« "Just Lowering My Risk Of Prostate Cancer, Heh Heh Heh..." | Main | Nah, There's No Need for Net Neutrality After All »

September 23, 2007

Comments

Incidentally, trying to help someone out by trying to explain to them how they may have misunderstood someone else -- for instance, trying to help someone who feels under attack what was meant by a comment that was critical, but clearly not understood, by trying to explain the meaning of the term to them, so they won't feel incomprehensibly attacked, as they apparently did, isn't actually remotely captious.

another meta-thread ? awesome!

Pick up yer asbestos suits over at TiO

I think hilzoy's theory about social limitations on honor channeling people's need for honor into obsessions with female sexuality is plausible on the surface, but ultimately fails.


My family immigrated from Egypt; we've been Copts (egyptian Christians) for as long as anyone can remember. Egypt has many of the same problems that Syria has: rampant corruption, dictatorial control of the state, etc. Nevertheless, my relatives in Egypt cannot conceive of honor killings; it is simply a non-sensical notion to them. They would view such an act as cold blooded murder.


That's not to say that they are western in their outlook: they do in general seem to care a great deal more about how the family appears to the rest of society than I or many other Americans do.


I think the roots of honor killing are more likely to be found in tribal values than corruption and tyranny per se.

Aimai: I'm interested in informed comments on any number of topics, but I see no reason to cede any time or energy to mere captiousness.

The habit some people have (yes, Jeff, looking at you) of taking on themselves the job of explaining to you what some other commenter Actually Meant, is at best pointless, and at worst annoying. But Jeff is often worthwhile in other ways.

The habit some people have (yes, Jeff, looking at you) of taking on themselves the job of explaining to you what some other commenter Actually Meant, is at best pointless, and at worst annoying.

Now this, my friends, is Irony, writ large. If I counted every instance of you telling me, let alone other commenters, what I Actually Meant -- not to get into what I Actually Think -- I'd need a roomful of Crays to calculate it.

Based on chunks of the above debate, perhaps we should consider using the term 'status killing'. In the Western conception, 'honor' is usually related to the behavior of a person or a group. Things that happen to you typically cannot affect your honor - but they can affect your status. For example being fired or dumped can push down your status, even if you didn't deserve it, but if you are blameless you would not normally be considered to be dishonored.

Combine an obsession with status, particularly with a concept of 'family status' as repeatedly mentioned above, some degree of belief that a woman is property and a disproportionate position of sex as a driver of personal status, and you get to the phenomenon we're discussing. As far as I can tell, once an individual's status slips below a certain bar (set very high for women) they become a net liability to the group and become liable to be killed. It's not just women - I have a male Israeli Arab acquaintance who has been marked down for elimination by his relatives for being openly homosexual (he's now left Israel). However, since the bar for women is set far higher, even involuntary loss of status can get you marked down

From TIO (But pertinent here, I think):
Just wish more people would take the meta outside (or the main pagers would DIRECT folks to take it here) before a thread completely derails

I'm very guilty of this and will endeavor to to avoid the meta. Apologies for derails in this and other threads.

Everytime I hear about men trying to impose their 'morality' upon my body, the bodies of women, I want to brandish a knife, or a gun since this the 21th century now, and scream; "My honour is my own!"

...and I'll be willing to fight to kill, to fight to die, to defend it from the garden variety rapists waiting in parking lots or for me to invite him up to coffee AND the dressier preachier morality mad men who also wish to rob me of myself.

- Georgia Lam

I don’t think it is grounded so much in treating women as property as it is in really warped ideas about purity or being unclean. Stealing or violating property accrues as a wrong by the thief or violator, not the property. Treating women as property in these situations would draw ire against an outside rapist (and would tend to allow rape by the ‘owners’ to be ignored). This dynamic is seen all over the world, but doesn’t seem to me to have much to do with honor killings.

Not all bad thoughts about women have to spring from the same source. Women-as-property seems like the source of many misogynist evils, but probably not this one. Honor killings seem like something that flows instead from a hyper-active idea that women and/or their bodies are dirty, impure, or corrupting. This concept generally plays out such that women have to be strictly controlled lest they corrupt men.

