Study: Honor killings condoned by third of teens in Amman, Jordan

0

Almost half of boys and one in five girls in Jordan's capital city, Amman, believe that killing a woman who has "dishonored," or shamed, her family is justifiable, a study of teenagers' attitudes published Thursday revealed.


A third of all teenagers involved in the study by researchers at Britain's Cambridge University advocated so-called honor murders.

A key finding was that support for honor crimes was not connected to religious beliefs, but is far more likely in adolescent boys with low education backgrounds from traditional families.

Professor Manuel Eisner and Cambridge graduate student Lana Ghuneim interviewed more than 850 teenagers, with an average age of 15, for the study, published in the journal Aggressive Behavior.

Honor crimes can include physical assaults, rape, acid attacks and disfigurement, as well as murder.

Written By: Laura Smith-Spark
continue to source article at edition.cnn.com

NO COMMENTS

    • In reply to Laura Smith-Spark:

      A key finding was that support for honor crimes was not connected to religious beliefs, but is far more likely in adolescent boys with low education backgrounds from traditional families.

      This sentence would only makes sense if the word “traditional” meant something different than the word “religious.” In the context of this article, I can’t see how it does.

      • In reply to #18 by IDLERACER:

        In reply to Laura Smith-Spark:

        A key finding was that support for honor crimes was not connected to religious beliefs, but is far more likely in adolescent boys with low education backgrounds from traditional families.

        This sentence would only makes sense if the word “traditional” meant something…

        The point seems to be that honor killings belong to the tribal culture that predated Islam and was largely presupposed by this new religion. As a matter of historical fact, it seems now that such a practice has persisted to the present day in Muslim regions, thanks to the effect Islam has had of preserving ancient tribal views and values. So it may seem to Westerners that, in this context, ‘traditional’ and ‘religious’ have the same referent, but the article seems to suggest that Muslims in such countries as Jordan, where that ancient tribal culture has been continuously present, people relate judgements concerning family honor not to the Koran or Islamic teaching but to their cultural traditions.

        • In reply to #30 by Cairsley:

          On co-opting existing mores and values…

          The fact is that islam (like ultra-orthodox judaism) is an ideology with ‘rules’ intended to control every aspect of life and society, from the minutiae of religious observance, through banking and slavery, to what hand one can wipe one’s arse with. In muslim societies — as to a much lesser extent in christian ones at an earlier stage of European history — religious law theoretically takes priority over local laws and customs. Islam has had between five and fourteen centuries to stamp out “traditional customs” in muslim countries, if they were contrary to the Qu’ran — or if it really wanted to. The fact that many of these customs still exist implies that the bearded bricks-with-dangly-bits who make the decisions find them useful.

          How is tribalism useful? Well, it’s a great deal less work for the ruling classes if these extended families and tribal groups are willing to police themselves. Cheaper too – and even more so, if the rulers can be assured that the ‘tribes’ will take care of their own health, education and social welfare. This gives the ruled a warm glow because they feel that “they’re doing things for themselves” and the rulers an even warmer glow when they can use the money they’ve saved to buy themselves more palaces or private jets – all for the service of their invisible friend, of course.

        • In reply to #30 by Cairsley:

          Trying again…

          On co-opting existing mores and values…

          The fact is that islam (like ultra-orthodox judaism) is an ideology with ‘rules’ intended to control every aspect of life and society, from the minutiae of religious observance, through banking and slavery, to what hand one can wipe one’s bottom with. In muslim societies — as to a much lesser extent in christian ones at an earlier stage of European history — religious law theoretically takes priority over local laws and customs. Islam has had between five and fourteen centuries to stamp out “traditional customs” in muslim countries, if they were contrary to the Qu’ran — or if it really wanted to. The fact that many of these customs still exist implies that the men who make the decisions find them useful.

          How is tribalism useful? Well, it’s a great deal less work for the ruling classes if these extended families and tribal groups are willing to police themselves. Cheaper too – and even more so, if the rulers can be assured that the ‘tribes’ will take care of their own health, education and social welfare. This gives the ruled a warm glow because they feel that “they’re doing things for themselves” and the rulers an even warmer glow when they can use the money they’ve saved to buy themselves more palaces or private jets – all for the pious service of their invisible friend, of course

  1. I know I am talking off the top of my head here,but are you kidding me?Where did this hatred of women come from?The so called holy books are always fulminating against women.The ‘adolescent boys with low education backgrounds from traditional families’ may very well have picked up these attitudes from people who are religious.

