Thinking about "honour killings"

Where does the term "honour killing" come from?

Is it an invention of the media? Or are the media simply adopting the terminology of someone else? In which case, who?

martin dufresne wrote:

please don't tell me or other people what i'm thinking, thankyou

yarg, as I understand it, all statements posted here are for anyone to comment and analyze. Not to "tell you what you are thinking,"

Martin, the below quote is doing JUST that. The author is telling you what Yarg "really means".

Quote:

martin, yarg does not mean Liberals, he is using it in the american contextual value, or as the value of republican sentiment of:

"damn liberals have ruined society they should be....."

;)

Now the author is probably mostly jesting there but he same thing happens a lot in argments here. And not always as a joke.

I can't remember the specific form of debating it's called but it's very frustrating.

M. Spector wrote:

Where does the term "honour killing" come from?

Is it an invention of the media? Or are the media simply adopting the terminology of someone else? In which case, who?

This is why I asked Remind if *I* was killed would it be called an honour killing.

Answer is probably not. 

It's a custom that (seems to) originate in middle eastern cultures but pointing that out has people scrambling for the racist stamp.

One argument my Muslim friends have talked about is that they didn't asked to "be saved". Some women want to wear their veil. Some accept sharing their husband with 3 wives and some accept (or believe is a better word?) that their place is at home.

What happens when women choose to accept 'honour killings' as a part of their culture? And yes I have spoken to one who accepted it and believed it. Do we tell her shes wrong?

remind wrote:

Yep

 

What remind REALLY means is that we need to respect the traditions of other cultures unless we don't agree with them for their own good.

(Just kidding)

remind wrote:

Murder is never acceptable no matter the "tradition", just as genital mutilation is not.

And ffs killing yourself is against the law.

 

I agree Remind, I just fight with myself over what to do or say to someone who accepts it as a part of their culture.

Huh?  If you need me to draw you a picture:  the "baby" is the opportunity to analyze honour killings for what they are and the bathwater is the evident need to ensure that the focus isn't on Islam, lest the right wing take that and run with it.

Your need to make everything fit your personal agenda is both impressively persistent and sadly immature.  Try just reading. 

Actually, you can be locked up for attempting to commit suicide. snert.

Of course, if you succeed they can hardly throw you in jail, or onto a psych ward.

Honour killing is a Western term to which there is no equivalent in Arabic whatsoever. Throughout pre-Islam middle east history, tribes used to fight each other over water sources or grazing fields or camel stealing or women or whatever cause and KILL. There has been no linkage term for such killings in the sense of a term linking the effect (killing) to a "cause" (water, grazing fields, women or camels). No terms such as "water killing" or "grazing fiekd killing" was ever invented. 

It took a bush-led campaign to demonize Muslims and Arabs enforced by a US government programmes to finance some individual and organizational native informers to point the finger and single out the evil Muslims and Arabs with the bleakest of features. Was born the term "honour kiling", suggesting a distinctive character to THEIR killing so it is separate and distinct from our killing.

Native informers, including some pseudo-intellectuals, right wingers and msm media obliged. People bereft of any ability at critical thinking swallowed it whole. 

You are not allowed to accuse people of lying here, Cueball.  Cut it out.  I don't like the "my best friend who's black says you're wrong" thing either, but that doesn't mean SparkyOne is lying.

No it doesn't. I am just being truthful in my estimation of the veracity of that statement. It hardly seems likely or plausible. Consider for example that the "testimonials" don't start coming until after the arguement meets serious resistance. Prior to that there is no mention of proposed Arab and Muslim intimates, in which very personal conversations about abuse and its cultural context are discussed. In fact, the discussion starts in an entirely objectified manner, without mention of these intimates at all, though you would think they would appear earlier. No. They appear as convenient moment, to bolster an arguement. Not just one conversation is detailed, but many, all at once, a whole slew of native informants appear on cue.

What starts as "they" and "them" suddenly become actual real life "friends". All to convenient frankly.

SparkyOne wrote:

Are you one of those guys that believe the veil some women wear is without exception something they would never CHOOSE to wear? That our bs war in Afghanistan is about womens rights and putti western clothes on them?

News flash cueball. Some women actually choose to dress like that. AND belve it or not, some women are willing to accept the harsh-man enforced laws you come across in the news.

Ahh yes the old veiling is more evil than wearing high heals and miniskirts mantra. Women choose to wear a lot of things. Newsflash, there is nothing more inherently bad about wearing a bra for the purposes of engrandizing ones breasts than there is about hiding ones features by wearing a veil. Do you think that women here ALWAYS choose what they want to wear, and are not socially manipulated, and indeed sometimes forced to wear clothes which they otherwise would not choose to wear, here in Canada?

What about yourself? Examine any of that lately?

This is indemic in the nature of all socially constructed norms. That said socialization in ritual clothing is a far cry from your thought experiments about people somehow being convinced that killing people for reasons of "honour" is just fine.

Your idea is fundamentally this: There is something unique about Arab and Muslim men who feel their "honour" has been tarnished killing women. This happens all the time in this country. It is just that no one calls it "honour killing". In fact, you would not be too hard pressed to find women who would opine that "she was asking for it".

None of that is particularly unique to Islam or the Arab people. You just don't "see it" when it happens here.

The negative connotation associated with veiling is clearly implied, read it: "Are you one of those guys that believe the veil some women wear is without exception something they would never CHOOSE to wear?"