This helps explain why in honor killings related to rape, the rapist avoids the wrath that comes down on the woman—if women are naturally corrupting influences, the rapist isn’t considered to be as much at fault as the woman. This is especially true if the woman broke some trivial seeming (to us) rule that is supposed to protect men from the corrupting influence of women-behaving-improperly (think for example leaving the house without a male relative). The woman has proven that she is incapable of keeping herself pure, and thus cannot be trusted on a continuing basis . In older western societies, this might lead to the woman being cast out of her family and sent in exile to become a nun.

But even this isn’t sufficient to explain honor killings, because a purity concept of women is pretty common. You have to have an overdeveloped sense of female vileness plus something else. I suspect that something else is a culture where personal honor is almost completely suppressed in favor of family honor and where shame is much more important than guilt. For cultures with personal and family honor on equal footing (Italy perhaps) or where personal honor is weighted higher than family honor (US), a strong sense of female vileness or an overdeveloped sensitivity to female purity can be dealt with by physically removing the woman from contact with the family. Where family honor is strongly ascendant, physical location of the wrong is irrelevant. Knowledge of its existence is enough to generate shame. The ‘impurity’ attaches at a family level. The fact that the woman is impure makes the family impure. This can’t be fixed by punishing the rapist, it can only be fixed by making the woman not-a-part-of-the-family. The family must prove that by excising her. This may also explain why in many honor killings the youngest brother has to do it—the family shows its internal strength by having the youngest (weakest) male do the deed.

Property can be discarded, honor killing is about excising a ‘weak’ or ‘unclean’ part of yourself.

All of this is supposition meant to shed light and explain, not to excuse. All of the things I have talked about here represent incredibly wrong ways of ordering a culture and treating women—and should be resisted wherever they are found. (Just to be super-clear).

I think that's a pretty insightful analysis, Sebastian.

Sebastian,

I'll agree with Gary. Insightful, and hopefully not inciting.

How far back in Western culture does one need to go to find ample examples of women being treated more or less like property?

30 seconds ago? Domestic violence is common enough. No one is surprised when someone becomes enraged because "their" partner had sex with someone else. We're still debating whether women have the "right" to terminate their own pregnancies.

I don't understand why the concept is so hard to understand. People get very emotionally caught up in what their relatives do all the time: they're embarrassed that their child is gay, or that he didn't get into law school, or that he hit someone else on the playground. They get horribly angry at their spouses for embarrassing them at parties. Surely I'm not the only parent who has realized that I'm much harsher to her child if he acts up in public than I am at home--god forbid other people should think ill of me or my child!

I mean, *of course* I wouldn't kill him for shaming me. But I would grab his arm *hard* and hiss into his ear to stop embarrassing me right now! Social pressure is a powerful force, and fear of opprobium can be overwhelming. We're social animals, after all. We depend on the group for survival.

I think the question is whether we should denounce all forms of ownership or not (or if that is even possible or not). The child example is interesting, because societally, we have moved quite a bit on how much we are allowed to punish/restrict/etc our children. I certainly see this as a good thing overall, but that line is tough to draw.

"People get very emotionally caught up in what their relatives do all the time"

Absolutely correct point, of course.

"I think the question is whether we should denounce all forms of ownership or not"

Um, WTF? I'm sure this makes sense in your head, but it's quite a leap, outside it. Or at least inside mine.

Jes: If A does not want to end the relationship with B, it's not for her relatives to decide to "help" by ending it for her by beating up B.

See, this I agree with 100%. My disagreement was solely that the basis for this reaction sprang from regarding women as property, as that seemed to be the sole point of your original post.

Liberal Japonicus set up a TIO thread for metadiscussion, Anarch.

aimai: Your cyber-buddy Anarch then went on to compliment you and attack Jesurgislac. You got the cyber support (which you presumably didn't need) because your model of action was so "natural" and desirable that anarch thought anyone who challenged it in theory was some kind of solipsistic nut who lived only in his or her own head.

