"Honour killing"

Bob, there are plenty of examples where women collude with, cover up for or at least seek to justify where men have attacked or killed their partners or ex partners where the victims were "white European." There are cases where the mothers, daughters, sisters, new partners, etc. of the perpetrator have also been sentenced in relation to crimes. However, more to the point, I have heard just as many women sympathising with, excusing or justifying the actions of men who've attacked or killed their current or ex partners as I've heard men do it.

That to me suggests strongly that our mainstream society views women who "dishonour" their men through their behaviour, or perceived behaviour, can deserve to be physically assaulted, or even killed. Perhaps it's not recognised as such because it doesn't seem to have the "official sanction" of a belief system, as is often suggested is the case within South Asian or Middle Eastern communities. That doesn't mean it's not there though.

But we are not doing that because we are not stupid. So that's alright.

It comes as no surprise to feminists, that women in patriarchal society, also hold and act on patriarchal values.

In fact we even have a term for it.

I am of the opinion that these awful crimes (yes MRAs, I am including izzat-based attacks on men in this too) come from the same place as other violent crimes that centre on control ie domestic violence, many kinds of child abuse, and also sectarian violence to a degree. It's all about the offender, who thinks they are powerful and that others should bend to their will. If they can find an officially-sanctioned belief to hang their violence on, even better.

""Honour" killings of women (and occasionally their male "partners in crime") reflect longstanding patriarchal-tribal traditions. In a "bizarre duality," women are viewed "on the one hand as fragile creatures who need protection and on the other as evil Jezebels from whom society needs protection." Patriarchal tradition "casts the male as the sole protector of the female so he must have total control of her. If his protection is violated, he loses honour because either he failed to protect her or he failed to bring her up correctly." (Armstrong, "Honour's Victims.") Clearly, the vulnerability of women around the world to this type of violence will only be reduced when these patriarchal mindsets are challenged and effectively confronted."

From this link

Noes, you are all wrong. Google search it. It's reality, it happens. FACT! No action without consequence. Killing an ex is no way acceptable because the children suffer a lot (and killing people is wrong anyway)

I never said men in the middle east need respect. They run the place. the women there need the respect they deserve

"This seems to be on the rise. If a vindictive ex decides to mess with their ex in the worst possible way then there's consequences"

wow...

Oh, and I wonder of "Dishonour Killings" would give more of a sense of "WTF is that all about?". Honour Killings seems to be on the same part of the spectrum as edd's thinking i.e. well, what did she expect?

Thank you, KRICRI. You said what I didn't have time to say this morning about the murder of women in the patriarchy being almost always about dishonour, regardless of the background of the women. An "How Dare She?" manoeuvre. We do not have capital punishment for any crime in this country and summary justice in that way for a bruised ego would never go on the statute books here anyway.

Do I recognise the cultural differences that lead to these kind of killings? Yes. Do I think they are anything other than patriarchal at root? No.

Edd is yet again proving what we're up against. Thanks, edd.

their is NO honour in such a crime, any way you look at it, through any belief system.

Edd, it is completely 'what about the menz'! You have just implied that possibly a woman refusing to let a (probably already violent) ex see the kids might slightly deserve what she gets if he murders her. As though losing your life is in any way comparable to being temporarily separated from a loved one.

On the other hand you demand that men in the Middle East treat "their" women with respect. Because their brand of sexism is obvously totally wrong.

Have I thanked you for illustrating my point?

It is about women being chattel, belonging to either their husbands or their fathers.

The perceived dishonour is for the owner - not for the women.

"If a vindictive ex decides to mess with their ex in the worst possible way then there's consequences" Is anyone else disturbed by that statement ? That sounds very much like a threat.

Agree with KRICRI and NotaDude

I agree that the violence of a man killing/beating his partner in a domestic violence context, comes from the same place as honour killings.

Yeah, whatevz.

Double post

It's not about "what about the menz." You seems oblivious that women kill men under a patriarchy

she was denying him access to his kids

This seems to be on the rise. If a vindictive ex decides to mess with their ex in the worst possible way then there's consequences

Sorry - cross posting NotADude. You said what I meant better - and caught edd's sexism red handed (or would that be texted.)

Geez, didn't take long to get to the "what about the menz" post either. Is there an equivalent of Godwin's Law for that?

As GothAG suggests, Southall Black Sisters use the term "honour based crimes" and they are one of the leading organisations that supports women and campaigns to address the problem. Even if I feel uneasy with the term because of the "lens" through which I view it, I think we have to accept it and not get too hung up on the word at the risk of losing sight of the problem behind it.

Perhaps there is a similarity with the term "Domestic Violence/Abuse." I despise the fact that phrases like "just a domestic" or "having a domestic" belittle the reality of what is systemic gender-based violence against women by a partner. Also, it doesn't have to happen in a home or even between people who co-habit. However, I accept that it is the term in general use and most widely understood, so I am happy to go with it.

AyeBelieveInTheHumanityOfMen refers to that sobering thread that lists all the women who have been killed by partners or other significant men in their lives. The majority of these are white European women. I firmly disagree with therugratref that these crimes are all that different from honour killings.

In nearly every case, there are suggestions that the woman was somehow at least partly responsible for her own demise. She had an affair, he feared she was having an affair, she was going to leave him, she was denying him access to his kids, she laughed at and taunted him, etc. etc. To me, that suggests the perpetrator killed because he felt she had dishonoured him.

I wonder if cases of men killing or trying to kill their partners or ex's is so commonplace that society almost views it as "normal" behaviour. We almost take for granted that a man who feels dishonoured by his woman (even if we don't use the word dishonoured) can "snap" and kill her, (AKA Deliliah, Hey Joe, that sort of thing,) or even that he could have been justified because of what she did (or the papers tell you she did.)

But, when a South Asian or Middle Eastern woman is killed by a partner, father, brother, etc., we see this as something totally different, somehow more deserving of our contempt. We're quick to link "defects" in their culture, traditions or faith to these actions while we ignore the factors in our own culture that imho, are just as much at play in the deaths of women on the Victims of Violence thread.

Wrong. Just google wife kills husband and you'll see it happens both ways

Why not call them 'patriarchal killings' then? Would apply to DV murders in our society too.

You're misinterpreting my point. That's not what I mean

"their" women, edd? Way to show how much better society in this place!

Nice illustration of my point, though.