# 'Honour' Babies



## Sukerkin (Jan 25, 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8475386.stm

Oh dear.  Another log to the fire .  As if we needed any more news to inflame the 'anti's' even further.

This is what was happening in my local city this weekend:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8477583.stm

Oh and just to show that you should never really believe that the news is giving you the whole story, the violence and damage was much worse than suggested, despite everyones freedom of movement being suspended without notification by the police (they essentially locked everyone up where they were whether they were in their cars, in shops, pubs et al).


----------



## Stac3y (Jan 25, 2010)

Growing up, I knew some Catholic girls who were forced to give up babies and usually sent away while pregnant to avoid bringing shame on their families, or who had to have abortions on the sly in order not to be disowned. It still happens. This practice is not limited to Asians.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 25, 2010)

I wasn't attempting to say that I thought it was. 

What I meant is that it will be used by those who do have a racial/religious axe to grind as another plank in the 'proof' of the inferiority and backwardness of non-Christian belief systems.


----------



## Stac3y (Jan 25, 2010)

I didn't think YOU thought that, Sukerkin. Just that the writer of the article did. Which is why I pointed out the experiences of some of my Christian friends and acquaintances.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 25, 2010)

another example of sad wingnuts.

Sadly, they're everywhere.


----------



## Carol (Jan 25, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I wasn't attempting to say that I thought it was.
> 
> What I meant is that it will be used by those who do have a racial/religious axe to grind as another plank in the proof of the inferiority and backwardness of non-Christian belief systems.



That sort of thing that can be found everywhere.  Here in New England, many of the "maternity homes" that were owned by the Catholic church have been closed down and sold.  A couple of them have been bought by more extreme non-Catholic groups that converted them to group homes for not just unwed mothers, but for young people with "problems" such as homosexuality or mental illness.

That could also be used by the folks that think all religion is evil, although as a believer myself, I find such a practice to be quite abhorrent.

Bottom line is that it has nothing to do with faith at all, it is all about power.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 25, 2010)

This happens in many cultures. Parents adopting their own grandchildren isnt an uncommon practice.

Growing up I had an Italian friend and an East Indian friend, both female, both disappeared in the middle of the school year. Ends up both girls were dating outside their culture, dressing western, so their respective parents packed them up and sent them to live with relatives in the old countries. 

Going back to that thread from last week, when you move to another country, another culture, your children will be more of the new culture then the old. If you didnt want that to happenwhy did you move there?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 25, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> another example of sad wingnuts.
> 
> Sadly, they're everywhere.


 
Must be NDPer's or Liberals.......


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 25, 2010)

Very very funny =]

I had to thank this post Ken cause it made me laugh. 

btw of that post 'why did you move there if you didnt want children to grow up Westernized?'

Zena Briggs, a British of pakistani descent targeted by her family for death, said that growing up muslim in a western society is like bringing a child to a candy store and saying 'you can look at all these candies but you can't have any'

Her crime? Marrying a white non muslim man she chose instead of the sexist first cousin her parents chose for her. Oh, teh horror! *sarcasm*


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 25, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8475386.stm
> 
> Oh dear. Another log to the fire . As if we needed any more news to inflame the 'anti's' even further.
> 
> ...


 
Maybe I'm not reading this the way you intended, Mark, but it seems to me that your concern about the 'honour babies' article is that it might be used as fodder for people who are anti-Mus- er, Asian? Kinda seems like you're throwing the baby out with the backwater here. 

Personally I think it's a raw deal for the kid and I _would_ look askance at a culture that would encourage this, whether it's Asian *nudge nudge* or Christian.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 25, 2010)

For me, I do confess, the main impetous was to open up the subject to discussion, to see how people reacted to it in juxtopisition with the violent protests that happened locally just a couple of days ago.  

I do think it is a sad state of affairs for such thngs to be happening but, for me, my initial reaction was, as I said in the OP "Oh dear!" because this is just the sort of thing that is being seized upon to excuse the labelling of 'Muslim' cultural practises as medieval.  As others instantly leapt in with, it is not something that has been limited to just a singular faith or culture but memories are short and people soon forget what happened in their own histories very quickly.

Of course, it should be argued that such things have no place in a world (or at least this country) that has moved on from the concept of women and children as commodities to be 'protected' for marketing purposes until utility has been extracted from them.  But the timing is bad given the misportrayal of certain Human Rights proposals from the EU as being an attempt to force the legality of Sharia law in Britain.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2010)

This isn't a religious problem though, it's a cultural attitude that is widely held in several Asian countries. 
I think you will find though that Sharia law in this country will only be legal in cases as Jewish law is, pertaining only to people of that faith and dealing with marriage, business and personal religious laws. It won't be enforcable on any non Muslim nor will it conduct any criminal trials etc. It will be like the London Beth Din.