Wow. You missed the point of, well, everything I said. [Plus, Lurker and I "cyber-buddies"? AFAIK I've never interacted with the guy in my life.] If you're interested in a dialogue, please go back and read what I actually said; if you're more interested in righteous outrage at a straw man -- who's doubtless contemplating all straw women as mere objects to be possessed -- well, rock on, but you'll have to do so solo.

slightly_peeved: but it does mean that they did not believe their female relative should be able to decide who she should choose to have a sexual relationship with.

That's true insofar as it goes, but it seemed self-evident to me -- or at least, it seemed self-evident that this should be the default interpretation until proven wrong -- was that this fell under the rubric of "stopping people from making mistakes" and "inflicting retribution on those who've wrong a family member", not "controlling the destiny of women's sexuality" or god forbid "regarding all women as property", as Jes said above. And based on Lurker's subsequent comments, it appears as if this obvious interpretation were correct.

But the question is: did you respect their right to choose their relationships?

You mean, did I actively attempt to break it up? Of course not. OTOH, had I known for certain what she was going to do to him, I absolutely would have advised him to dump her ass before he got hurt -- though of course respecting his right to choose otherwise -- and I'd've been right to do so.

And incidentally, I did much the same thing when a female friend who was in an abusive relationship. I, and our mutual friends, told her to get the hell out of there, and had she asked we'd've come down on the f***er like a ton of bricks, but ultimately the choice was hers and she chose to stay with him. Thank god she finally chose to leave him.

If you "seriously pondered with some of my relatives beating up a man", then you didn't.

Not my quote; that belongs to Lurker, and I specifically disavowed the violent content of that sentiment. Although given my remark above I suppose that the violent content wasn't that far away... but again, it had nothing to do with regarding women as property, and everything to do with exacting retribution on someone who had wronged -- or, to be more pointed, continually beat the crap out of -- a friend.

Although I'm curious: to the audience at large, has no-one here contemplated intervening in an adult friend's life if you thought they were not only making a horrific mistake, but were somehow unable to process the enormity of that mistake? I'm thinking about someone who got so blinded by "love" -- real or imagined -- or (say) lust for narcotics or what have you? Because I'll freely admit I'm torn; while I fully respect the right of people to make mistakes, I'm never entirely sure what to do if I think they're not being rational agents. Anyone else, or am I alone on this one?

Jes: Liberal Japonicus set up a TIO thread for metadiscussion, Anarch.

That's fine, Jes, but this isn't metadiscussion: I'm directly responding to a post you made, which was the latest in a line of direct, on-topic posts. It's about as un-meta as it gets.

Well, sorry, Anarch, but I see your comment at 10:31 AM as metadiscussion, and would therefore prefer to respond to it at TIO, if you want to repeat it there, as it concerns specifically Lurker's language use and my reaction to it. Your comment at 10:53 AM is only partly meta, though.

Anarch: Although I'm curious: to the audience at large, has no-one here contemplated intervening in an adult friend's life if you thought they were not only making a horrific mistake, but were somehow unable to process the enormity of that mistake? I'm thinking about someone who got so blinded by "love" -- real or imagined -- or (say) lust for narcotics or what have you? Because I'll freely admit I'm torn; while I fully respect the right of people to make mistakes, I'm never entirely sure what to do if I think they're not being rational agents. Anyone else, or am I alone on this one?

Wanting to intervene and believing you have the right/obligation to intervene are two different things: as arguing your friend's actions out with your friend ("I don't think you should do this, and here's why") is a different thing from beating someone up because you want them to stop interacting with your friend in a way you find objectionable.

If I own a dog, I have the right and obligation to stop that dog from (a) getting into a fight with other dogs (b) roaming around getting pregnant/getting other dogs pregnant.

If you have a female relative, or a friend, who is living with a man who has no intention of marrying her, that's her business and his. You can argue with her, you can in the immortal words of Dan Savage urge her to DTMFA, you can even say "He's a user, you're a fool, change the subject."

But if you suggest that a good move would be to beat up this man until he either agrees to stop living with her or agrees to marry her, you are behaving as if the woman involved has no more independence of action or volition than your dog. Your property.

But if you suggest

That is, if you suggest to someone else - I suppose if you proposed it to the woman involved, as a suggestion to which she could say "Yes", "No", or "Are you crazy? I'm calling the police immediately and you should get out of our home NOW!" - that would be your problem.