Quote:

News flash cueball. Some women actually choose to dress like that. AND belve it or not, some women are willing to accept the harsh-man enforced laws you come across in the news.

The act of veiling is being directly associated with the act of accepting the abuse of women.

Point: Women are convinced to wear veils, therefore they can also be convinced to accept other negative social norms such as the abuse of women. If they can be convinced to do bad things like wear veils, then why not be convinced to do other bad things like accept the abuse of women? If they can be convinced to CHOOSE veiling, they can be convinced to CHOOSE abuse of women.

In fact, veiling is posed basically an "gateway" act leading to further self-abuse, which they CHOOSE.

Obviously therefore veiling is a bad thing in and of itself. "Smoking pot leads to heroin addiction..." Fairly clear if you ask me.

"some women actually choose to dress like that. AND belve it or not, some women are willing to accept the harsh-man enforced laws you come across in the news."

k sparky I remember u saying how u were african right? So think about it like this.

Nuff sistas bleach their skin, relax their hair, wear a weave, etc. They Choose to do this but is it good? Or is it a ingrained self-hatred that they got us on. Men wear wave caps or other shit.

Itz a sub-concious thing n while it could be considered a choice at the same time many ppl are "convinced" to act against their own self-interests and the fact that there's no agreement on what that is is another problem entirely.

But, I still wouldnt trust white ppl with "liberating" nobody from this shit lol. History and current day shit speaks for itself cuzz

Cueball wrote:

The negative connotation associated with veiling is clearly implied, read it: "Are you one of those guys that believe the veil some women wear is without exception something they would never CHOOSE to wear?"

Quote:

News flash cueball. Some women actually choose to dress like that. AND belve it or not, some women are willing to accept the harsh-man enforced laws you come across in the news.

The act of veiling is being directly associated with the act of accepting the abuse of women.

Point: Women are convinced to wear veils, therefore they can also be convinced to accept other negative social norms such as the abuse of women. If they can be convinced to do bad things like wear veils, then why not be convinced to do other bad things like accept the abuse of women? If they can be convinced to CHOOSE veiling, they can be convinced to CHOOSE abuse of women.

In fact, veiling is posed basically an "gateway" act leading to further self-abuse, which they CHOOSE.

Obviously therefore veiling is a bad thing in and of itself. "Smoking pot leads to heroin addiction..." Fairly clear if you ask me.

Yup, clear as mud.

I suppose women have no backbone and only wear the veil because a man says so. Or, the think that what is a man wants, so shall it be.

As you said cuball, anyways...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing

Interesting read on the subject.

So you are clarifying to say that you do not think that veil wearing is negative socialialized behaviour? Is that right?

I am a little confused though, on the one hand you now seem to be saying that women have enough "backbone" to stand up for themselves, and decide what to wear for themselves, but then earlier seemed to be arguing that if they could be convinced to wear veils, they could likewise be convinced to accept physical abuse, as part of acceptable social cultural norms: Easily molded into meekly accepting abuse as normal, and even right.

It seems to me that if women have a enough good sense and "backbone" to decide what it is they choose to wear, it would seem to me that they would have enough "backbone" to reject the physical abuse of women.

I never said women should accept physical abuse.

EVER.

I think that's the conclusion you've drawn perhaps, but I don't think abuse is ever acceptable.

You're just playing with words Cueball

Meanwhile this thread is creeping towards the magic 100#

at least in canada when honor killing, there is justice

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/694281

Justice George Gage today decided there was enough evidence for Muhammad Parvez, now 59, and his son Waqas, now 28, to be tried for the planned and pre-meditated slaying of Aqsa Parvez. They were both committed to trial on a charge of first-degree murder in the strangulation death of Aqsa Parvez.

The 16-year-old student at Applewood Heights Secondary School died on Dec. 10, 2007. Aqsa, known to her friends as "Axa" was the youngest of eight children in the family, which immigrated from Pakistan.

The killing, which some have described as a carefully planned honour killing while others say was a horrible case of uncontrollable domestic violence continues to be the subject of world-wide Internet discussion involving a clash of Western and Middle Eastern cultures.

martin dufresne wrote:

at least in canada when honor killing, there is justice

We shall see. Meanwhile, isn't "mahmoud" suggesting that elsewhere (HINT: In Islamic countries under attack from the West), justice is inexistant for women?

 

There are many secularists with Islamic backgrounds who would disagree with babble orthodoxy in these matters. So it's entirely possible that Mahmoud really is Mahmoud.

martin dufresne wrote:

at least in canada when honor killing, there is justice

We shall see. Meanwhile, isn't "mahmoud" suggesting that elsewhere (HINT: In Islamic countries under attack from the West), justice is inexistant for women?

 

i never said that, but it is clear what martin stands for, and ive read many of your posts where you only defend one group and hate anything associate to another group

all you do is assume and try to make muslim or islam like the victim, I WROTE something, take it as it is, and do not put words in my mouth, i really am suprised how people let you stay on here as all you do is try to twist things to make only islam as victim...lots are victimes,

and you are statisctiacally right that islamic nations have lots of honor killings, but you said it not me...you have some weeird paranoia, i'll do some assuming too, you should stop thinking you are inferior to all that dont agree with you and if someone says israle is right and palestine is wrong for example, you should take it as their opinon...if u meet terrorists that are muslims , then you dont need to deny it

just go with fact, and have 1 goal of stoping violence like dalai lama says, he is try left wing at heart