"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

To be fair, though, women get treated badly here, too, so I don't think it is because you are men as such. The only way of knowing for certain is, of course, to have not said that you are men, but, this would be more or less impossible now.

This is a thread about honour killings.

If it is turned into another thread about how crap the feminist section is, then all I can say is shame on you. Fucking listen to yourselves.

What is it with the f-word today? I've not got anything against the f-word, but it seems as if everybody is using it in a 'look at me, I'm hard' kind of way. This applies to both sexes.

Ceratin people here need an outlet I suppost. F-wording it seems the only way to let off some steam

I suppose it is not acceptable for anybody to dictate how cultural/faith/national groups define and describe gender-based violence in their own communities, but that does not stop an individual having thoughts on what this violence is and calling it what they want.

Other people can call it what they want, I just think of it as inexcusable violence. But then I cannot see how religious belief and feminism can peacefully co-exist, but that is just me.

Sorry, that should be certain religious belief (s).

Sorry to go on about this but I'm a bit pedantic.

KRICRI you said;

Beachcomber, when you referred to clothing worn by Pakistani women, I thought Salwar Kameez because well, that seems to be the main type of clothing Pakistani women wear both here and in Pakistan. You were thinking of something more like a burkha though, which from what I understand, is worn only by a minority of women in Pakistan. I think both would see what they wear as in keeping with their faith. See how easy it is to get confused?

I think we all need to be careful how we express ourselves and we also need to be careful how we read people. I specified 'religious attire in the context of communities which practice honour killing' not 'clothing worn by Pakistani women' - two rather different things.

I understand that salwar kameez is traditional dress and not religious attire as such. It may well be in keeping with the faith of the women who choose this type of clothing but I don't think it is either religious attire nor clothing which dehumanizes women.

I'm surprised that confusion arose really but I will try to be even more specific next time.

SGM, you are putting a lot more eloquently some of what I was trying to say upthread. I'm actually thinking that the use of "feminism"/women's rights as a fig leaf by racist individuals otherwise not disinclined to engage in some sexism themselves deserves a whole thread for itself some time.

On the other hand, I do think its unacceptable for me, as a "White" feminist, to dictate how other cultural/faith/national groups define and describe gender-based violence in their own communities.

This is in fact something that I still have a hard time sorting out for myself. On the one hand I absolutely believe - strongly so - that there are a few definite rights and wrongs. On the other, though, I'll have to admit that some of what I would define as such is heavily influenced by my being white, european educated middle class and non-religious. And I have to admit that - beyond the theoretical, intellectual level - I completely lack any kind of understanding for e.g. active support of certain gender roles on the basis that god likes it that way.

I see them as essentially the same, Bob, but, then, I won't lie I am biased as f* being somebody who, erm, dislikes religion intensely.

from what i gather from people around me, the misogynist concepts within south asian society are often upheld by women, in fact women are often the perpetrators as they are more concerned with upholding traditional values and concepts then the men. It is widely recognised that in south asia the women tend to be more religious then the men, and more superstitious, the temples will be full of women, pakistani women undertake rituals similar to their hindu counterparts, such as burning things, etc etc, and men hardly ever are involved in this.

The rules may have been written by the patriarchy, but the women enforce them. when you want to force a woman in to marriage, it will be her mother and aunties putting on the guilt trip, and being violent against the woman. from their point of view, it is seen as we all went through it and survived, to preserve our honour and families honour etc, so you should to.

in the example in the op, the mother was involved too, and in many honour killings and examples of women being forced in to abusive marriages, you will se the women complicit and supportive of the abuse, and encouragin of the abuse.

this is one of those areas in which women need to start supporting other women.

Beach take a look at the picture of the mother in the op, was she wearing burka or shalwar kameese? where did you come to your conclusion that honour killings occur in communities in which women wear burka? since they happen in hindu and sikh communities too?

Women can be as bad as men is the message I am getting from nailak's post. Nailak, no sarcasm intended at all -none whatsover, but this is no surprise to me.