But if you're discussing with other members of your family how it would be a good idea to beat up "your woman"'s hugglebunny because "He's keeping her as a mistress!" then you're treating her as if she were property.

Jes: but I see your comment at 10:31 AM as metadiscussion, and would therefore prefer to respond to it at TIO, if you want to repeat it there

Eh.

you are behaving as if the woman involved has no more independence of action or volition than your dog. Your property.

And yet, no. It could mean any of a number of other things, most obviously: that you think the man in question is taking advantage of her better -- or weaker -- nature. It's of a piece with wanting to beat up someone who ripped off a friend -- or to use another example close to home, someone who stole a friend's work: a desire to inflict retribution on someone who is taking advantage of another.

Perhaps another way of looking at it is that this isn't a denial of agency; rather, it's a recognition that sometimes people make seriously crappy choices, and there's a real impulse to correct their mistakes. You might be able to make some traction by arguing that this specific reaction to this specific situation is explicitly women-as-property-specific in a way that other, directly analogous situations are not, but you haven't: all you've done is to make categorical statements that symmetrize perfectly when you flip genders or specifics or what have you, while ignoring the larger context in which such issues can arise.

[And I'll just remark that I already noted that the specific impetus to violence is probably an explicitly gendered response; but that gendering has nothing to do with regarding women as property.]

To be clear, let me repeat that I'm not advocating such actions myself nor have I ever undertaken them. All I'm saying is that that impetus is in no way, shape or form necessarily born of regarding women as property. It certainly can be, of course, it's the necessity I'm disputing. I can, and have, proven this explicitly by noting that the reaction is independent of gender, and I've offered several illustrations from my life to back this up... and while this smacks of TLSMIE, I'll wager anything you'd like that others present have similar tales. You're free to disregard that evidence if you'd like, but don't expect me to give your position any credence if you do so.

[Also, the perhaps-necessary disclaimer: I grew up around really strong women, both physically and emotionally. I suppose this could just be a YMMV, though I rather doubt it.]

"your woman"'s hugglebunny because "He's keeping her as a mistress!" then you're treating her as if she were property.

Begging the question much?

most obviously: that you think the man in question is taking advantage of her better -- or weaker -- nature.

In which case, if you think she is an adult independent human being, your role as her friend is to explain to her what you think and why you think that, so that she has that information in order to make that decision.

If you consider her your property, your role is to act against the person mistreating your property, without, of course, consulting your property's wishes.

All I'm saying is that that impetus is in no way, shape or form necessarily born of regarding women as property.

You can keep repeating that as often as you like: it won't make it true. If you think it's your obligation to decide for a woman who she can and can't have a relationship with, you are behaving as if you thought she belonged to you. It does not matter what good intentions you've come up with: your role is to keep telling her to DTMFA, not to pre-emptively decide for her that it's time that MF got out of her life.

"Although I'm curious: to the audience at large, has no-one here contemplated intervening in an adult friend's life if you thought they were not only making a horrific mistake, but were somehow unable to process the enormity of that mistake? I'm thinking about someone who got so blinded by "love" -- real or imagined -- or (say) lust for narcotics or what have you? Because I'll freely admit I'm torn; while I fully respect the right of people to make mistakes, I'm never entirely sure what to do if I think they're not being rational agents. "

My general policy is to seriously tell them what I think, so they at least hear it out loud. Then, my theory is that people come to you when they are ready if they know what you think. Normally unless the issue is life threatening, I'm done until they bring it up again--and in my experience they always do. Sometimes if it is seriously impacting my life (if I can't stand the other person even socially) I will have to mention that along the lines of "I can't spend time with them" but I try not to go much further than that.

As for the women as property thing, as I said above I don't think it is deeply involved in the honor killing issue--and certainly not the root of the problem. Framing it as a "property issue" seems like Westernizing it or otherwise not taking the cultural differences seriously.

Anarch: Anyone else, or am I alone on this one?

You’re not alone, although I’d be much more hesitant to get involved where a friend was concerned vs. a family member.

In my case it was my sister who was used and psychologically abused by a complete creep for many years. My brother and I tried to convince her to leave him for years and we were more than willing, eager even, to rectify the situation. Feel free to read whatever you like into that statement – you won’t be far wrong.