    • In reply to #2 by Christiana Magdalene Moodley:

      I know I am talking off the top of my head here,but are you kidding me?Where did this hatred of women come from?

      How did it originate in religion? My guess is that something already existed that was later codified in a holy text. Religion didn’t create a desire to control women.

      • You are right,of course.Religion came along later.And to our deep sorrow is still with us causing murder and mayhem.In reply to #3 by Kim Probable:

        In reply to #2 by Christiana Magdalene Moodley:

        I know I am talking off the top of my head here,but are you kidding me?Where did this hatred of women come from?

        How did it originate in religion? My guess is that something already existed that was later codified in a holy text. Religion didn’t crea…

      • In reply to #3 by Kim Probable:

        In reply to #2 by Christiana Magdalene Moodley:

        I know I am talking off the top of my head here,but are you kidding me?Where did this hatred of women come from?

        How did it originate in religion? My guess is that something already existed that was later codified in a holy text. Religion didn’t crea…

        No, but it sure facilitates it!

    • So this is the muslim majority ?

      In reply to #2 by Christiana Magdalene Moodley:

      I know I am talking off the top of my head here,but are you kidding me?Where did this hatred of women come from?The so called holy books are always fulminating against women.The ‘adolescent boys with low education backgrounds from traditional families’ may very well have picked up these attitudes from …

      (Off the top of my head) from the ‘need’ to know that they are better than some other people, preferably by divine right. Even in the case of the 1 in 5 women, that 1 ‘needs’ to know that she is better than the other four.

  2. A key finding was that support for honor crimes was not connected to religious beliefs, but is far more likely in adolescent boys with low education backgrounds from traditional families.

    The connection seems pretty clear to me.

    “Any meaningful attempt to reduce attitudes in support of such practices requires a broader societal commitment, including coherent messages against honor-related violence from political and religious elites, and decisive action by the criminal justice system.”

    Thought that “support for honor crimes was not connected to religious beliefs”.

    How many atheists support honour killing?

    • and I wonder how many in Jordan would identify as atheist. That in mind how is it possible to conclude it was ‘not connected to religious belief.’ Perhaps we should be filing some of these studies under ‘pseudoscience’.
      In reply to #5 by Peter Grant:

      A key finding was that support for honor crimes was not connected to religious beliefs, but is far more likely in adolescent boys with low education backgrounds from traditional families.

      The connection seems pretty clear to me.

      “Any meaningful attempt to reduce attitudes in support of such practi…

    • In reply to #7 by jel:

      What happens to men that dishonour the family?

      I think this is a very interesting question. I’ve seen this play out during the time I lived in N. Africa with my in-laws there. Behavior of men in that society is also monitored by the family and reflects on the family and tribe. When I say family, I mean extended family. It doesn’t make sense to talk about behavior in that society while viewing it through the American nuclear family model.

      The guys there are constantly surrounded by their other closely related male family members. They make decisions together and argue things out when they need to. Matriarchs don’t hesitate to weigh in as well. When a guy is out of line and gets himself into trouble either outside the family or with someone inside the family or tribe, the males who are closely related to him move quickly to solve the problem and stop the dispute from escalating. It’s in no one’s best interest for these problems to blow up because, like with the behavior of females, bad behavior of males directly reflects on the whole extended family. Other families/tribes make important judgements of them based on honor and status. Someone who behaves badly could potentially stain the honor of the entire extended family/tribe. The immediate effect will be that other families will become wary of interacting with them, and especially will not want their young people to marry into that family. A young male in a family who has managed to get himself a reputation as a hot head, violent, lies, cheats, sexually inappropriate, or afflicted with any other character flaw (or physical flaw) is a nightmare for the family in general and a source of exasperation and worry for the family matriarchs who carry the weight of finding and arranging marriages for the young people in their domain. A guy who manages to get himself a bad reputation will not make a good marriage and all the women in his own family will now have to live in close contact with his wife who they will judge to be a thorn in their side and they will make this opinion known to him in a direct way.

