"Honour killing"

[Greythorne]

Even with quotation marks, I really loathe the use of "honour killing".

Talk about misuse of the word "honour"

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/07/shafilea-parents-arrested-suspected-honour-killing

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.

"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

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

"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...

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

""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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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."

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.

And this.