She insisted that we stay out of it and so we did. We respected her wishes but it was a close thing more than once. She’s out of that situation now but thoughts of retribution still occur to us from time to time. She still won’t cut us loose though.

And no, the concept of “property” was not involved in any way. She was our sister, someone was hurting her, and for whatever reason she would not take herself out of the situation. Full stop – that’s all there was to it.

First off, what OCSteve said.

Jes: If you consider her your property, your role is to act against the person mistreating your property, without, of course, consulting your property's wishes.

Of course. Because there's absolutely no other possibility, including the ones I elucidated above. Verily, the dichotomy is absolute and none shall gainsay it.

[This, btw, is exactly what I meant by "damn near solipsism" above, aimai, in case you're still interested: the absolute, unswerving belief that people's motivations are precisely circumscribed by the limits of Jes' imagination, despite copious evidence to the contrary.]

If you think it's your obligation to decide for a woman who she can and can't have a relationship with, you are behaving as if you thought she belonged to you.

Have you paid any attention whatsoever to the other issues I've raised? Have you paid any attention whatsoever to the larger contexts at work? Have you, for that matter, paid any attention whatsoever to the examples I offered and the explanations I gave? My guess is that the answer is no, but I'm certainly willing to be persuaded otherwise.

If you think it's your obligation to decide for a woman who she can and can't have a relationship with, you are behaving as if you thought she belonged to you.

Bollocks. Absolute, complete bollocks. Ganz falsch. Etc.

You can keep repeating that as often as you like: it won't make it true.

You're pretty much the last person to be saying that, you know.

"If you think it's your obligation to decide for a woman who she can and can't have a relationship with, you are behaving as if you thought she belonged to you."

I had been going to try to resolve the conflict by asking if "property" was a term of art here - if it might include "being responsible for because of bonds of kinship or other relationships" - but I guess not.

In agreeing with Anarch above, I'm reminded of Cain's question, "Am I my brother's keeper*?". I don't know of any theoretical reason why the answer should be "Yes", and G*d doesn't directly respond in Genesis 4:10, but I feel that way, and I daresay most of us do.

* "Keep", according to Strong's Hebrew dictionary means "to guard, protect or attend to".

Re: 'mistress'

If he's stringing her along, promising her he'll marry her when he's only using her, then he's a jerk. You can offer to either beat the jerk up for her. if she so wills it, OR, as this is the 21st century, offer to be her alibi and let her do the her work.

Since birth control exist now though, along with /closer/ to equal pay, more women are into the fuckbuddies concept. There are men I'm attracted to, that I would love to be friends with benefit with, but wouldn't marry.

Consensual Fuckbuddyship = GOOD

- Georgia Lam

Um, WTF? I'm sure this makes sense in your head, but it's quite a leap, outside it. Or at least inside mine.

A busy evening here. To answer Gary's WTF, it seems to me that many forms of ownership are being considered as bad in some sense. We have ample examples here concerning women, bitchphd's point that she would 'grab his arm *hard* and hiss into his ear' betrays a concern that a pop upside the head, which I imagine was common 50 years ago, would be a bad thing. Does the name Michael Vick ring a bell? Nietzsche's embrace of the horse before his confinement to the asylum comes to mind as does Peter Singer's work.

I'd extend this to inanimate things as well. A century ago, it is easy to imagine some robber baron purchasing some historical site and gutting it, (Elgin marbles seems like a related example of that), but if someone came in and bought Winged Victory to turn it into paperweights for the discerning, we'd have a heart attack. Of course, we can't let go of the ownership metaphors, and suggest that some things are owned by all humanity, but looked at on a larger scale, ownership is a lot less potent than what it was before.

I didn't think that was such a big leap, especially since I thought it plugged into Sebastian's excellent point about ownership being Westernizing, but apologies if it were.

It's almost as if Dagny Taggart has seized control of Jesurgislac. Scary.

I'm thinking about someone who got so blinded by "love" -- real or imagined -- or (say) lust for narcotics or what have you? Because I'll freely admit I'm torn; while I fully respect the right of people to make mistakes, I'm never entirely sure what to do if I think they're not being rational agents. Anyone else, or am I alone on this one?

