'Honour' Killings

[CrashGordon94]

But I already said that I couldn't articulate my point the way I wanted it to be viewed.

Then perhaps you should stop trying and cede the point? If you can't explain it without pissing everyone off or looking like a douche, why not stop?

[MacLovin]

Then perhaps you should stop trying and cede the point? If you can't explain it without pissing everyone off or looking like a douche, why not stop?

Well, because my other way of explaining it will do more than get some people pissed off.

This way was the amoral, blunt way.

THe other one would be.......................

capable of getting me in alot of trouble.

[CrashGordon94]

...What is this "other way", Sharpy? Kill some rape victims yourself?

[MacLovin]

...What is this "other way", Sharpy? Kill some rape victims yourself?

The other way of me trying to articulate my point involves alot of terms that would be extremely offensive.

Now stop acting like some little kid wanting to know what mommy and daddy were doing.

[CrashGordon94]

You DO NOT want to start with slinging random insults, you've given people plenty of material to sling worse ones at you.

And slinging racial slurs would prove your point, how exactly?

[MacLovin]

You DO NOT want to start with slinging random insults, you've given people plenty of material to sling worse ones at you.

And slinging racial slurs would prove your point, how exactly?

I just said that I didn't want to use my other way of explaining this.

Stop acting like a kid that walked into his single uncles stash of ***n magazines and brought them to show and tell.

Sigh, I'm out of points anyways.

[CrashGordon94]

Stop acting like a kid that walked into his single uncles stash of ***n magazines and brought them to show and tell.

Stop saying stuff like that, it might seem countintuitive but you're actually making YOURSELF look immature by doing that.

And again, you've given people material for worse insults already and you may or may not (I can't tell personally, someone else can confirm) have gotten on Life Admiral's bad side. DO NOT go there!

[Espinosa]

Any OTHER reasons? Because what you have right now doesn't sound very helpful.

History, individual persons' passions, the value of honour, collectivism, standard of living, presence of wars in the recent past, climate... All the variables you could possibly think of. Blood most certainly has something to do with it, as people continue honour killings when they emigrate and are out of touch with their respective cultures.

[eclipse]

History, individual persons' passions, the value of honour, collectivism, standard of living, presence of wars in the recent past, climate... All the variables you could possibly think of. Blood most certainly has something to do with it, as people continue honour killings when they emigrate and are out of touch with their respective cultures.

If I moved to somewhere within the continental US, I'd tell everyone to take their shoes off before stepping into my house. I'm pretty sure that's not because it's in my blood. Culture can carry across when people leave their homes. I wouldn't be so hasty to blame some genetic thingy for it.

[SB.]

Personally, I think this whole thing is stupid. If to reclaim your honour, you have to take an innocent life, you should live your life in shame. Or just move away or something if you can.

[Espinosa]

If I moved to somewhere within the continental US, I'd tell everyone to take their shoes off before stepping into my house. I'm pretty sure that's not because it's in my blood. Culture can carry across when people leave their homes. I wouldn't be so hasty to blame some genetic thingy for it.

There's a big difference between a formal rule of politeness and vulnerability to a persistent temptation, I would say. If I'm so hot-blooded, is it my culture that brings me up to turn into such a person, or is it within my nature to be passive (=suffer from passions) and act upon my desires?

[Phoenix Wright]

There's a big difference between a formal rule of politeness and vulnerability to a persistent temptation, I would say. If I'm so hot-blooded, is it my culture that brings me up to turn into such a person, or is it within my nature to be passive (=suffer from passions) and act upon my desires?

This is more of a personality trait (genetically influenced) than a cultural trait--though it could be affected by one's culture.

Honor killings, on the other hand, are strictly cultural (as far as I know). I would agree with Eclipse--culture and tradition migrate with the person; I don't think one's culture is a genetic occurrence at all. How could it be?

Edited June 24, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[BBM]

People can be perfectly in touch with their culture/religion (which are often intertwined) even after they emigrate. It's been almost 11 years since my family moved from India to Canada, but we still pray almost every day, we still go to the temple and celebrate most major religious occasions, we still eat Indian food most days, we still consider ourselves just as much Indian and part of that culture as Canadian. Hell, my dad watches Indian news more than he watches Canadian news! My culture is part of who I am, and I'll raise any children I ever have to be part of that culture too.

[1st Mate Bob]

Cultural behavior is learned behavior, so I don't buy into the argument that something you do based on your culture is "in your blood."

