'Honour' Killings

[Westbrick]

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

Sure. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that "Honor killings shouldn't be tolerated because culture is flexible and people have the ability to say no." Which leans upon the idea of voluntary choice and self-determination. I was trying to point out that even if people are locked into genetics and social factors, with no free will of their own, there's still no pressing reason to protect honor killings as a cultural phenomenon.

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.

...Okay, now I'm confused.

1) Honor killing is a specifically male-on-female crime. From the opening post: "Honor killings are acts of vengeance, usually death, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family."

2) Honor killing has been more specifically defined throughout the course of this discussion as a woman being killed because she is a rape victim. That's an entirely different thing than being killed because you didn't appease the Godfather.

3) Unless your family is honestly crazy, I honestly can't imagine what sort of world view would lead to a situation where violence wasn't "entirely out of place." Can't be religion, since just about every major faith condemns violence. So what is it?

4) Who's talking about racism and jealously?

[BrightBow]

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?

True, men can be raped. But they are entirely ignorant towards that risk.

Even at this very forum people use the word "rape" all the time as a substitute for "defeating somebody" or as a general expression of superiority towards someone in particular or just superiority in general.

As long as men don't acknowledge the risk and it never actually happens to them... they essentially do live a "no-chance of being sexually violated" life until they wake up in reality. But most of them never do.

Ignorance is a bliss here and as a result the genders are far from equal when rape is concerned.

I hope this post wasn't too stupid, derailing or whatever. I'm really not sure and I am not trying to intentionally cause any harm.

Edited June 27, 2012 by BrightBow

[1st Mate Bob]

1) Honor killing is a specifically male-on-female crime. From the opening post: "Honor killings are acts of vengeance, usually death, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family."

2) Honor killing has been more specifically defined throughout the course of this discussion as a woman being killed because she is a rape victim. That's an entirely different thing than being killed because you didn't appease the Godfather.

1) That definition is the Human Rights Watch's definition and was pulled straight out of Wikipedia. The article then goes to say right after that quote "oh yeah, it happens to men too."

2) The Merriam-Webster definition of honor killing is "the traditional practice in some countries of killing a family member who is believed to have brought shame on the family." By this definition, men can also be victims of honor killings. Some examples of instances were in my post right before Espinosa's latest on the previous page.

[Raven]

It is true that men are also victims of honour killings, however they are far less common since men are usually considered to be 'saints' in such communities and cultures, thus can do no wrong.

[Westbrick]

1) That definition is the Human Rights Watch's definition and was pulled straight out of Wikipedia. The article then goes to say right after that quote "oh yeah, it happens to men too."

2) The Merriam-Webster definition of honor killing is "the traditional practice in some countries of killing a family member who is believed to have brought shame on the family." By this definition, men can also be victims of honor killings. Some examples of instances were in my post right before Espinosa's latest on the previous page.

1) That's odd; I've never heard it used before in that way. Good to know.

2) My second point was that the word had been clearly defined throughout the course of this discussion to mean "women getting killed for being rape victims." We can expand that definition, but let's not lose sight of just how heinous that is. Certainly much more heinous than... uh... organized crime "honor killings"? Whatever the dude with the cat avatar is going through in his family life? Yeah.

[Rehab]

Though I don't know the figures, wikipedia mentions (for example) LGBT individuals of both genders being killed for reasons similar to those given for murdering women accused of adultery, or of being raped. It seems to me that the, or a, big difference between the cases is that women in cultures where honor killings are prevalent are considered property, as is their virginity, so it's socially easier to justify harsher punishments.

Part of the reason I don't think it's quite fair to say the culture can't be changed, is that it's not like there aren't (female, for example) activists in many of the countries where the attitudes allow these things who're pushing for change. I don't know how much history Turkey's had with them, but at the least recently they've been sentencing people found guilty of honor killings to life in prison. Pakistan, where it'd be an understatement to say honor killing is a prevalent tradition, "under international and domestic pressure" made a law in 2004 that made honor killings punishable by 7 years in prison or death, and strengthened it in 2006.

