Remind me again why it's always women who get murdered in 'honour' killings?

[lechiffre55]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15334065/Teenager-tied-thrown-swamp-drown-honour-killing-Western-behaviour-shamed-family-father-flees-Syria.html

How do we live in a world where this happens in Western societies?
Why is it always women who get murdered?

I like the term 'shame murders' - it makes me think of how the term 'king hit' was renamed 'coward punch' in the media, making it clear that the perpetrator is scum. But 'cultural femicide' probably works better as an official term.

It's so important to name things for what they are.

As to the question in the OP: Because of men. Because of patriarchy. Because many religions and cultures, instead of moving away from misogyny, are instead entrenching themselves deeper in it. Because that's the way things have always been throughout recorded history, and likely will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

Infuriatingly, women's rights are a privilege afforded us at men's sufferance, which means that as soon as our rights impinge upon their wants, they are eroded or discarded.

Yes they are? And disabled - anything thats viewed as bringing great shame on the family

Its not an honour killing.

Its an inferior culture killing.

And the men who want to benefit from the fruits of Western societies ways but hold to that inferior culture should be removed.

There’s a risk of othering the victim when using “honour” killing, as if she matters less because she was unfortunate enough to be born within an ‘other’ culture/religion.

Izzat (honour/reputation/prestige) has a lot to answer for when killing a woman is less shameful than the supposed shame that the woman brought into the family.

I once knew a Turkish man who had been chosen to kill another man in the village he came from, to settle some point of 'honour' that had happened. He didn't fancy the idea and came to the UK instead and got leave to remain. It is mainly women, obviously, but not exclusively.

I think the use of the word "honour" is a reflection that this is all driven by male values.

The honour referred to is men's. Has their image and status been marred or even lost because of some family members.

The women who are usually said to be the ones bringing dis-honour, dont have a voice in it.

I suppose in a way its a it like those who say we shouldn't use the phrase "domestic" violence, because it reflects back to the time when the police and others would talk about the violence of men against women as just being "a bit of a domestic".

AI says:

Preferred alternative terminology focuses on the nature of the crime and its impact on the victim:

• So-called "honour"-based abuse (HBA) or violence (HBV): This is the terminology often used by UK government bodies like the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and police forces, using quotation marks around "honour" to emphasize that the act is not truly honorable.
• Femicide: This term refers to the murder of a woman or girl specifically because of her gender. It is a broader term that encompasses "honour" killings and many other forms of gender-based violence.
• Gender-based violence (GBV): This expression highlights that the violence is rooted in unequal power dynamics and gender roles, which is a key factor in these crimes.
• Shame-killing or pudicide: Some users and academics have suggested terms that more accurately reflect the perpetrators' motivation to remove "shame" rather than restore "honour," though these are less common in official usage.
• Patriarchal murder or killing: This terminology emphasizes the underlying system of male control and ownership of women's bodies and sexuality that drives such violence.

Human rights organizations and women's rights advocates argue that using the term "honour" masks the violence, removes the focus from the victim, and implies that the act is an understandable cultural practice rather than a premeditated murder. Chanting "There's no honour in honour killing" is a common slogan in related protests

I suppose in a way its a it like those who say we shouldn't use the phrase "domestic" violence, because it reflects back to the time when the police and others would talk about the violence of men against women as just being "a bit of a domestic".

I have never heard anyone say this

But the 'honour' doesn't just relate to the men. It can affect women in the family too, for example the sister of a woman who is seen as bringing shame on the family may be seen as unmarriagable. And although men may carry out the violence it may be with the explicit approval of women in the family.

its all very complicated and all shit.

I have never heard anyone say this

I only saw this recently, and wasn't sure myself.

There does seem to be a move away from saying domestic violence to domestic abuse to accept it is not just physical violence, but control and coercion.

Some activists think it should be family violence, to acknowledge that within families there is violence.

But most seem to think that domestic abuse or violence should be kept to refer specifically to violence and abuse between intimate partner.

I think the difference though is in calling them "honour" killings it is almost accepting that the men who perpetrate this have the excuse that they are defending their "honour".

Rather than the fact that they are men who see women as their property. Because if they didn't seem them as their property there would be no "honour" to defend.

I gave seen IPV (intimate partner violence) from the US
but I think DV/DA is better as it captures parent-child, child-parent or other family relationships also

Yes…
seems like what it boils down to is that the girl or woman is the men’s property, and if your goods are damaged you need to get rid of them.

Remove them to where? Some of the people involved in these attacks (whether enacting the violence, facilitating it, or condoning it) will be British (or other Western country) born.

I would put forward a term like family-based shame killing/murder/abuse. It's not perfect, and as bit long-winded, but it might work.

I feel like using “cultural” is just as bad as “honour” - sort of implies that it’s an accepted cultural practice maybe. I understand why people don’t like the term “honour” killings, although it has the advantage of everyone immediately understanding the general context of the murder.

I think the term patriarchial murder as suggested by AI is potentially good, although I would argue that this term also covers women who are murdered by an abusive partner, which is a slightly different (albeit linked by partriarchy) type of murder. And worth defining separately. Maybe shame-based patriarchial murder (though a bit of a mouthful), and domestic patriarchial murder?

Its hard to think of something that can convey the issue.

ie domestic violence, rape and sexual assualt are all about men thinking they have rights over women and their bodies.

