Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

"Honour killing"

366 replies

Greythorne · 07/09/2011 19:27

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

OP posts:
startAfire · 09/09/2011 08:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ThePosieParker · 09/09/2011 09:18

You see I completely agree with Saf. I am an anti theist and so can't think that even women wearing traditional religious attire isn't instantly going along with that control....

startAfire · 09/09/2011 09:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

GothAnneGeddes · 09/09/2011 10:34

SaF "one problem with the wearing of religious attire is that it helps the othering. the woman wearing it is somehow less human to people not of that culture and appears to be consenting to the misogyny and going along with marking herself out as a cultural object."

The problem is with those doing the othering, the ones who hold the prejudice.

Anyone else you fancy telling to change their behaviour because of the bigotry of others, or is it just Muslim women you feel happy lecturing? Hmm

And who the hell are you to tell Muslim women that it's "damaging on a group level"?

startAfire · 09/09/2011 10:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

startAfire · 09/09/2011 10:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

GothAnneGeddes · 09/09/2011 11:07

"so whilst it [the wearing of religious attire] may feel empowering on an individual level it kind of is damaging on a group level."

It's not tricky. Muslim women and others should be able to dress as they please. If others have a problem with it, it's their problem.

The thing is you wrote your previous posts and thought you were being oh so reasonable, you didn't think any actual Muslim women, or other wearers of religious attire would read it, did you? Like so many others when talking about those women who insist on wearing those veils, you talk, pity and hand wring about us, but never talk to us.

Tell me, would you go on any website aimed at Muslim women (or others) and talk to them about how wearing religious attire is "damaging at a group level"?

Have a think about that and you'll know why I'm not apologising to you.

ThePosieParker · 09/09/2011 11:10

Goth, for me it's the same as the Golly argument. The origins are inherently prejudice....

startAfire · 09/09/2011 11:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

GothAnneGeddes · 09/09/2011 11:21

No Posie. An item of clothing is not the same as toy based on a hideous racial steretype.

And this thread is about Honour Killing not yet another excuse to trot out some very ill informed opinions.

startAfire · 09/09/2011 11:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

startAfire · 09/09/2011 11:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

JosephineB · 09/09/2011 11:26

Just to point out that the Quar'an requires modesty not veils.

startAfire · 09/09/2011 11:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

JosephineB · 09/09/2011 11:33

And believe it or not, the clothing worn by Hassidic Jews was adopted to enable the community to blend in with the wider population so as to better avoid persecution.

No offense, but might it be time for an update?! Wink

LRDTheFeministDragon · 09/09/2011 11:34

Goth, I hope you don't mind me asking, but are you conflating SaF and Posie? I think you've confused what's said by which (or I'm not following, which is always possible!).

I am uncomfortable with the thread going from 'honour' killings to a discussion of whether or not muslim women should wear the veil. Does every discussion have to end up discussing women's choices (or the things women are pushed into), not men?

Beachcomber · 09/09/2011 11:38

Are we talking about collusion here? I mean what each one of us can consider to be colluding in one's own oppression?

Like when we do stuff like put wedding dresses on and change our names?

I changed my name when I got married (some radfem I am huh?). If somebody said to me that they understood why I did it on an individual level, but thought that at a group level my behaviour could be considered damaging, I would have to hold up my hands and agree whilst blaming the patriarchy.

I think all women do stuff like that to some extent and we should give each other a break over it and be careful of with each other when we talk about this stuff.

There are no doubt many reasons for wearing religious attire, but the women who find themselves at risk for honour killing no doubt don't have much choice in the matter.

LRDTheFeministDragon · 09/09/2011 11:43

I agree, beach.

And I think the example about wedding dresses/namechanging is a good point - because it is possible to be a Muslim and a feminist, and to wear the veil but be aware of the issues surrounding it, too.

GothAnneGeddes · 09/09/2011 11:52

But the hadith specifies what should be covered and that includes hijab.

Did you think Muslim women didn't know that and we are just stupid?

Did you think that this was the first time some smartarse had said this and not understood just how patronising it is?

I am very sorry that discussing honour is not interesting enough for you.

startAfire · 09/09/2011 11:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

startAfire · 09/09/2011 11:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Beachcomber · 09/09/2011 12:09

To be fair, and I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, it was kind of weird to go from honour killings to the choice of women to wear religious attire.

It was kinda clumsy.

JosephineB · 09/09/2011 12:17

Whilst we're on the subject of assumptions - I specifically said the Quar'an.

Whether or not one believes in the hadith depends on the sect to which one belongs. Chapter 6 38 states 'Nothing have we ommitted from the Book' and Quar'anists believe that hadiths are thus irrelevant.

with love from Smartarse.

KRICRI · 09/09/2011 12:30

Clumsy, but not the least bit surprising. In most internet discussions, sooner or later most discussions about something "bad" that happens within a specific cultural/ethnic/religious group tends to descend into someone having a pop at that group for different reasons.

Start a fire said, "and yes people can do as they please but that doesn't mean there aren't consequences, intended and unintended, positive and negative to their choices." This was with respect of women making choices of attire related to their faith, or perhaps other beliefs. I suppose it could apply not just to say Muslim women in hijab, Plymouth Brethern's in scarves or Orthodox Jewish women with long skirts and wigs or scarves.

But, what the comment reminded me most of was the purpose of recent Slut Walks - that women should be able to dress as they wish and not be seen as responsible for the consequences of what they choose to wear.

Does that mean it's okay to wear Daisy Duke shorts and a crop top and not expect to be sexually harassed or assaulted, but not okay to wear a scarf or modest dress because of what others might believe about you for doing so?

edd1337 · 09/09/2011 12:37

That sounds like that "asking for it" argument

Yes a woman can wear whatever she likes anywhere she wants, but if she's dressed in a microskirt with a low-cut top and she walks into a bar/pub/club that's quite rough and known to be popular with men who like to get drunk, they are are just asking for trouble. Same as walking into a ghetto with an armani suit and a rolex. You can wear the suit and rolex by all means, but you're just asking for trouble by walking into a rough area

To NOT expect to be harassed or assaulted is just naive