Gender/sex bias as a fact of reality certainly isn't going to go away overnight just because the rest of the world, or even (and more importantly, imo) because the people fighting it in their own countries are against it, but to say nothing can be done on any scale seems a bit pessimistic.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Rehab

[Polaris]

Honour killings are often propagated, at least in India, by the local government. There's something called the khap system, which is the panchayati system but somehow more extremist, that basically encourages honour killings. It's usually less to do with gender, and more about bringing dishonour to the family. For example, if you fall in love instead of agreeing to an arranged marriage, they can declare you a heretic and call for your death. Marrying someone from the same village is considered incestuous, and thus receives the same level of punishment. Marrying out of your religion or caste in India: same thing. Victim-blaming also plays a part. If a woman gets raped, it's very likely going to be that she's blamed for seducing the man, and killed for being impure.

It is a major cultural phenomenon, but not at all a positive one. Measures are being taken to eradicate it, but it's not really working so far.

[Westbrick]

Honour killings are often propagated, at least in India, by the local government. There's something called the khap system, which is the panchayati system but somehow more extremist, that basically encourages honour killings. It's usually less to do with gender, and more about bringing dishonour to the family. For example, if you fall in love instead of agreeing to an arranged marriage, they can declare you a heretic and call for your death. Marrying someone from the same village is considered incestuous, and thus receives the same level of punishment. Marrying out of your religion or caste in India: same thing. Victim-blaming also plays a part. If a woman gets raped, it's very likely going to be that she's blamed for seducing the man, and killed for being impure.

It is a major cultural phenomenon, but not at all a positive one. Measures are being taken to eradicate it, but it's not really working so far.

Jesus F. Christ, Google even confirmed this to be true.

There's something fundamentally wrong with the modern East.

[BBM]

Keep in mind that this is rural India, which is still very traditional in many places and not at all part of what I'd call the "modern East". Most people in the cities believe very different things. It's not anywhere near the same as what happens in some places in the Middle East.

[eclipse]

Sure. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that "Honor killings shouldn't be tolerated because culture is flexible and people have the ability to say no." Which leans upon the idea of voluntary choice and self-determination. I was trying to point out that even if people are locked into genetics and social factors, with no free will of their own, there's still no pressing reason to protect honor killings as a cultural phenomenon.

Gotcha. However, that angle opens up a very messy can of worms, which is both theoretically unstable and very disturbing.

[Polaris]

Keep in mind that this is rural India, which is still very traditional in many places and not at all part of what I'd call the "modern East". Most people in the cities believe very different things. It's not anywhere near the same as what happens in some places in the Middle East.

This, absolutely.

Rural and urban India are almost completely disconnected from one another. There's nothing modern about the rural India where this happens, which isn't really their fault but there you have it.

[Rapier]

What's there to discuss? Everyone's just going to go "Oh god, this is terrible blah blah blah" unless someone chooses to play devils advocate and go "serves them right for not keeping their purity blah blah blah" at which point everyone will just ridicule said person for being something along the lines of a horrible monster or just not take them seriously.

This.

I acknowledge it's a terrible thing, just as much as many other unjust things that there are in this world, but there is nothing we can do about it. No matter how much we try, we'll never convince them to stop, because that kind of culture is as old as feudalism. And we know just how much culture is preserved and valued in the East. The UN can't intervene in a country's culture, religion, beliefs or anything of this sort... Doing so, they would disrupt the balance that stops the countries from killing each other just like on the middle age.

Still, I believe that's the only solution: Intervene and, if they feel mad, shoot them down. Of course, that will never happen, so we'll never get out of square one.

[Westbrick]

This.