      Because the honor and reputation of the family is of supreme importance in this society, this is why adult males of the family take immediate and direct action to control behavior of those who are subordinate to them (males and females). They make their judgements known verbally and physically when disputes ramp up to that level. These disputes blow up very quickly and it’s frightening for females in the immediate vicinity. The matriarch(s) may stay and yell for a bit but in general the females scatter to other rooms or to a safe distance especially if the situation threatens to escalate into physical violence. They show signs of emotional upset at these events.

      Disputes within an extended family are bad enough but when a male causes trouble with someone from a different family/tribe then that really ramps up the problem to a whole higher level. Bad actions of one person can set off a whole series of vengeance pay backs that could be directed against any member of the two families. If it’s decided that there was actual sexual behavior, consensual or not, then that is a matter that will come to the attention of the dominent male(s) and females in both families. These situations are always ominous and this is where honor killing of the female by her own male relatives becomes a real possibility. But that male who was involved in the sexual behavior will suffer social consequences too. Granted, they are much less severe than what the female will suffer. His close male relatives will immediately launch into a damage control response, described above, with shouting threats and insults and no doubt he will suffer a beating. At that point, every member of his family needs to be extravigilant against vengeance attacks from the family of female that he violated. His bad actions have put them all in danger. His female relatives are in danger of being groped or raped by the male relatives of the violated female and his male relatives will be the object of all manner of hostility and violence from her family as well. This is why the guys of all status levels in these families make it their business to monitor behavior of their close male relatives. They have the potential to destroy the reputation of their whole family and to drag their close male relatives into physical violence. I’m not a male myself, but I have to think that guys weigh the benefits vs risks of being dragged into an altercation where they could suffer serious injury or death over the stupid bad behavior of their own brother or cousin.

      In light of this explanation, imagine the very strange situation that we have when my culturally American son and nephews (in their early 20′s) visit their family in Algeria. When they show up there, they can never be allowed to wander freely outside on the streets and if they visit any other family they must always be surrounded by a group of their cousins and young uncles who watch their every move. Even though we warn them to never make eye contact or Allah forbid! make physical contact with any female at all, their cousins know that they can’t be trusted to remember this. As much as the Algerian cousins love and welcome their American cousins, they also represent a direct threat to their own reputation and physical safety.

      I hope this serves to provide some cultural context for the results of the survey in the article above.

      • In reply to #13 by LaurieB:

        In reply to #7 by jel:

        What happens to men that dishonour the family?

        I think this is a very interesting question. I’ve seen this play out during the time I lived in N. Africa with my in-laws there. Behavior of men in that society is also monitored by the family and reflects on the family and tri…

        Thank you,Laurie, that was a really interesting post and has given me much to think about, above and beyond my normal knee-jerk reaction to such news articles.

        Anvil.

      • In reply to #13 by LaurieB:

        In reply to #7 by jel:

        What happens to men that dishonour the family?

        My thanks as well to your perspective, yet I still need to ask three questions, Do these tribes/extended families care what the rest of the world thinks? Do you think that is fair treatment between men and women? & (Presuming it is not,) what should be done in such a cultural attitude?

        • *In reply to #21 by old-toy-boy:

          Do these tribes/extended families care what the rest of the world thinks?

          Nope. Western news now reaches the cities and towns in North Africa and Middle East. The internet is having an amazing result with bringing new ideas to young people in the region, and Aljazeera communicates ideas and news to Arabic speakers. Mind you, it’s necessary to have access to a satellite dish for access to European TV channels, also one needs an internet connection in the house, possession of a computer, or access to an internet cafe if one wants exposure to internet and all the revolutionary info on it. So anyone who doesn’t have access to all of this either for lack of financial means or because they are not allowed to leave the house or they live in a rural location, would probably live in a state of ignorance.

          Sometimes even if they know about the way women in the West live, they put a very negative spin on us here. If I only had a dime for every time a Muslim told me with a pleasant matter of fact tone that American women are a bunch of whores. Seriously, right to my face! And that European women are ignorant of common sense modesty – just look how they stroll around naked in public. sigh. On social issues such as women’s rights, children’s rights, animal rights, gay rights, etc., I have never made one bit of headway in any discussions and I’m not very optimistic about the region in general right now.

          Remember that the Koran issues warnings to the good Muslim to be vigilant against the Kaffir who will use any means to undermine Islam. This puts me at serious disadvantage in any argument with them. That is why I often give recommendation that social changes need to come from within the culture. They need to put their own house in order through reflection and self criticism.

          oh, and of course I don’t think any of this is ok. I’m an American, feminist, atheist who came of age in the 70′s. You get the picture. ;-)

          • In reply to #24 by LaurieB:

            American women are a bunch of whores … and European women are ignorant of common sense modesty

            Interesting subtle distinction there. Any idea what might have inspired this, apart from America being farther away?

