"Honour killing"

Ed, what are your views on honour killings? I can't wait for an insightful, intelligent viewpoint on the subject.

bob, would you mind spelling besmirched properly? It is detracting from your insightful posts.

I know it's good. You reading our posts with rise-tinted glasses isn't

Oh, no debate is good. You and Bob tell us that all the time.

I think slaughtering women is a great plan! At least we wouldn't have to listen to them whining and nagging. Or should we just cut their vocal chords so they can still cook the tea?

Tough choices.

Why the hostility mitchiest? An opposing viewpoint =/= not intelligent

I think Bob is stating that killing women is really for the greater good. It has to be the misogynist post I have read in a good long while. Quite stunning actually.

Yes I think we can chuck out the aspect of civilisation which involves killing women and girls in order to control their sexuality and restrict their autonomy AKA as oppress them.

Not one of the better ideas.

imagine if a clever one started posting though

it would be scary

they do exist

bobbanana you are one weird construct

so are them others

are you all one?

Bob, your posts makes no sense whatsoever. In what way can killing women for not doing as they are told not be about controlling and oppressing women?

You state that "It's about human interaction..." and then go on to say "Human interaction and what is and isn't acceptable is a cornerstone of civilisation. Discard the rules controlling it completely and what you're left with is anarchy."

Your argument seems to imply that without rules (even if they invlove slaughtering women) we end up with anarchy. Frankly, I would choosen anarchy.

It is from the same website and explores the same themes in more detail. If you go back to the first link and scroll down to the bottom of the page there is a link to it. It is called 'the anatomy of honour'. It is a follow up to the first article.

Beachcomber - I can't get your second link to work. What was it about?

Agreed. Evidence courtesy of Google:

(In case this doesn't come up correctly: Googling "a man's honour" prompts Google to ask: 'did you mean "a woman's honour"? And, yes, this is Google UK we're talking about. )

Honour is an entirely patriarchal construct. The main point of which is to control and oppress women.

It will have no place in a free society because it is a tool of oppression.

It can be binned come the revolution.

And this.

Thanks, Beachcomber, that is very interesting.

In its masculine form it is active and positive: dynamism, generosity, confidence, dominance and violence.

I agree that the first part is positive, but the final two attributes, dominance and violence, are negative to my mind.

This is interesting

"The concept of 'honour' in much of the Middle East is dichotomous. 'Honour', a single word in English, is used to translate two words, 'namus', and 'sharaf' (?seref? in Turkish) denoting a polarisation of characteristics which readily maps onto polarised, patriarchal gender stereotypes. 'Honour' in its more feminine form revolves around negative, passive concepts: stoicism, endurance, obedience, chastity, domesticity, servitude. In its masculine form it is active and positive: dynamism, generosity, confidence, dominance and violence. Female 'honour', being sourced in passivity is static: it can neither be increased nor regained, and once lost it is lost forever. Male 'honour', by contrast, is maintained and increased or decreased through active participation and competition in the life of the community and is in a constant state of flux. So when a woman loses her ?honour? (namus) her brothers, father and uncles have lost their ?honour? (sharaf), which can only be regained through a violent display of dominance. In South Asia, the concept is singular and collective ?izzat? refers to family ?honour? to Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims alike, with the same deadly effects."

so, for me, the term "honour killing" is entirely appropriate
vile vile crime

to me the word "honour" is completely devalued

by the old-fashioned (in the worst meaning of it) idea of a male knight on a white horse saving vulnerable female's honour (blah blah blah) or the current modern concept of mainly muslim females honouring their elders and/or parents by accepting their fate in a loveless marriage

fwiw

Examples: Rose West
Sonia Sutcliffe
the mobs of frankly odd women who joined all those insane Facebook groups supporting him
the frankly odd women who fantasise and obsess about certain well-known serial killers of women, Ted Bundy being the main one. I suspect a crossover between the membership of the latter two groups.