----------



## Flea (Jan 25, 2010)

Stac3y said:


> Growing up, I knew some Catholic girls who were forced to give up babies and usually sent away while pregnant to avoid bringing shame on their families, or who had to have abortions on the sly in order not to be disowned. It still happens. This practice is not limited to Asians.



The whole question on a global scale mystifies me.  Why the double standard?  What's so terrifying about female sexuality that it has to be held under such tight control?


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 25, 2010)

Flea said:


> The whole question on a global scale mystifies me. Why the double standard? What's so terrifying about female sexuality that it has to be held under such tight control?


 
It has nothing to do with female sexuality.  It's about fatherless children.  Nobody fears women, but feral children are another matter.


----------



## Carol (Jan 25, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> It has nothing to do with female sexuality.  It's about fatherless children.  Nobody fears women, but feral children are another matter.



Given that the woman in the story was sent to Pakistan and pushed in to a forced marriage (props to the BBC for using this term instead of an arranged marriage, as there are many of the latter that happen voluntarily and happily) as a punishment, I'd say there is a concern about female sexuality as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> It has nothing to do with female sexuality. It's about fatherless children. Nobody fears women, but feral children are another matter.


 

Women are feared else why keep them covered? A woman according to some inflames men, is dangerous and is the cause of sin, yes women and their sexuality are feared, the Catholic Church among others has preached many times on the danger of women.
Children aren't feared they can be adopted and made good members of the flock.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 25, 2010)

Carol said:


> Given that the woman in the story was sent to Pakistan and pushed in to a forced marriage (props to the BBC for using this term instead of an arranged marriage, as there are many of the latter that happen voluntarily and happily) as a punishment, I'd say there is a concern about female sexuality as well.


 
It serves two purposes:  places the child in a two-parent house and ensures that any further children the woman bears are also in a two-parent house.  Yes, you could argue that the second point would be a concern about her sexuality, but then in that context it would hardly be such a mystery why there would be a "fear" of it.  




Tez3 said:


> *Women are feared else why keep them covered?* A woman according to some inflames men, is dangerous and is the cause of sin, yes women and their sexuality are feared, the Catholic Church among others has preached many times on the danger of women.


 
One doesn't lock one's house because one fears the house; one locks it because one fears what someone may take from it.  Keep in mind we're talking about a culture that isn't exactly about equal rights, and in some areas the women are little more than property.  The fact that the women in the story are being pushed into forced marriages bears that out.  




Tez3 said:


> Children aren't feared they can be adopted and made good members of the flock.


 
Not in unlimited numbers, they can't.  Any child services worker can tell you about the difficulties of getting unwanted children placed.  They can also give you the statistics on the wellbeing of out-of-wedlock children relative to those from two-parent households.  

Look, these are not my beliefs and I'm not arguing from the standpoint that it's right.  I'm just pointing out the reasoning behind it.  Sorry if it offends, but the mythology that has risen up over 'female sexuality' is fraudulent.  Nobody is 'terrified' by it but rather the ramifications of bearing children without locking a male into a permanent arrangement.  If there's a double standard it's because until very recently it was near impossible to prove paternity while motherhood is self-evident.  And even when you _can_ determine paternity there's little that can be done other than to ensure that financial obligations are met.  Unless you live in a culture that embraces concepts like forced marriages.  Most likely they couldn't get away with it in the UK, which is why they are sent to Pakistan.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> It serves two purposes: places the child in a two-parent house and ensures that any further children the woman bears are also in a two-parent house. Yes, you could argue that the second point would be a concern about her sexuality, but then in that context it would hardly be such a mystery why there would be a "fear" of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

The Christian church is very much afraid of female sexuality, why do Catholic priests have to remain celibate? Why so much preaching on the evils of women then? A myth? No, sadly it's not.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 25, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The Christian church is very much afraid of female sexuality, why do Catholic priests have to remain celibate?


 
Beats me. That's a weird scene.



Tez3 said:


> Why so much preaching on the evils of women then? A myth? No, sadly it's not.


 
Blaming the victim. "I couldn't control myself, she used her wiles against me." Um, no, you made a choice, dude.

Edit:  "victim" is probably too strong a word here, except in cases where there actually _was_ a victim.  But still, it amounts to not taking responsibility for one's part in it.