I acknowledge it's a terrible thing, just as much as many other unjust things that there are in this world, but there is nothing we can do about it. No matter how much we try, we'll never convince them to stop, because that kind of culture is as old as feudalism. And we know just how much culture is preserved and valued in the East. The UN can't intervene in a country's culture, religion, beliefs or anything of this sort... Doing so, they would disrupt the balance that stops the countries from killing each other just like on the middle age.

Still, I believe that's the only solution: Intervene and, if they feel mad, shoot them down. Of course, that will never happen, so we'll never get out of square one.

I can't help but chuckle at the bolded part. The UN has no power whatsoever. And for an entity that "can't intervene in a country's culture, religion, beliefs, [etc.]," what exactly would you call this?

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/ga10569.doc.htm

http://www.undemocracy.com/S-RES-1740(2007).pdf

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/onumozM.htm

Just a handful of examples. They regulate culture all the time, usually in a less militaristic, more secular direction. So when it comes to honor killings, they're incompetent and powerless, not necessarily unwilling.

And there are small things we can do to fix the problem beyond carpet bombing. Example: stop the ridiculous discourse about "respecting all creeds and peoples." Some cultures should be abhorred.

[Polaris]

The sort of people who generally commit honour killings don't give a damn about the UN or what it thinks of them, I'd think. Most news reports I've read have them quite pleased about what they've done, because the family's honour has been protected. You can't use an interventionist policy here. A nation's sovereignty will always come first, and there's no way the US is going to attack, say, India, for political reasons. What you can do is raise awareness at the grassroots level. The UN can have the GA sign a resolution on the matter, but in the end it's not a binding contract. The UN is fairly toothless outside of the Security Council.

Speaking of honour killings in India (yes, I know, I'm very indo-centric), these are all from the last few weeks, if not days.

[Rapier]

I can't help but chuckle at the bolded part. The UN has no power whatsoever. And for an entity that "can't intervene in a country's culture, religion, beliefs, [etc.]," what exactly would you call this?

http://www.un.org/Ne...ga10569.doc.htm

http://www.undemocra...-1740(2007).pdf

http://www.un.org/en...ast/onumozM.htm

Just a handful of examples. They regulate culture all the time, usually in a less militaristic, more secular direction. So when it comes to honor killings, they're incompetent and powerless, not necessarily unwilling.

And there are small things we can do to fix the problem beyond carpet bombing. Example: stop the ridiculous discourse about "respecting all creeds and peoples." Some cultures should be abhorred.

They are incompetent about it because they know there will be rebellions if they go too far. So, it's a dilemma about choosing to do something and saying 'screw them we have power' or respecting their pathetic culture. It is a matter that can only be solved by violence and oppression.

[Sunwoo]

Westbrick, I think we'd all appreciate it if you came down from your high horse. Honor killings are deplorable things, yes, and no amount of culture should justify such behavior. But your method of trying to "solve the problem" reeks of arrogance. From what I'm getting in your posts, the U.S. and Western culture is boss and should be the one everyone defers to. Don't you realize that "you're wrong and I'm right" is the fastest way to gain enemies and the least progressive way of making progress? If you really want these cultures to change, you're going to have to change the status of women in these areas to begin with. Flat out telling them, "you're wrong" is going to make them hate us more, and that's definitely not going to get us anywhere. Maybe the problem isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. So what can we do? I don't know for sure, but isolating entire cultures and people really is not going to help.

[Polaris]

They are incompetent about it because they know there will be rebellions if they go too far. So, it's a dilemma about choosing to do something and saying 'screw them we have power' or respecting their pathetic culture. It is a matter that can only be solved by violence and oppression.

I hope that the bolded bit is sarcastic because excuse me what?

[Rapier]

I hope that the bolded bit is sarcastic because excuse me what?

That wasn't sarcastic, but I realize I dramatized quite a bit. What I mean is, will they comply if the UN tells them Honour Killings is wrong, and then go agaisnt their culture/creed/religion? They'll obviously protest. Of course, some will go agaisnt it, but the country itself will fight to preserve their culture. In the end, it will go down to a fight. And you know just how messy it is.

