What should we call "honour killings" instead?

[JollyRoger]

Leviticide

Spoiler :

If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire (Leviticus 21:9)

 

[Arwon]

Why would you even consider calling murder honorable? Killing a woman or girl who is your wife, daughter, sister, niece, cousin, or even neighbor has NOTHING to do with honor!

Shafia murders

The youngest victim in the above case was 13 YEARS OLD. Three sisters and their father's older wife, drowned. And may their murderers - their father/husband, mother/co-wife, and brother/son all rot in prison for the rest of their disgusting, worthless lives.

I challenge you, Manfred Belheim and Arwon, to read about the Shafia family and still claim there was anything "honorable" in what happened to these four women.

I don't think the concept of honour is a particularly laudible one. Particularly in this context. Oppressive, sexist, collectivist, agency denying, take your pick.

 

[Commodore]

I'm with JR on this one, simply calling it murder will suffice.

 

[de Maistre]

The term "honour killing" doesn't imply that the killing is honourable. It's called honour killing because it's motivated by the sense that their family has been dishonoured by their relative's behaviour. We may not agree with their definition of honour, but that's how they feel. If we ignore the principle cause for the phenomenon then how can we possibly address it?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't think the concept of honour is a particularly laudible one. Particularly in this context. Oppressive, sexist, collectivist, agency denying, take your pick.

You said this:

Honour killings work fine as a term, but they're one of the more extreme worldwide examples of patriarchal violence.

Why are you fine with calling it honor killing if you don't approve of the concept of honor?

 

[Old Hippy]

I think we should just call them honour killings. People know what the term means, and it's not as if it's widely condoned because of the choice of words. I think people can get too hung up on the "subliminal effect" of words, when in some cases (like this) it's just not really a factor. Changing the name to make a point is just a waste of time and energy, and would just lead to confusion and pointless arguments. "Honour killings" does just fine.

perhaps "stupid self centered Honour killings" would lead also waste lest time and energy and pointless arguments

"it was a matter of Honour... and, ehh, umm, being self centered and stupid"

 

[Arwon]

You said this:


Why are you fine with calling it honor killing if you don't approve of the concept of honor?

I'm confused by this question. But I'll try to explain in more words.

I said the term works fine because everyone knows what honour killings are. I was a bit confused as to why you took exception to that in the first place, but whatevs.

The only reason to try to consciously change the term is if we were trying to change minds about the subject and thought the term "honour" was a whitewashing euphemism, which it isn't. And the only reason we could possibly think "honour" was a whitewashing euphemism is if we thought the word and concept of honour was so glowingly, unassailably positive in its connotations that it lent positivity to whatever words it happens to be joined with. Which, again, I don't.

So no need to bother trying to change the term.

It reminds me a bit of the recent utterly unnecessary campaign here to rename sucker-punches to "coward punches".

 

[metatron]

The only reason to try to consciously change the term is if we were trying to change minds about the subject and thought the term "honour" was a whitewashing euphemism, which it isn't. And the only reason we could possibly think "honour" was a whitewashing euphemism is if we thought the word and concept of honour was so glowingly, unassailably positive in its connotations that it lent positivity to whatever words it happens to be joined with. Which, again, I don't.

So no need to bother trying to change the term.

This.

I think even among the most marginally enlightened "honor" is commonly understood as a neolithic concept that consists mostly of (male) dumb ego, with the occassional additive of racism, nationalism or sexism.

Granted, many people consider it "not that bad", but as a violation of contemporary social norms none the less.

 

[Lillefix]

My suggestion is "kin killers".

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I'm confused by this question. But I'll try to explain in more words.

I said the term works fine because everyone knows what honour killings are. I was a bit confused as to why you took exception to that in the first place, but whatevs.

The only reason to try to consciously change the term is if we were trying to change minds about the subject and thought the term "honour" was a whitewashing euphemism, which it isn't. And the only reason we could possibly think "honour" was a whitewashing euphemism is if we thought the word and concept of honour was so glowingly, unassailably positive in its connotations that it lent positivity to whatever words it happens to be joined with. Which, again, I don't.

So no need to bother trying to change the term.

Honor is sometimes a confusing and complex thing, and I repeat that these murders have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with honor, because murder is never honorable.