So "honour" killigs are about injured male egos, but that doesn't really make a good phrase.

And agree that calling it cultural is in fact another excuse to try and say male violence is only carried out by men who are "other".

Whereas men who are part of the main stream culture and carrying out these attacks every day.

As Women's Aid and others point out it is always at the moment that a woman is trying to escape from a violent man that she is most in danger.

So even in the instance the patriachy is framing the debate. ie calling it "honour" acknoweldges a male centred value system.

Rabid male ego killings is closer to the truth.

How do we live in a world where this happens in Western societies?

Because the men doing it don't operate on a western code of conduct/morality. This is a key reason for opposition to poorly managed immigration but the issue is that we have it drummed into us growing up that it's intolerant to criticise other cultures, so the people that would usually be most likely to stand against injustice actually work to silence those that try in many cases. Similar to the trans issue where it's often women that are the most supportive of trans rights and most critical of 'terfs'.

This then leaves the demographics that oppose immigration/non western cultures for xenophobic reasons, and these people tend to not really care what liberals think of them so they're often the most outspoken. This then exacerbates the situation whereby people are scared to speak out for fear of being lumped in with the 'gammons' etc. I don't think there's an easy fix.

Nobody will dare speak about things like certain cultures in the UK being opposed to homosexuality or believing that a woman should always obey her husband, even when surveys demonstrate that such views are widespread.

And agree that calling it cultural is in fact another excuse to try and say male violence is only carried out by men who are "other".

But lumping it all together as 'male violence' is a bit like lumping all medical issues together as 'illness' and not considering the individual approaches required.

I think we can all agree that white middle class men aren't generally the ones most represented in things like honour killings and FGM.

I think we can all agree that white middle class men aren't generally the ones most represented in things like honour killings and FGM.

You seem to have totallly misread or not bothered to read the discussion.

It is the dominant white male culture that is trying to pretend that when men commit violence against women from other "cultures" it is somehow different or worse.

That is only because the dominant white male culture uses its dominance to obscure that they are just as much part of the problem as other men.

They just have the power not to be labelled.

It amazes my how more and more on FWR posters are putting forward this idea that someone how white men aren't a problem.

All these women being duped into expressing outrage when a man from a minority cultured is convicted of a sexual crime and never, ever raises an concerns about the vast majority of convictions for sexual violence are against white men.

Talk about being a delusion patsy for the dominant class.

They must be laughing in their man caves at all these women deflecting criticism of their violence.

It doesn't matter what label the dominant sex class gives it. It is all the same it is about men, feeling entitled to brutalise women.

How could you fall for such obvious manipulation.

Of course stupid white men want women to believe they aren't a threat.

Couldn’t agree with you more

all the men in uproar about immigrants committing sexual violence

I see it as they are annoyed that anyone but them would dare to commit violence against women in uk

can’t believe pp excusing middle class men - what the hell is that anymore - plenty of assaults at universities (if you’re thinking education) - rife with them - and public school boys as perpetrators

Why does it happen?

Well the answer is clear in every response here because everyone is avoiding it. It's the thing no one dares mention for fear of being called a bigot.

@CapacityBrown have you not read, or have you just not understood the preceding post?

remember all those men protesting outside the asylum hotels? how many had convictions for domestic abuse- something like 30%?

the problem is men, the problem is patriarchy

men will find different excuses, depending on the culture they belong to

Thing is, describing them as 'honor' murders means everyone knows exactly what they are. The only suggestion I've seen on the thread as a good substitute is ego murders.

Might happen. The Dutch life sentence maxes out at 25 years but the most recent case of this kind to be sentenced (February this year) resulted in maximum sentences for all 4 of the men involved in the murder.

30% of "all those men"? That looks a tad unlikely. Do you mean 30% of those arrested for various offences during the protests?

You seem to have totallly misread or not bothered to read the discussion.

The very first line of the OP asks "How do we live in a world where this happens in Western societies?"

It's pretty clear in my post that I'm replying to that because I actually quoted it. It's you that seems to be trying to derail the topic into a general rant about white men. The OP is about honour killings which are generally tied to specific cultures and ethnicities.

Different crimes require different approaches and by trying to derail any discussion of it (as often happens on here) you're actively fighting against people trying to have a nuanced discussion and find nuanced solutions. Which I suspect doesn't bother you because you just want to rant about 'the menz' and some mass conspiracy against women.

Of course the vast majority of convictions are against white men. We live in a country full of white men. I doubt the vast majority of convictions in African countries are against white men. And BTW 15 women a day are murdered in South Africa, and probably more we don't know about. That's more in a week than we have in a year, so it's kinda hard to say white men are just as bad.

Women wouldn't be able to protest in a lot of these countries. Possibly not even leave the house. Definitely not get an education. But please continue opining about how hard you have it as a women living in modern Europe.

Also, you may have seen the recently released data showing that Afghan men are 3x more likely to be arrested for a sex crime in this country. Sky news did a review of the data and found that Farage was wrong saying they were 22x more likely and it was in fact 'only' 3x more likely. The reason people focus on it is because, unlike white men, a lot of these men weren't born here so are only here because our country allowed them entry.

Remember that NYE in Germany where 1200 women were sexually assaulted in one night by men of a 'North African appearance'? Can't remember the last time a large mob of white Europeans did something like that. Happens in Egypt a fair bit though.