          • In reply to #25 by OHooligan:

            In reply to #24 by LaurieB:

            American women are a bunch of whores … and European women are ignorant of common sense modesty

            Interesting subtle distinction there. Any idea what might have inspired this, apart from America being farther away?

            That’s an interesting point, the distinction. Now I’m wondering if there is a difference in their perception of American women vs European women. I’ll need to do some investigation. Maybe there isn’t any distinction at all. I’m thinking about what factors might come into this.

            1. Population of N. Africa and M. East might have more exposure to European women due to proximity and colonialism.
            2. Popular entertainment from Hollywood provides information about Americans and their social/sexual habits.

            Middle aged and elderly N. Africans grew up under French colonialism and had plenty of opportunity to make observations of French women and come to certain conclusions. It’s pretty rare to hear anything good about the French in general in this part of the world. No surprise. So when the subject of French women comes up we hear all about their immodest clothing, clouds of perfume to disguise their lack of bathing and their scandalous nude beaches where Frenchies of all ages, sizes and even families all together just hang out literally in a state of absolute nudity! These statements can’t be appreciated without the facial expressions that accompany them and the sputtering and gesticulating as well. haha! I’m chuckling as I type. But I should add, just to be fair, that the same reaction to French public nudity would be very common here in America. Americans that have been to Paris report being appalled by the “inappropriate” statues of nude women that are in full view to everyone, even innocent children! “You can’t even turn around without seeing another one!”

            Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt have substantial tourist industry and this has offered the opportunity for observation of what Western women are like. This might result in negative descriptions of us such as, rich, spoiled, mean, immodest, slutty, disrespectful to men, aggressive, etc. Algeria is much more closed to outsiders and has no significant tourist economy and except for the colonial period, there hasn’t been much opportunity for the population to encounter foreign women, get to know them and then make a more complete assessment of what we are like.

            The opinions I hear about American women might be coming from Hollywood movie productions, music and maybe they already hold opinions of European women as I just discussed and for lack of any real life observations, they might be extrapolating to fill in the blanks. When Western women are described in sexually negative terms, it is indicative of their horror over our ownership of our own bodies and the degree to which we act as independent agents in the management of our own sexuality. This idea is a nonstarter in that part of the world.

          • In reply to #24 by LaurieB:

            *In reply to #21 by old-toy-boy:

            Do these tribes/extended families care what the rest of the world thinks?

            Nope. Western news now reaches the cities and towns in North Africa and Middle East. The internet is having an amazing result with bringing new ideas to young people in the region, and Aljaze…

            Laurie…what a great and pleasant change from the usual trite, sneering, dismissive commments that appear all-too-often on this site.

          • In reply to #24 by LaurieB:

            “Remember that the Koran issues warnings to the good Muslim to be vigilant against the Kaffir who will use any means to undermine Islam. “

            Very like similar admonitions in the christian bible.

            It’s interesting how this attitude, unintelligible to secularists, is so precious to those with invisible friends.

          • In reply to #40 by Sally:

            Very like similar admonitions in the christian bible.

            It’s interesting how this attitude, unintelligible to secularists, is so precious to those with invisible friends.

            Yes, the Bible is the same. One would think that if the information in any book was so astounding and wonderful all by itself then why would that book need to contain threats and warnings against readers that disagree with it? Why do people put up with these threats in the first place? If I was in conversation with someone who was standing next to me and this person explained an idea or concept at length and then went on to deliver threats against me that would take effect in the event of my disagreement, I would make a quick exit with the realization that I was in the presence of a psychologically unbalanced person!

      • In reply to #13 by LaurieB:

        In reply to #7 by jel:

        What happens to men that dishonour the family?

        I think this is a very interesting question. I’ve seen this play out during the time I lived in N. Africa with my in-laws there. Behavior of men in that society is also monitored by the family and reflects on the family and tri…

        This does offer some interesting commentary on the way things work in Muslim societies, but the trouble is that I can’t get out of my head whilst I’m reading most of the post that I’m reading about some very primitive lower species. Like humans – before we developed this thing called civilization.

