All of the articles this week talked about cultural norms in other countries that seem completely foreign to us Western born and bred folk. But beyond pointing out the differences, these articles attempted to shed some light on the historical and culture reasons for certain traditions (ie foot binding, wearing veils and dowry murder). We are so quick to judge Iran, China and India because of we view as horrific traditions, but as Abu-Lughod points out, what gives us the right to judge? Abu-Lughod asserts that when western cultures try to "save" marginalized women, it is simply "reinforc[ing] a sense of superiority by Westerners, a form of arrogance..." (789). It is especially interesting when Afsaneh Najmabadi talkes about the veil as being a mechanism to control female sexuality. But isn't the very fact that Iranian cultures acknowledge the "active female sexuality" a positive thing compared to Americans, who exploit female sexuality to a gross extreme in the media? Dorothy Ko made an interesting point about nationalism and patriotism as somehow lessening the oppression against women: "Gu was clearly not a feminist who championed women's liberation; but in being a defender of Chinese culture he was a nationalist, even a patriot." (36) There is a very unique relationship between a person and their culture. Regardless of whether we disagree with traditions we have become accustomed to, we still feel pride in being a part of a particular culture. To bring this all back, before the Westerners go in and try to change a culture, shouldn't they first acknowledge the history and context of a tradition we may not agree with?