----------



## Flea (Jan 25, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The Christian church is very much afraid of female sexuality, why do Catholic priests have to remain celibate?



I don't think that's so much about whoopee as it is about marraige and children.  Back in the days it was a question of inheritance.  Priests who died without families would give their estates to the Church - and most importantly their _land_.  Celibacy wasn't doctrinal, it was a very savvy business move.

And while I agree that paternity is an important part of regulating female sexuality, it doesn't explain the level of vitriol it can escalate to.  Honor babies, honor homicides, "she asked for it" rapes, and insulting women in sexual terms like slut and c*nt ... you don't see this stuff applied to men.  For women, varying levels of this are a daily reality.


----------



## David43515 (Jan 25, 2010)

You beat me to it Flea. The celebicy of preists can be traced directly back to inheritance of property. Preists take 3 basic vows at ordination, poverty, celebicy, and obediance. The first 2 relate directly to the old practice of donating your property to the church when you join the ecclesiatical community. The second is just about the hierarchy of power and authority.


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 26, 2010)

a lot of them have this celibate until marriage thing but its mostly for women though. I hadthis weird afgahnistani guy add me to msn (dunno how he got mine) and then start asking me if I was a virgin. said its important that women be virgins and he wanted a virgin. Obviously I blocked the ******.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 26, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> a lot of them have this celibate until marriage thing but its mostly for women though. I hadthis weird afgahnistani guy add me to msn (dunno how he got mine) and then start asking me if I was a virgin. said its important that women be virgins and he wanted a virgin. Obviously I blocked the ******.


 
....you never answered the question.....


----------



## Blade96 (Jan 26, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> ....you never answered the question.....


 
say huh?

you mean, why is female sexuality so terrifying?


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jan 26, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> say huh?
> 
> you mean, why is female sexuality so terrifying?


 
_"...asking me if I was a virgin..."_

Sigh...humour loses something when ya gotta explain it...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 26, 2010)

In times gone by I can understand the 'virginity issue' perhaps being of more importance than nowadays due to wishing to ensure that any children are the product of the fathers 'line' (I know it's a flawed idea but I'm typing fast here ).

In the present era, for me at least, speaking as a man, it is immensely flattering to be chosen to be a woman's 'first - where the honour is in demanding that is lost to me.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2010)

In the honour killing cases etc the woman is property and the property is devalued if not a virgin on marriage. The father and brothers etc feel insulted if their property has the audacity to want to do things for herself whereas she is supposed to be obedient, the obedience makes her more valuable when married off.


----------



## blindsage (Jan 26, 2010)

It's more about male dominance than female sexuality per se.  It becomes an issue of female sexuality because if the woman is allowed to choose these things for herself it undermines part of the strict male control of a patriarchal hierarchy.  And in any situation of dominance any break with nominally acceptable standards of behavior is going to be blamed on those dominated, not the other way around.  It's about power.


----------



## blindsage (Jan 26, 2010)

David43515 said:


> You beat me to it Flea. The celebicy of preists can be traced directly back to inheritance of property. Preists take 3 basic vows at ordination, poverty, celebicy, and obediance. The first 2 relate directly to the old practice of donating your property to the church when you join the ecclesiatical community. The second is just about the hierarchy of power and authority.


Although priests were not celibate from the get go.  The inheritance issue was a large part of it, but it was also helped along by a lot of public outcry over priests' (sexual) misuse of their position of power.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 27, 2010)

blindsage said:


> Although priests were not celibate from the get go.  The inheritance issue was a large part of it, but it was also helped along by a lot of public outcry over priests' (sexual) misuse of their position of power.



In the dark ages, being a priest, bishop or archbishop was a job you'd kill for, and the people who aspired to get it would do so. You'd have power over life and death, live a decadent lifestyle if you wanted, and be as corrupt as you wanted. Or alternatively, you could be as extremist as you wanted. Always providing you did not interfere with the hierarchy above you.

Most of those things could be probably be explained away / justified at the time except perhaps the significant number of bastard children and violated women. Hence the celibacy.

As to how women are treated under catholicism: Up until quite recently Ireland had Magdalene asylums where women were put for being pregnant, too good looking, too smart mouthed, or basically anything. Sometime ago there was a movie made about it, which was strongly criticised by the Catholic church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_Asylum


----------



## Stac3y (Jan 27, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Nobody fears women,


 
Two words: vagina dentata.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 27, 2010)

Stac3y said:


> Two words: vagina dentata.


 
I kinda want to see this movie.


----------