        Why should someone’s wider family be blamed for their behaviour? I don’t think I’ll ever be able to respect this frankly idiotic societal norm. I’m a strong believer in individual liberty, and they are not. In fact, the blaming of a family for the actions of one seems to suggest a deeper belief that people’s behaviour is dictated by genetics – if one family member acts badly, they’re all bad. This is generally not true and nearly everyone has the capability to be good or evil. That’s why the “family honour” thing is so fucking stupid.

        • In reply to #31 by jez:

          I’m reading about some very primitive lower species. Like humans – before we developed this thing called civilization.

          I understand your feelings of frustration. Is there anyone at all who hasn’t been slammed with exasperation when they are in a different country and forced to confront ideas and situations that are different from what they know at home? This is why travel is so educational. I’m talking here about going to places where the culture is completely different than the one that someone grew up in and not just plopping down on a beach somewhere and getting waited on hand and foot. It’s all well and good but it’s not intellectually challenging.

          Have you done any traveling like this? Or if not, do you have any friends where you are that are immigrants? I find that people who don’t travel, don’t interact with immigrants in friendly relationships with a spirit of inquiry, and who have never taken classes in the Anthropology dept, usually have difficulty in grappling with issues like the one we’re discussing here. I’m not saying that everyone from the West needs to live in the third world for a while to understand basic background cultural material, but that we could all do more to improve interactions by trying to understand where their views and attitudes come from. Not saying you have to agree with everything. I’m sure I don’t agree with a multitude of cultural issues and I have the right to say so and I do exactly that.

          I don’t know where you’re from, but here in the States, I find that our immigrants are happy to talk about “the old country” and how much they miss this and that and also they talk about what they definitely don’t miss. Ask questions about what it was like to grow up there and what prompted them to leave and what difficulties did they face in the transition to a new and different culture. They may be guarded at first but after some time if they come to trust your ability to be fair and reasonable, they will lower their guard and speak more freely about cultural issues that are causing problems between all of us.

          I will also admit that on numerous occasions while traveling and living in Europe that I may have tossed the word “primitive” around a few times in frustration over certain ways of doing things there that are different from the way things are done in America. I feel bad about it after the fact though. If shops in France want or need to close for several hours right in the middle of the day resulting in my total inconvenience then who am I to say?? If the Picasso museum makes me stand in a line to get in the line to buy a ticket to get me into the line to give my ticket so I can get in the line to go in the door…who am I to say anything, right? That Brits would make toast in an oven rather than buy a nice little cute toaster was something I definitely said the word “primitive” about. What’s not helpful in these situations is like when the American guy who was behind me in one of those lines at the Picasso museum started shouting in a very loud southern accent (he had a cowboy hat on) that if only the Americans were in charge of this museum then everything would be super efficient and run like clockwork. See what I mean? These things just don’t reflect well on us at all.

          I should also say here that in my travels and conversations with immigrants here in the States, it has been pointed out to me on numerous occasions that America is far from perfect and is struggling with a multitude of injustices and ethical violations on a grand scale both within the country and in our international relations. It’s important to concede these points immediately (I do!) with no excuse making or waffling as this will block any kind of sincere response when one’s interlocutor is presented with criticisms of their culture and traditions. If you ever get the chance to talk to any of these so called “primitive lower species” you can expect to be confronted on some of our own less than ideal situations here such as: tossing our old folks into nursing homes, letting babies sleep in separate rooms from their parents and letting the babies “cry it out” when they wake in the night, sheltering children from the realities of life like birth, death, anger, etc. This is just the family related collection of criticisms. The consequences of the American historical geopolitical meddling is a very much more difficult conversation to have.

          I just remembered a very good book on this very subject which is The World Until Yesterday, What Can We Learn from Traditional Societies? by Jared Diamond. I really love his books and his anecdotes about his interactions with the New Guineans crack me up, probably because I’ve had similar situations during my time in traditional societies and can relate to his challenges. Humor is a good thing here because sometimes when in a state of exasperation I think to myself – if I wasn’t laughing I’d be crying.

          BTW, the word “primitive” is considered to be insulting now-a-days and I’m told that the word “traditional” is now p.c. “lower species” is also problematic as well.

          • You sound like you’re equating not accepting the murdering female family members for choosing who they will date with crinkling your nose up the thought of eating escargo.