When my sister had a bad boyfriend and started on H. I really really really wanted to chain her to a chair in a confined room. Wich doesn't mean that she's my property, but just that I cared and didn't think she could do the necessary thing herself.

I was 16, so I couldn't do anything. Not even tell my mother because that would betray trust and I was afraid that it would make her loose all contact and thus her bridge with 'normal life'. So instead I came up with a complicated strategy to build up her selfesteem (coming to her with schoolproblems so she could be the wiser sister, things like that).

Fortunately we come from stubborn stock, so she kicked that habit herself three years later (after telling my mother). But those three years were hard and I would have gladly had her (and me) miss them.

When you try to protect someone you love that is not because you feel they are your property. The whole issue in the honor killings is that they kill the victim though, which means they don't do it to protect the victim. So it's another mechanism.

I do agree with Sebastian that we musn't 'westernize' the problem and that it might stem more from the fact that tribe/group/clan is more important than the individual. Which can be viewed as saying that *all* members are the property of the group/family/clan.

I do feel that there is a difference between the extend of individual choice allowed though. Men are often allowed more leeway, more individuality, than women - especially in the sexual area's. Though they can also be killed for being gay, that hardly ever happends by the family. Which makes Jes' claim that part of it has to do with ownership more true imho. If you can sell a person (which is what can happen in arranged marriages) you have ownership, don't you? I read the other day about a marriage place where you weren't allowed to have the father take the bride to the altar because it symbolizes him giving responsiblity/ownership for the woman to the husband...


Dutch, and you opinion of Cruyff being sold to Barcelona in 73 was...

(sorry, my current football knowledge is pretty weak, preventing a more current example ;^))

You mean I'm rambling?

Cruyff is in the Netherlands usually indicated by his initials, JC. 'nuff said ;)

We reserve "JC" for "Jimmy Carter".

There's another "JC" abbreviation there, rilke...

There's another "JC" abbreviation there, rilke...

Yeah! How quick we forget, simply because he's now dead.

I mean, he wore the black for the poor and the beaten down, livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town (etc).

Joanne Crawford? Jose Canseco?

Jiminy Cricket?

Jose Cuervo?

John Cole?

apropos:

"Because you're mine
I walk the line"

The whole business about groups being more important than individuals is a red herring in this particular issue. Groups are made up of individuals and so we have to ask ourselves, how could it possibly benefit a family to kill one of its own members?

Answer: because that member is harming the other members, somehow. Zahra was harming her family's reputation by existing as a rape victim. Which brings us back to the real issue: perceptions of rape victims and of women's sexuality. Individualism is not the issue here.

Zahra was harming her family's reputation by existing as a rape victim.

I'm with Sebastian in that it's clear that they perceive rape victims as harmful to more than just the family's reputation. There's a real issue with some kind of honor, or even blood purity, at work here, and one I don't fully understand; but it's a kind of worldview I find comprehensible, albeit at a far remove, if vile.

As Western observers, we latch on to the idea of reputation as an explanation because it is one of the few things that looks kind of close and still as a valence for us. But analyzing it under those terms can lead us astray. Familial reputation is a concern almost everywhere in the world. Murderous rage against a rapist (with caveats about marital rape--which I agree is linked much more closely to ideas of property than honor killings) is far more common than honor killings of a rape victim.

This suggests to me that something else is going on and that treating it as an extreme case of reputation isn't really getting at the issue.

I'm not nearly as convinced that my explanation is the right one as I am convinced that focusing on reputation as Westerners understand it will tend to obscure the issue.

Yes, I agree that "reputation" was a careless word. I wanted to convey not only the family's status in the eyes of others but its status in its own eyes, its self-image and prestige. I think that's what it's about. It's about honor, but not "honor" as in "honesty" or other such virtues. Rather, it's about "honor" as in "self-respect."

Murderous rage against a rapist (with caveats about marital rape--which I agree is linked much more closely to ideas of property than honor killings) is far more common than honor killings of a rape victim.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily point to different concerns or different views on what sort of insult or injury rape is. It could just point to differing levels of misogyny.