That said, after you learn how to act within your culture, it's possible to change what you see as acceptable behavior if you so desire it. At times it's a necessity to change it, like when you move to another country. When I lived in Japan these past few months, there were certain cultural behaviors I had to learn in order to be welcomed into the culture, such as taking off your shoes before going inside. Another part of the Japanese culture is to not confront anybody in public if you have an issue with them. This is something about my culture that I didn't change. When someone bumped into me hard without so much of an apology or treated me with disrespect for seemingly no reason, I called them out on it. These are examples of keeping parts of your culture as well as changing certain cultural practices that fit with those in your new location.

In regards to honor killings, it gets a tad more difficult, since you are jumping into human rights policies and the case of morality. But my point was that just because something is a cultural thing doesn't mean that it's impossible to change it. It has nothing to do with being "in your blood."

[Westbrick]

On the flip side, the culture one grows up in can (and usually does) play a major role in shaping a person's values and beliefs, and this can't just be turned off with the push of a button. Its importance shouldn't be diminished.

Although I'm not exactly sure how honor killings can be "genetic," or why groups of people in Islamic communities would be somehow genetically inclined towards finding honor killings acceptable. That borders on prejudicial.

[Phoenix Wright]

On the flip side, the culture one grows up in can (and usually does) play a major role in shaping a person's values and beliefs, and this can't just be turned off with the push of a button. Its importance shouldn't be diminished.

Although I'm not exactly sure how honor killings can be "genetic," or why groups of people in Islamic communities would be somehow genetically inclined towards finding honor killings acceptable. That borders on prejudicial.

Espinosa has yet to reply on the genetically-influenced culture topic (as I believe he was the first to state that culture was 'in one's blood'). Although, it is possible that by, "it's in their blood," he meant that their culture is so tightly woven within their personality and belief system that they know nothing else but that. I doubt it, though.

[Espinosa]

As I stated before, I don't see one's volition to preserve own honour as part of culture. I do this without giving it too much thought. You do this too. We just don't kill anyone because of it, most of the time anyway. And there's not one single culture to speak of where this sort of behaviour would be endorsed. You have Islamic states where this is done, and Christian states where this is also a problem, and they happen to be very close to each other geographically, historically and racially. When Soviet Union secularised some of said countries, they only had a vague idea of what 'Allah' stood for and they still indulged in these heinous acts. So which culture is it again where such behaviour is necessary or possible? I'm not insisting on anything, just expressing some ideas that make quickly agreeing with any one view unlikely, at least for me.

[Westbrick]

As I stated before, I don't see one's volition to preserve own honour as part of culture.

"Preserve our own honor" is an empty generality. What do you mean by "honor"? What evidence do you have that this "honor" is somehow genetically grounded?

And there's not one single culture to speak of where this sort of behaviour would be endorsed. You have Islamic states where this is done, and Christian states where this is also a problem, and they happen to be very close to each other geographically, historically and racially. When Soviet Union secularised some of said countries, they only had a vague idea of what 'Allah' stood for and they still indulged in these heinous acts. So which culture is it again where such behaviour is necessary or possible? I'm not insisting on anything, just expressing some ideas that make quickly agreeing with any one view unlikely, at least for me.

You've missed the point. No one is saying that, historically, Islamic cultures alone are guilty of heinous crimes on the global stage. Look at the Nazis. Look at the mass rapes by Russian soldiers immediately following WWII. Look at the numerous dictators of the 20th and 21st centuries. But just because something has happened doesn't mean it should happen, and Islamic cultures today are the ones guilty of fostering (or at least not actively condemning) honor killings.

Other countries and cultures are doing bad stuff too, sure. Doesn't change how reprehensible honor killings are, and how tepid an excuse "cultural sensitivity" is.

[eclipse]

Blaming it on genetics is extremely lazy, as it ignores the "person" part and skips right to "race". There's nice, helpful people in the world, and then there's people who want to watch the world burn. There's people who think skydiving is fun, and others who think that an adventure is going to get the mail. There's people who speak up when things don't seem right, and then there's people who follow. History is full of various races having less-than-savory things in their past, but it doesn't mean that it's because of some genetic thing or other. People can and do change, but by blaming it on race, you're saying that they can't help but be that way. I think it's counter-productive at best and bigoted at worst.

The world's more interconnected than ever. I hope the younger generations accept human rights over tradition, so something like honor killings can become a thing of the past.