The Koran says women should be modest. It doesn't say kill her if she doesn't wear a scarf when her father or brother order her to - particularly in a country with separation of religion and state.

This.

I think even among the most marginally enlightened "honor" is commonly understood as a neolithic concept that consists mostly of (male) dumb ego, with the occassional additive of racism, nationalism or sexism.

Oh. Come. On.

Yes, male posturing is part of it, and so is all that Klingon claptrap that turned me off of Star Trek TNG and DS9.

You don't think honor is something that matters to women, in the current day? I'll give you an example: I never flirt with men who are married, engaged, or currently in a relationship. Doing so is a dishonorable act, because it is disrespectful of their relationship, and goes against what I would expect others to respect if I were in a committed relationship. No book or church taught me this; I learned it watching my parents' marriage fall apart - twice in my mother's case, thanks to her very dishonorable excuse of a second husband. I don't like my mother, but she didn't deserve that from two people who chose not to respect her.

Here's another example. Atheists run into all kinds of issues with swearing oaths and being put down because without swearing on a bible, many people can't fathom why we would be truthful or keep our word. The law has something to do with it, but the main reason is because keeping one's word and speaking the truth is a matter of honor.

 

[Arwon]

See I'd call those ethical acts and positions.

 

[metatron]

edit:
What Arwon said.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Honest. Honor
In German: Ehrlich. Ehre.

Honor definitely is more than just ego and it is sad that some only associate it with that. Honor is also about being a good person even by modern standards. As Kaiserguard correctly said, the difference to simply being ethical is that honor carries a notion of shame if I fail to live up to whatever ethical standards. Honor then is the social implementation/enforcement of ethics.

 

[El_Machinae]

Shame killings.

 

[metatron]

Honest. Honor
In German: Ehrlich. Ehre.

Honor definitely is more than just ego and it is sad that some only associate it with that. Honor is also about being a good person even by modern standards. As Kaiserguard correctly said, the difference to simply being ethical is that honor carries a notion of shame if I fail to live up to whatever ethical standards. Honor then is the social implementation/enforcement of ethics.

Honor, usually, is the very notion of "eff ethics, i'm just going to do what feels right due to my particular sensibilities and convenience".
Ethics often enough have to be thought not felt (via shame or any other way). That's sort of the point.

Do i have to bring Helmut Kohl into this?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The contrast of emotions and rationals is a good point. But if the undesirable emotions are created by shaming and the desirable by reputation, my personal sensibilities may not have much of a say.
For instance in case of honesty - the social "idea" or image of being an honest man may condition me to be honest, even if it is inconvenient.
The trouble with a rational approach is that by nature it is not very binding which in practice can mean that people put more emphasize on convenience than if it was a matter of honor.

But I concede that the trouble with the emotional approach is that it in instances can be kinda stupid or even horrendous.

Don't understand the Kohl-reference

 

[metatron]

Don't understand the Kohl-reference

Kohl infamously referred to his word of honor in his refusal to name the his illegal donors, which was not only highly unethical but also in sharp conflict with constitutional democracy, not to mention plain and simply, well, the law.

Illegal compaign financing, possibly/probably corruption, possibly/probably accessory to tax evasion, impeding federal investigations and prosecutions, in conspiracy with people who sell - out of all things - arms, no less, and we let him get away based on this absurd notion that derelicts of his generation were entitled to this thing called "honor".

There is no "honor". There's ethics. And then there's ego and pride.
People use the term "honor" when they want to sell one as the other.

 

[PhroX]

"Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks
me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I
come on? how then? Can honour set to a leg? no: or
an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no.
Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is
honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what
is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
he that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no.
Doth he hear it? no. 'Tis insensible, then. Yea,
to the dead. But will it not live with the living?
no. Why? detraction will not suffer it. Therefore
I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so
ends my catechism."

 

[IglooDame]

Leviticide

Spoiler :

If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire (Leviticus 21:9)

I dunno, I read leviticide and I think "killing levity".

"Murder" is certainly accurate, if a bit vague. Maybe meet halfway and call them "honour murders"? I can't think of any real honorable justification for murder so the oxymoron seems peculiarly appropriate.

 

[warpus]

If you're going to rename honour killings because it's not descriptive enough, you might as well start renaming all sorts of things.

Maybe baptism should be now known as involuntary religious indoctrination? Rolls off the tongue