            Not accepting murder and the complete dominance of women by a misogynistic society is not ethnocentric, it’s ethics.

            In reply to #32 by LaurieB:

            In reply to #31 by jez:

            I’m reading about some very primitive lower species. Like humans – before we developed this thing called civilization.

            I understand your feelings of frustration. Is there anyone at all who hasn’t been slammed with exasperation when they are in a different country and forced…

          • In reply to #33 by JohnnyRelentless:

            You sound like you’re equating not accepting the murdering female family members for choosing who they will date with crinkling your nose up the thought of eating escargo.

            Well, I’m most certainly not equating those two. Did I ever say anywhere that forced marriage, FGM, and anything the Bible or Koran says about the treatment of women was ok and should be judged by however it was done way back when? Good luck finding any relativistic leanings in my comments. That line of thinking never fails to piss me off. Escargot is a very repulsive foodstuff but I’d happily eat ten tons of the slimy critters if it would save even one innocent girl from the FGM horror show. Are we clear on that?

            Not accepting murder and the complete dominance of women by a misogynistic society is not ethnocentric, it’s ethics.

            Yes and thank goodness for our wonderful pragmatic Ethicists and Philosophers. They break down and explain these issues in simple terms so that anyone could make a more informed viewpoint. Their writings have fantastic power to make progressive changes if only certain other cultures could be exposed to them. I left the Methodist church as a teen and when I look back on my 20′s I think it’s very obvious that I had no decent system in place to decide what was right & wrong, good & bad, valuable and not valuable at all. When religion claims the moral high ground but then force feeds us the crappy ten commandments and original sin and the virgin/whore dichotomy we are all left hanging onto a sinking ship. Feminism did serve to fill in some of those blanks I had and still does advise me on women’s issues that I comment on here, but it wasn’t until I discovered writings by Grayling, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, and of course Richard’s stuff that I truly felt the wind behind my back. I think of it as a stupid archaic version of software was installed in my brain as a child and now it’s taken me my whole adult life to delete it as much as is possible and install newer better software all around it. Not a perfect picture but better than many others are dealing with.

            A few months ago I did just have a very interesting conversation with a few Algerian intellectuals about the total lack of support that their system gives to their own Philosopher/Ethicists. It was acknowledged that since those secular Ethicists have no protection to publish controversial ideas then of course Islam steps in with bells on to fill the large vacuum. sad. They’re perfectly capable of doing the work.

          • In reply to #35 by LaurieB:

            In reply to #33 by JohnnyRelentless:

            Good luck finding any relativistic leanings in my comments. That line of thinking never fails to piss me off. Escargot is a very repulsive foodstuff but I’d happily eat ten tons of the slimy critters if it would save even one innocent girl from the FGM horror show. Are we clear on that?

            What we’re not clear on is why if girls are subjected to it they are innocent, it’s a horror show and you’re prepared to intervene, when boys are subjected to it, it’s…hold on a minute let me just reread what you wrote about that….oh, wait, I don’t seem to find any mention of it.

            To have your claims of being free from “relativistic leanings” ring less hollow you might want to consider using the term GM or F/MGM instead of FGM. This would at least create the impression of being free from gender and cultural bias.

          • In reply to #42 by godsbuster:

            Did you read through this other thread that is still active?

            http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/6/17/fighting-female-genital-mutilation-in-africa

            If not you can start at comment number 40 where we all made strong statements about GM, including MGM.

            consider using the term GM or F/MGM instead of FGM. This would at least create the impression of being free from gender and cultural bias.

            So, let’s see if I understand your advice here. Are you telling me to lump both FGM and MGM into one term that is GM? That’s how I read your comment but I must be wrong about that because I can’t see how that would be useful in discussion. They are not equal and sometimes we have to talk about each one separately. Am I wrong?

          • In reply to #43 by LaurieB:

            They are not equal and sometimes we have to talk about each one separately. Am I wrong?

            Hell no!

          • In reply to #42 by godsbuster:
            ok I just checked back on that other thread and see that you were over there too. Let’s only talk about GM over there, ok? I’m getting bogged down with trying to talk about the same subject with the same person on two different threads. Sorry for confusion.

  3. Why don’t we accept, and proclaim very loudly, that “Honour Killings” might be an artifact of primitive tribal systems but they are completely unacceptable to any civilised society.

    Very, VERY loudly!