[Westbrick]

^I worry about the human-beings-have-control narrative as a way to resolve a problem like this. Thing is, "free will" (or "the 'person'") is going to occupy less and less of a place in our public discourse as time moves on. It's a residual religious idea that, while somewhat empowering, just doesn't have much of a basis in reality. (Yes, I recognize this is highly contentious.)

Thankfully, we don't even need to invoke free will to condemn practices like honor killings: even if a person's actions are a strict combination of genetic and environmental factors, that still doesn't demand we deem these actions acceptable. After all, we can work to combat cultural influences with social pressures of our own. No reason to settle for the status quo.

[eclipse]

^I worry about the human-beings-have-control narrative as a way to resolve a problem like this. Thing is, "free will" (or "the 'person'") is going to occupy less and less of a place in our public discourse as time moves on. It's a residual religious idea that, while somewhat empowering, just doesn't have much of a basis in reality. (Yes, I recognize this is highly contentious.)

Thankfully, we don't even need to invoke free will to condemn practices like honor killings: even if a person's actions are a strict combination of genetic and environmental factors, that still doesn't demand we deem these actions acceptable. After all, we can work to combat cultural influences with social pressures of our own. No reason to settle for the status quo.

Uh, can you expand on that first part? I'm not quite sure what you're saying?

[Balcerzak]

Obviously, not yours, since you are not female, and liable to be accused of being a rape victim BEFORE being killed off by your own family. I think I'm far more disturbed by your lack of empathy towards women than anything.

This post made me feel the need to point out that men can be and are raped. Whether it be by women, or by other men, simply being a man doesn't mean you have a "no-chance of being sexually violated" life.

This also leads me to a more on-topic question: Are honor-killings ever directed at men in these instances? If so, are they just not mentioned because it's not as "sensational" when violence is being perpetrated against men?

[eclipse]

This post made me feel the need to point out that men can be and are raped. Whether it be by women, or by other men, simply being a man doesn't mean you have a "no-chance of being sexually violated" life.

This also leads me to a more on-topic question: Are honor-killings ever directed at men in these instances? If so, are they just not mentioned because it's not as "sensational" when violence is being perpetrated against men?

I understand that men can be raped, but I think the honor killings that are most widely publicized are women. I'm not sure if men are included in this, or what kind of "offense" would be needed for such a thing to happen.

[1st Mate Bob]

Usually women are the victims of honor killings, since they are at the bottom of the social class and are typically seen as only baby-making machines. As for men, it happens but not as often. From Wikipedia: "Men can also be the victims of honor killings by members of the family of a woman with whom they are perceived to have an inappropriate relationship."

In certain countries, homosexuality, condemning the national religion, and adultery are all reasons someone can become a victim of honor killings regardless of sex.

EDIT: to attempt to fix some grammar because it's almost 3:30am

Edited June 27, 2012 by 1st Mate Bob

[Espinosa]

Yeah, honour killing can be directed towards men as well; it's absolutely not limited for being raped - betrayal, blasphemy, even homosexuality in some countries is enough to have the angry population go chasing you around. I'm not quite sure if a man can be killed for being raped, but that's probably not impossible either. Honour killing is actually big part of any organised criminal culture, where failure to please the collective and its interests will easily cost one one's life.

The subject of honour killing is kinda relevant to me emotionally because I also attract a lot of anger from my family members for my life and views (I'm in mid-20s so this is a case of intolerance rather than me being an angsty teenager or a juvenile manchild; I have a more or less fully formed world view, one that isn't marginal or radical in any way), and at times of argument I can feel tension being strong enough to the point where violence wouldn't be entirely out of place.

I'm not trying to argue some sort of racist bullshit here, our relevant heroes include not only Othello but Hamlet as well. It's a matter of acting upon one passion against one's... common sense, love, humility, all those things. Jealousy isn't too distant from what we're talking about here.

There's nice, helpful people in the world, and then there's people who want to watch the world burn.

I'd go as far as say that both are represented in each and every person in some proportion. I'd say how comfortable our lives are matters a lot here (as pointed out, the Nazis elected and followed a brutal leader due to a shared sentiment of broken pride, and the victors of the WW2 committed atrocities of their own in response to the nightmares they had just awaken from), but so do a whole lot of different variables.

Freedom is something wrong-doers may forget about in that heated moment, as there's no way to be more unfree than to act upon one's own passion, but I don't think simple amendments to the law fix that, or that giving people more freedom is the most empathetic thing to be done.