Rilkefan, sometimes, albeit not often, there are blood feuds over these killings. But, when the state essentially approves of these killings by passing laws that offer leniency to the killers, the message is fairly clear: it is OK to kill for this reason. Anderson and Tom Scudder also make valid points about this.

Liberal Japonicus, your understanding is correct. One way or another, women are often part of the problem with "honor" killings (and I am not referring here to the victims). For this reason, I don't consider "honor" killings to be strictly a gender issue, although women do comprise the majority of the victims. I consider them to be a family and a social issue. . .there is an entire family/social dynamic going on. Sometimes a daughter confides a first crush to her mother, and the mother reports it to the men in the family, which kicks off the series of events that results in her murder. Sometimes a girl/woman is killed on the flimsy basis of gossip conjured and perpetrated by women. Sometimes the women in the family aid and abet or participate in the cover up of the death after it has occurred. There are all sorts of scenarios but, suffice it to say, this isn't always strictly a crime perpetrated solely by males against females.

Sebastian is closer, I think. The concept of being a "man" is also important. A man can lose face if he is seen by other men to be unable to control his women, or to be ruled by his wife, even if their relationship is a warm one of equals. When an Iraqi man killed his daughter he was at the police station only 2 hours, and the police kept telling him he was a man. As he was killing her, her two brothers came in and the mother thought they would stop the father. Instead they helped him.

It is common for underdogs to collaborate with their masters. A person placed in an abusive situation can invest so much of themselves trying to adapt to that life, that they feel threatened when change comes.
Some women think their daughters should expect the same life they have had. For the daughter to want more reminds the woman of the life she has had. To be a "good" woman ensures the woman she will be fed, clothed and housed and have some small power within the house.

This is similar to people in underprivileged communities resenting their members who want education, or who have success, as "getting above themselves." The collaborators always maintain the status quo even if they are on the bottom. Fear and self-preservation.

Any female who is seen to be in sympathy is also guilty, and can be beaten and murdered. Frequently the mother is blamed for "how she raised" the girl, or for passing on bad genes. If she does not side with the males her life and security are threatened, because the males who run her own family often do not welcome her back. And the females do not have the definitive say over such issues.

Because the female is in validated second class status, the "love" that is given her tends to be conditional. The brother, even if he is younger, may have been waited upon by his sister, and can order her around, and even abuse her, and that is normal. So females are the scapegoat for every male's bad day - he almost always has a female to kick around. Some of the early sibling bonds stay, other times they are totally supplanted by the male survival bonds of belonging to the dominant male group, and the boy merges with them.

The lower status of the female is always there subconsciously - even when there is love, if hard choices have to be made she is the one to get the short end. Of course she usually also believes she has less worth, and is expendable, so she might volunteer, or be set up by jealousy, male or female, not uncommon. Reminds me of the Nazi experiment when they put a man and his wife (?) into a room and said only one must come out alive, and mostly the women died.

Because female pain, suffering and misery are around, endured, usually forced silence on the matter, it is easy to not have empathy with a girl or woman who will rock the boat willingly or by being victimized, therefore now different. I have seen these
family situations where the bonds of living go on, with laughter and jokes within bounds, but the instant there is a crisis the lines get pretty clearly drawn, the men demand female capitulation and they make the decisions. Women might say their piece, but it will not make a difference and they can be blamed and/or punished for their stand later.

Killing the women of strong personality and intelligence who make a stand loses the society all her genes which we might think are good, for her potential girl and boy children, but which they this are bad. The intelligent woman who uses her intelligence to survive might not make any contribution to the society except having her genes survive. Maybe they are breeding themselves into a dumbed down society because of their
ignorance about women's contribution, and potential.

Even if females participate, they do so to enforce an entire system of male privilege and not as independent actors. I think how alone those young girls must be, especially when betrayed by a trusted female, but when it is found out a girl had help those females are in a lot of trouble. Even a loved father can become a murdering stranger, so that kind of family love is uncertain.

I think it is true too, from what I have seen, that the men focus on females too much to build up their self identity as males. They are always checking them out, herding them, monitoring them, judging them, demanding something from them in terms of service, silence, applause etc. They rely on mothers in law or other women to spy in the family.



The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad