Honor killing in Pakistan

[Lowpro]

Call me a 'Cultural Apologist', but that's their way. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but that doesn't give me any right to interfere. They will be punished accordingly if they have contravened their laws.

If they do this in a country that is not theirs where 'honour killing' is (quite rightly) treated as a primitive act of murder, and whose laws they have chosen to abide by, and are governed by whether they like it or not, then they should suffer the full force of those laws.

I say screw their laws and let's beat the snot out of them anyways. 'MURICA!

 

[Bikewer]

We in the industrialized portions of the world sometimes forget just how primitive is much of the "developing" portion.
In various states in Africa, witchcraft is seen as very real and each year there are reports of arrests and executions for same.
As well, the local "witch doctors" still provide magical cures for AIDS and other diseases... There was an article on The World just a couple of years ago where in one of these nations it was believed that having sex with a healthy "pure" person would cure AIDS... So men were raping babies under the impression it would cure their disease.

Here , we would think such things the acts of insane persons; but in much of the world these horrific crimes are deemed acceptable.
I have listened to interviews with neighboring villagers in some of these "honor killing" cases who thoroughly approve of the murder... The only way the family could regain it's "honor".

In regards to the economic underpinnings of some of these practices... I suppose a case might be made that smaller dowries might be expected if the family honor was besmirched, or that the daughters might prove entirely unmarriagable, which would be an economic hardship in many cases.
Only peripherally related, but anthropologist Marvin Harris has pointed out that most all the strange religious dietary laws that exist have underpinnings in economics.

 

[joesixpack]

Call me a 'Cultural Apologist', but that's their way. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but that doesn't give me any right to interfere. They will be punished accordingly if they have contravened their laws.

Well, the fact that the parents are currently facing murder charges for the crime would indicate to me that the government of Pakistan, and probably most Pakistanis don't think there is anything acceptable about this act. This more recent atticle at least discusses the motives, if only in the most superficial manner;

"There was a boy who came by on a motorcycle. She (Anusha) turned to look at him twice. I told her before not to do that, it's wrong. People talk about us because our older daughter was the same way," he said...


The couple say that an older daughter had already disgraced the family and they did not want to be dishonoured again. ...

What the article doesn't discuss, sadly, is what the consequences of family dishonor are in that region. If we want to see the end of honor killings (and I think we should all want that, cultural relativism aside), we should begin by addressing the repercussions of "dishonor".

When I was a kid, it was completely normal to disown one's child if they were openly homosexual, all because of the same sort of bizarre code of family honor. The difference between that and this crime is one of degree.

 

[Polaris]

Call me a 'Cultural Apologist', but that's their way. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but that doesn't give me any right to interfere. They will be punished accordingly if they have contravened their laws.

If they do this in a country that is not theirs where 'honour killing' is (quite rightly) treated as a primitive act of murder, and whose laws they have chosen to abide by, and are governed by whether they like it or not, then they should suffer the full force of those laws.

And yet these same scum insist that we in the West bend to their will as well, in the forms of censorship and walking on eggshells lest someone with access to explosives gets offended.

This "culture" should go away, forever. Nobody who commits or aids an honor killing should be allowed to live.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

And yet these same scum insist that we in the West bend to their will as well, in the forms of censorship and walking on eggshells lest someone with access to explosives gets offended.

This "culture" should go away, forever. Nobody who commits or aids an honor killing should be allowed to live.

I mostly agree, but maintain it's not for us to interfere. However, I DO disgree with the death penalty for those who commit honour killings; they should be allowed to live. Well - for as long as someone CAN live after having all their limbs surgically removed (without anesthetic), and being thrown back into the local community unsupported by welfare.

Well, the fact that the parents are currently facing murder charges for the crime would indicate to me that the government of Pakistan, and probably most Pakistanis don't think there is anything acceptable about this act.

It indicates there is a law against it, yes. Although I wasn't speaking specifically about Pakistan - one of the examples above shows a woman was given a mere two year prison sentence for slitting her daughter's wrists and bludgeoning her to death after she became pregant as a result of being raped by her brothers. Maybe it is an isolated example of a lenient sentence, but the sentence does suggest that Honour Killings aren't taken very seriously in the Middle East/Indian regions. The fact that it happens often shows that it is something to be considered by these people when family honour is at stake.

 

[joesixpack]

I mostly agree, but maintain it's not for us to interfere. However, I DO disgree with the death penalty for those who commit honour killings; they should be allowed to live. Well - for as long as someone CAN live after having all their limbs surgically removed (without anesthetic), and being thrown back into the local community unsupported by welfare.

I know this wasn't your argument, but I want to use that bolded part as an example of the different economic atmosphere and material conditions from which this culture emerges. The fact that there is no social welfare in the community is the reason why the economic ramifications of family dishonor are so extreme. People in these remote areas live a hairs breadth from destitution, and the consequences of destitution are usually a short journey to the grave. In a society where the competition for resources has such high stakes, social status becomes a matter of life and death.

You should note that in regions of the world where poverty is more crushing, the family unit is much stronger than here in the developed world. There's a reason for that. The family unit is a safer economic entity than a single person.

It indicates there is a law against it, yes. Although I wasn't speaking specifically about Pakistan - one of the examples above shows a woman was given a mere two year prison sentence for slitting her daughter's wrists and bludgeoning her to death after she became pregant as a result of being raped by her brothers. Maybe it is an isolated example of a lenient sentence, but the sentence does suggest that Honour Killings aren't taken very seriously in the Middle East/Indian regions. The fact that it happens often shows that it is something to be considered by these people when family honour is at stake.

The mere fact that this is quite uncommon leads me to think that it's not considered "acceptable" by the public at large. Judging the level of acceptability by the sentencing of high profile cases is probably not the best method, either. I'm not saying that acceptance of this kind of crime is as low as it is in the west (because I don't think it is), but I don't think it could be described as "not taken very seriously".

You and I certainly agree that these crimes take place in a much different cultural milieu, and I think we both agree that they should be examined in that light. I'm just quibbling.

 

[westprog]

In regards to the economic underpinnings of some of these practices... I suppose a case might be made that smaller dowries might be expected if the family honor was besmirched, or that the daughters might prove entirely unmarriagable, which would be an economic hardship in many cases.
Only peripherally related, but anthropologist Marvin Harris has pointed out that most all the strange religious dietary laws that exist have underpinnings in economics.

There may well be economic underpinnings. Most cultural practices involve some kind of economic benefit, in some way. However, that doesn't imply economic determinism. Nineteenth century Ireland, for example, had a similar patriarchal system, peasant farming and religious reverence for chastity, but such honour killings would have been very rare, and significantly, universally deprecated.

While economics is an important driving force in human affairs, it's not the only thing, unless one is a Marxist fundamentalist. Cultural norms are enormously influential.

It's quite possible that the insanity of honour killings springs from the conflict between the highly restricted world in which these people live, which nevertheless has access to the values of the West in a way never before possible.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

There may well be economic underpinnings. Most cultural practices involve some kind of economic benefit, in some way. However, that doesn't imply economic determinism. Nineteenth century Ireland, for example, had a similar patriarchal system, peasant farming and religious reverence for chastity, but such honour killings would have been very rare, and significantly, universally deprecated.

While economics is an important driving force in human affairs, it's not the only thing, unless one is a Marxist fundamentalist. Cultural norms are enormously influential.

It's quite possible that the insanity of honour killings springs from the conflict between the highly restricted world in which these people live, which nevertheless has access to the values of the West in a way never before possible.

Yes, the Irish used to prefer to send their wayward daughters away to be abused by nuns instead.

 

[joesixpack]

...
While economics is an important driving force in human affairs, it's not the only thing, unless one is a Marxist fundamentalist. Cultural norms are enormously influential....

I have to ask (and I'm not a Marxist fundamentalist), what do cultural mores arise from except economic issues? It seems to me that it would be impossible to separate the economic implications from every social interaction. Certainly any power relationship, and anything that reenforces an existing relationship is ultimately economic in nature? Am I missing something?

 

[joesixpack]

Yes, the Irish used to prefer to send their wayward daughters away to be abused by nuns instead.

Well put.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is entirely speculation on my part, but I'm sure you'd agree that cultural mores emerge from objective conditions. The idea of "honor" and "good family name" generally have economic (i.e., material) implications. Even in societies with no monetary system, there are still rules that dictate who has preferential access to resources (a pecking order).

I don't agree there is a direct survival/better life advantage. That concept of evolution has been modified a bit with our larger body of knowledge.

Assuming one can apply the rules of biological evolution to cultural evolution, some things are selected that have a neutral advantage and even some traits with a negative selection pressure can be amplified by other circumstances. So, for example, a rich king might have children that survive to reproduce because the king has better resources and is more socially isolated (thus less exposure to contagious pathogens), but the same king might have more inbred offspring.

Who knows how such a horrid culture evolved. There is evidence equal rights for women actually results in an economically better off culture. The fact such oppressive cultures are failing now compared to Western cultures where women have more equality suggests it is not economically advantageous to murder your daughters.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Call me a 'Cultural Apologist', but that's their way. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but that doesn't give me any right to interfere. They will be punished accordingly if they have contravened their laws.

If they do this in a country that is not theirs where 'honour killing' is (quite rightly) treated as a primitive act of murder, and whose laws they have chosen to abide by, and are governed by whether they like it or not, then they should suffer the full force of those laws.

By this logic, you would have been OK with Hitler's final solution.

There are times when it is appropriate to consider another's cultural values as different but reasonable, and times where one can just say, that's wrong, I don't care what the involved people believe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have to ask (and I'm not a Marxist fundamentalist), what do cultural mores arise from except economic issues? It seems to me that it would be impossible to separate the economic implications from every social interaction. Certainly any power relationship, and anything that reenforces an existing relationship is ultimately economic in nature? Am I missing something?

So you think every cultural quirk or practice had some initial economic value?

Evolution doesn't work quite so purely. Sometimes disadvantageous things evolve, genetically and culturally.

Take for example, the human brain evolving to see relationships where sometimes only coincidence exists. That genetic survival trait might be useful in some circumstances but maladaptive in others. Is it not possible then for some maladaptive custom to evolve?

 

[Nessie]

I am struggling to find an answer to, what if the family were not to kill a daughter in a honour killing, what would happen to them then?

 

[Aepervius]

Honor killing happens in all society where honor is put above other values, like life.
it is abhorrent, but a lot of stuff we find abhorrent, are still being done. Like witch hunting and burning of kids in Africa , and i apss many other vomit inducing stuff from all culture, none exempt.

Also in case anybody is still mistaken about thinking this is an islam thingy :

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/us/honor-killing-of-wives-is-outlawed-in-brazil.html

For those not wanting to read: that's brazil and the date is 1991.
"Brazil's Supreme Court has ruled that a man can no longer kill his wife and win acquittal on the ground of "legitimate defense of honor."" Emphasis mine.

ETA:
"Although never part of the legal code of Brazil, the "defense of honor" strategy has been used by lawyers to win acquittals in thousands of cases of men on trial for murdering their wives. According to a study in Sao Paulo State for the period 1980-81, 722 men claimed defense of their honor as justification for killing women accused of adultery."

In addition there were honor killing among italian, says my mother, through not only of kids in love with the wrong persons, also for other stupid stuff.

 

[joesixpack]

I don't agree there is a direct survival/better life advantage. That concept of evolution has been modified a bit with our larger body of knowledge.

Assuming one can apply the rules of biological evolution to cultural evolution, some things are selected that have a neutral advantage and even some traits with a negative selection pressure can be amplified by other circumstances.

Objective conditions change more quickly than culture. I think the Lamarckian evolution of culture allows for changes that may (obviously) occur in less than a a generation. Certain traits with negative selection pressure might persist, but only to a point. the greater the cost to individuals, the more quickly they will change.

Who knows how such a horrid culture evolved.

Probably under horrid objective material conditions.

 

[Nessie]

Not the greatest source, this is an issue world wide, but it stems mainly from the Middle East

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

Honor killings are directed mostly against women and girls and are most prevalent in Middle Eastern and South Asian Islamic cultures.

It really is about power and honour

"A complicated issue that cuts deep into the history of Arab society. .. What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control of in a patrilineal society is reproductive power. Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men. The honour killing is not a means to control sexual power or behavior. What's behind it is the issue of fertility, or reproductive power."

"The right to life of women in Pakistan is conditional on their obeying social norms and traditions."

"... the predominantly Kurdish area of Turkey, has so far shown that little if any social stigma is attached to honor killing. It also comments that the practice is not related to a feudal societal structure, "there are also perpetrators who are well-educated university graduates. Of all those surveyed, 60 percent are either high school or university graduates or at the very least, literate."

It is purely about the culture system and honour and there appears to be no economic or religious belief reason behind it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izzat_(honor)

"Izzat (Hindi-Urdu Farsi: इज़्ज़त or عزت) refers to the concept of honor prevalent in the culture of North India and Pakistan.[1] It applies universally across religions (Hindu, Muslim and Sikh), communities and genders.[2][3][4] Maintaining the reputation of oneself and one's family (especially women) is part of the concept of izzat, as is the obligatory taking of revenge when one's izzat has been violated."

 

[joesixpack]

I am struggling to find an answer to, what if the family were not to kill a daughter in a honour killing, what would happen to them then?

That would probably require the help of an anthropologist. I'm looking for some source that's not overly scholarly, but my googling isn't so hot.

But consider this, what are the consequences of a loss of respect for an inmate of San Quintin?

 

[westprog]

Yes, the Irish used to prefer to send their wayward daughters away to be abused by nuns instead.

Those were girls who actually got pregnant, and who were obviously not killed.

(I'll leave aside the "so that makes it all right then...")

 

[Craig4]

I feel at this point it's safe to say that Sam Harris is right about there being superior and inferior cultures. Clearly there is at least a cultural acceptance if not pressure to kill your children, spouses other relatives in South Asian societies.