[Polaris]

So basically you want to stop a problem rooted in violence and oppression with...violence and oppression? Yes, I can see this working out well.

I don't think you realise that these killings are not sanctioned by the central government, or most of the populace, in most cases. If you ask the government to stop honour killings, they can set up laws and measures. They can increase police protection in danger areas. They can educate people. They cannot march up to houses and threaten people at gunpoint to stop killing off their kin. Honour killings aren't intrinsically part of a culture, unlike what you seem to believe. It's simply a twisted by-product thereof. The only long-lasting way that doesn't lead to resentment is to attack the problem from the roots, not a violent short-term fix.

[Rapier]

So basically you want to stop a problem rooted in violence and oppression with...violence and oppression? Yes, I can see this working out well.

I don't think you realise that these killings are not sanctioned by the central government, or most of the populace, in most cases. If you ask the government to stop honour killings, they can set up laws and measures. They can increase police protection in danger areas. They can educate people. They cannot march up to houses and threaten people at gunpoint to stop killing off their kin. Honour killings aren't intrinsically part of a culture, unlike what you seem to believe. It's simply a twisted by-product thereof. The only long-lasting way that doesn't lead to resentment is to attack the problem from the roots, not a violent short-term fix.

Violence and opression in case they react. If they don't, and if the government accepts the demands and makes a change, it's fine. Otherwise, we have to choose.

[eclipse]

This isn't a problem that can be fixed by force. It'll have to be something more peaceful and gradual. Re-educating the young ones might work, but even that's tricky.

[Polaris]

The only thing you'll achieve by using force is making a martyr out of them.

[Duff Ostrich]

Honor Killings are usually the first thing I bring up when arguing with a moral relativist. Rape and misogyny and murder are okay if your culture says it is.

EDIT: And it seems that the discussion has already explored that area, making my post unnecessary. Oh well.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Duff Ostrich

[Rapier]

Yes, it is possible to end this situation, but first we need the government to agree with the changes. Which is something they aren't too happy to comply. If they choose to keep things the way it is, the only option left will be to force them to accept it (by violence or not. But I think they'd pretty much react with violence). That's why the situation is so complicated.

[Westbrick]

They are incompetent about it because they know there will be rebellions if they go too far.

The UN is absolutely powerless. Why would anyone "rebel" against a powerless political entity? And what would they rebel against, exactly? It's not like there's a UN "home base"; just a few embassies scattered around the place, which are often attacked anyway.

Westbrick, I think we'd all appreciate it if you came down from your high horse. Honor killings are deplorable things, yes, and no amount of culture should justify such behavior. But your method of trying to "solve the problem" reeks of arrogance. From what I'm getting in your posts, the U.S. and Western culture is boss and should be the one everyone defers to. Don't you realize that "you're wrong and I'm right" is the fastest way to gain enemies and the least progressive way of making progress? If you really want these cultures to change, you're going to have to change the status of women in these areas to begin with. Flat out telling them, "you're wrong" is going to make them hate us more, and that's definitely not going to get us anywhere. Maybe the problem isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. So what can we do? I don't know for sure, but isolating entire cultures and people really is not going to help.

Let's break this down a little bit. First, there's a distinction between the ethical legitimacy of something, and the approach to fixing a violation of ethics. The bolded part above suggests that you agree with me about the absolute reprehensibility of honor killings, and about how "cultural tolerance" is not an acceptable stance to take. How we go about solving this problem, however, is an entirely different manner. I'm advocating that we take a hard-line stance in the Western world, but I'm more than open to alternative approaches (which you've yet to recommend, although the italicized portions tell me the hard-line stance isn't one you agree with). As for the underlined portion, no one, least of all myself, is saying that this problem is easy to solve; but it is easy to condemn, and I can't imagine you'd disagree with this.