It is widely recognised that in south asia the women tend to be more religious then the men

I would actually argue that this is a global rather than an exclusively South Asian phenomenon; just look at all those churches that are basically run by female volunteers.

That women internalise and perpetuate the values of the patriarchy in this way has been observed for quite a long time, too. It was one of the primary reasons why the anarchist and feminist Emma Goldman was in fact opposed to female suffrage in the USA. Her argument was roughly that American women were bound to vote for a more conservative, oppressive society. Sadly she was not entirely wrong.

Thanks Beach - clearer now. :) Well, but nailak has a point - the mother convicted for her part in the daughter's death seems only to be wearing a loose headscarf in all the photos I have seen of her - not anything covering her face.

Just to take up a point from nailak's first post about South Asian women often being the "upholders" of tradition more than men. I would say that something similar happens with regard to "mainstream" traditions of female dress and behaviour in the UK. What I mean is in my experience, it is women who appear to "police" the appearance and behaviour of other women - make comments about whether it is appropriate or not.

I think this is for reasons described by Andrea Dworkin in Right Wing Women. Some women go more for the option of carving out the most advantageous position for themselves within patriarchy rather than fighting against it. They strive to be "good" women, and dress and behave in ways they think will gain favour with men. One way to keep such "favour" is to criticise other women who they don't think are doing such a good job of that.

Because at that moment I was taking about honour killings that happen in Pakistan within traditional communities.

I had this in mind because I had just linked to and quoted from a document on the subject. It wasn't a general comment about honour killings, it was a specific comment about the sort of honour killings I had just been reading about and linking to.

bob izzat is a punjabi word and concept and most of the honour killings that occur in the UK seem to be by people from the Punjab region, which covers parts of Pakistan and India.

obviously most people dont believe in honour killings although they still believe in izzat, but less extreme? like some believe the women is their honour, so they should honour her as well as she should conform, etc and that if anyone attacks in any way their wives they et very upset as their honour is bein attacked? but although they believe in izzat, they wouldnt kill their wives or dauhters, it takes a special kind of person to do that!!

another point is you point to more liberal attitudes, and i think we have to understand that izzat is a cultural phenomena not a religious one, so people may be extrememly conservative in religious manner, but this may not reflect on their cultural conservatism, infact it may be a reason for them to try and distance themselves from ignorant cultural practices, with no foundation in any of the 3 faiths of the region.

Could posters please stop making out that I said either that; all women in Pakistan wear burqas, or that honour killings only happen to women wearing burqas. Or that honour killings only happen in Muslim countries for that matter.

Perhaps people don't follow links so they don't know what I am actually referring to.

Thank you.

your right about the links, what page was it on, sound interesting now.

im not sure what i mean about izzat tbh, i have never had someone define their definition of izzat to me, however i am aware that their are people within my inlaws who do refer to it, in relation to women, but would never kill their wives or daughters, even though they have accussed said wife or daughter with having illicit assosciations with the oppossite sex.

when i say refer to it, i mean generally in the middle of a heated arguement in anger, for example my husband once took offence to a male poster in an islamics foums manner in talking to me and stareted ranting about how people are disrespecting his wife and his wife is his izzat, therefore they are disrespecting me, and another time some random pakistani boys started calling me as they got my number of the avon catologues i was distributing, and he said similar sentiments.

i dont understand urdu or punjabi, so althouh i have heard others say the word, i cant really say what context they were using it in!!

(although there was a woman i know whose mil started ranting about izzat when she decided to go to work, and how the woman was shaming her husband as his family in pakistan who he hadnt seen for 30 years would think he couldnt support her)

Sorry, I don't know what page - I read MN in the old format so that I can navigate easily and search for stuff on threads without having to change pages. It is handy for long threads or threads where you want to check something that is being referred to from upthread.

I can give you the link again gladly, but you might want to go back and look at it within the context of the thread in order to understand better what I am talking about now.

www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA33/018/1999/en/9fe83c27-e0f1-11dd-be39-2d4003be4450/asa330181999en.pdf