we regard as "fundamental" principles are less fundamental than we may want to think, once you leave the context of our culture. This pertains to gender equality, sexual orientation. religious choice, race equality, and so on. Something may be "oppressive" from our point of view, and be perfectly acceptable to people in a different context. When passing judgement (or at least forming a judgemental opinion), it is pretty fundamental to take into account the context. This is recognized in "good" laws where the meaning and effect of any specific statue are subject to context of how that law is implemented. "Bad" laws, however, (at least in my opinion) do not take context into account, and are prescriptive in an absolutist sense.

Should the Thai (and Lao) governments try to stop this practice (as the Chinese government did with foot binding), to attempt to make a break with old traditions that essentially condemned women to live in ancient ways?

From my western perspective, I would think that it should be the women's choice. However, I really have no idea how much choice they have in making this (and many other decisions), and how much acceptance or opposition there is to this cultural tradition. I would like to believe that they have the option of saying yes or no, but I'm sure the reality is much more clouded than that simple choice.

These people are really deep into their own culture and that culture's rules have a way disproportionate effect on women.
Another example, I didn't see any handicapped children among the hill tribes.
Considering the relatively small genetic pool, this implies that something is going on.

Superior genetic stock with high tech selective breeding programs.

Or socially-condoned infanticide. I hope not, but I just don't know.

 

[JustJazzie]

Interesting topic here! My short opinion; let them be! As long as the women aren't forced to do it, then I don't see an issue.

 

[mmaria]

I see issues here if they're forced to do this and even if they're not forced to do this.

I'd ban it . But, I'd ban many things that woman do willingly. I don't like government to regulate many things though.

Different cultures blah blah.....

They're doing that willingly, got the respect and the money for their rings.

I can't imagine wearing something that could weight up to 6 kg on my neck and willingly suffer from it. I wouldn't also inject my own fat in my face, put in silicone, wear heels high enough to cause me any kind of discomfort etc... but... that's just me.

Ban it!

And ban some other things too!

 

[The_Traveler]

Cultural equivalence is a tricky and non-simple issue particularly when we get past silly, external and reversible customs.

Is there ever a time when a government should step in 'for the good of a greater society' ?

• If a smaller culture within a society forces women to do all the physical work?
• If a smaller culture within a society enslaves one segment of its society?
  
• If a smaller culture within a society rejects concepts of medicine and so people die very early and painfully?
• If a smaller culture within a society practices infanticide?
  
• If a smaller culture within a society 'imprisons' physically handicapped people?

It's not the wearing of high heals or having botox that bother me, it is the cultural habits that impose pain, suffering, degradation or death only because 'that's the way they do things'.

 

[Ysarex]

Interesting topic here! My short opinion; let them be! As long as the women aren't forced to do it, then I don't see an issue.

They are forced -- the social pressure is irresistible.

All cultures develop shared practices. That's one of the defining characteristics of a culture. Those practices can be positive and healthy, neutral, or negative and destructive. All cultures develop all three types. The concept of cultural relevance and/or respect for another culture makes it difficult to criticize another culture's negative/harmful practices. The retort of "why don't you focus on your own bad behavior" will always apply.

Negative cultural practices are a particularly hard nut to crack because the "culture at large" endorses the practice and although it may be harmful to some or to a subset group in the culture, it came into existence for a reason and persists for a reason -- it's not entirely negative -- somebody involved is benefiting (usually making money).

Extreme examples that end in violent death have existed and in fact persist. Ritual suicide in Japan for example. In certain New Guinea tribes, persisting into the middle of the 20th century, it was tradition that a family strangle a woman in the event of her husband's death. The practice was ritualized and all participated willingly including the poor widow who supposedly wished to die in her grief. The practice was forcibly ended by the modern New Guinea state.

Negative cultural practices should be identified and ended -- hard to do but it may be possible to transform them into less damaging behavior. If we don't want to focus on our neighbor's bad behaviors there will always be plenty to work on at home. This weekend for example US citizens will die and be maimed in drunk driving crashes for the sake of green beer. Which adds another interesting twist to the whole topic in that we know what we're doing is wrong, but we're going to do it anyway.

Joe

 

[pixmedic]

Let's keep the focus more on the picture and less on political chatter.

 

[The_Traveler]

Virtually every country with a heterogeneous population faces this issue.
When do minority cultural practices impinge enough on the common good or the larger culture's generally accepted standards to warrant intervention?
For example, Hmong people living in the US reject, to some varying degrees, Western medicine, particularly anything having to do with mental diseases. This is part of their animist beliefs and traditions.
What should a local government do about this without being accused of being cultural imperialists?
(Many Hmong have been converted to some forms of Christianity; is this cultural imperialism?)

We can all make decisions for ourselves about the easy situations - we would probably agree on the banning of the killing and eating of small children or of hunting neighborhood pets for food - but how far do societies go to 'correct' aberrant practices that cause the society to suffer?



Small joke
Western man to Asian man: our culture has a close connection to our dogs as pets and so we don't eat dog.
Asian man to Western man: of course you do. We see ads all the time for hot dogs.
As Western man opens his mouth to explain, Asian man continues (with a smile): We just don't eat that part of the dog.