  4. “A key finding was that support for honor crimes was not connected to religious beliefs, but is far more likely in adolescent boys with low education backgrounds from traditional families.”

    there is aowrd missing there between tranditional and families. Muslim. who do they think they are kidding?

    • In reply to #20 by Fouad Boussetta:

      Where is Katy Cordeth so she can comment on this?

      Please do not extrapolate what 33% of ‘adolescent boys with low education backgrounds’ in Amman, Jordan think, to the whole Muslim world. Attitudes may be quite different in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

    • In reply to #20 by Fouad Boussetta:

      Where is Katy Cordeth so she can comment on this?

      Sorry, Fouad. For some reason this thread seems to have escaped my attention, and I’ve only just seen your post. I’m going through the rest of them now and if I have something to say you’ll be the first to know. I’ve clicked on Topic Email Notification ON as well.

      I didn’t know I had a fan here – let alone eight of them! – and that my views were so keenly sought after.

      I hope it doesn’t go to my head. :$

      (Wikipedia assures me that :$ is the emoticon which conveys one is blushing, although I don’t see it myself.)

  5. And just think, Jordan is one of the more socially advanced, liberal, and accepting Islamic nations. King Abdullah seems like a competent leader as well, just a shame that attitudes such as this are prevalent.

  6. In reply to #34 by Smill:

    In reply to LaurieB, post 32. You write, “I don’t know where you’re from but here in the states, I find that our immigrants …” and I was wondering, more specifically, who you identify as the ‘immigrant’? Also, you write, “I find that people who don’t travel don’t interact with immigrants in frie…

    Here is the copy of that section from my comment above:

    I find that people who don’t travel, don’t interact with immigrants in friendly relationships with a spirit of inquiry, and who have never taken classes in the Anthropology dept, usually have difficulty in grappling with issues like the one we’re discussing here.

    First of all, you did lop off an important comma after the word travel and this gives my comment a certain negative tone. But I will concede that I have no right to look down on anyone for their lack of travel or lack of Anthropology classes on their transcripts. These both require financial means that many people just don’t have. But that still leaves us with interaction with our immigrants and I define immigrants as those people who leave their own country of birth and take up permanent residence in a different one.

    I was wondering that even if someone, who has never travelled at all, anywhere, or been inside the local Anthropology Dept., but has a well-developed humanistic philosophy, that they too might also manage to interact with ‘immigrants’ in friendly relationships?

    Yes, and I’ve invested a lot of hope in this answer.

  7. Convincing the masses that it’s about ‘honour’ is one of the most successful cons that ruling classes have ever pulled.

    Like all patriarchy, it’s about property – women’s sexuality has to be ‘controlled’ so that a man’s property (land and the agricultural surplus it produced in the first instance, but also livestock and, at a later point in history, shops, factories, mines, mills, railroads, ships, and nowadays even newspapers and internet companies) can be inherited by his genetic heirs. In such a system, women are no different from sheep, goats or camels – they are ‘given’ to men approved by the patriarch in order to create bonds between the men.

    Religious patriarchy simply adds the wrinkle that such a system has the approval of the patriarch’s invisible friend.

    • In reply to #37 by Sally:

      Convincing the masses that it’s about ‘honour’ is one of the most successful cons that ruling classes have ever pulled.

      Like all patriarchy, it’s about property – women’s sexuality has to be ‘controlled’ so that a man’s property (land and the agricultural surplus it produced in the first instance,…

      It’s not about ‘masses’ and ‘ruling classes’. Masses and ruling classes exist everywhere. In my country they control ‘shops, factories, mines, mills, railroads, ships, and nowadays even newspapers and internet companies’ and still honor killings are not in fashion.

      • In reply to #38 by GOD:

        That’s just silliness!

        Patriarchy and class society are twins – the former is a product of the latter and arises because of concerns about the inheritance of property.

        One of the principal purposes of Religion is to justify the status quo of class society (saying that “the ruling classes use it to control people” is simply the flip-side of the ‘justification’).

        BUT…

        Just as, for example, class society developed in the UK and in Tsarist Russia – creating ‘masses’ and ‘ruling classes’ in both – but did not develop in exactly the same way in each…

        So, even though every country where classes exist will be organized along patriarchal lines, no-one (certainly not I) ever claimed that the mechanisms of patriarchal repression will be the same in each.

        Some of us actually realize that “circumstances alter cases.”

Leave a Reply