…and this is a 
They call this honor?
Category: Religion
Posted on: February 20, 2008 9:16 AM, by PZ Myers
What should me make of this ugly story from Turkey?
A high school senior and an elementary school student were attacked in the Mediterranean town of Mersin with strong acid spray. In two separate incidents within the same hour both girls were approached from behind by a group of young men who commented on the length of their skirts and told them it was too short. The girls were sprayed with acidic substance that burnt and melted their stockings and caused deep lacerations on the back of their legs. The girls were treated in the hospital. The police is searching for the culprits that are believed to be the same ones, in both incidents.
According to media reports, uncovered women in Mersin, who wear shorter length skirts, are in fear of similar attacks.
I understand this kind of thing is done to 'protect' the honor of women with a religious justification, but does anyone ever ask where the honor is in a group of men coming up behind young girls and scarring them with acid? Shouldn't there be some kind of deep cultural shame that their young men are being indoctrinated into growing up as bullying cowards?
Comments
I think there would be some deep cultural honor in my going after each one of these guys with a baseball bat.
Sorry, that story just pissed me off.
Posted by: Ric | February 20, 2008 9:21 AM
Another country that is supposed to be secular marred by religious fanatics. -sigh-
Posted by: maxi | February 20, 2008 9:23 AM
I would suggest these assholes be drawn and quartered, seems only appropriate as they want to live in the dark ages then whatever happens to them should reflect that era. All this in the name of bullshit religiion
Posted by: Ex Partiate | February 20, 2008 9:26 AM
These idiots are followers of the prophet Mu-ham-mad, piss be upon him, and upon them.
Posted by: Richard Harris | February 20, 2008 9:26 AM
We're moral and upstanding--
I don't see what's the fuss;
We do this to protect these girls...
From guys who think like us.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | February 20, 2008 9:30 AM
I wish every rational liberal was as even-handed in his condemnations of cultural and religious irrationality as PZ. Unfortunately, many fellow liberals have a blind spot when it comes to Islamic countries, and especially Turkey -- liberals who rightly and properly condemn the excesses and stupidity of our Christianists, seem to go all wobbly for this one Islamic country. I sent a couple of e-mails, for instance, to Josh Marshal asking him why he keeps referring to himself as an "ardent Turkophile" (he never answered) and I was baffled by many other prominent liberals who criticized the Congress recently over its attempt to merely recognize the Armenian genocide by Ottoman Turks as a historical event. I consider Turks to be no different than any other set of humans beings, with the same potential for acts of benevolence, as well as malevolence. But their culture is one of hyper-nationalism, and Islam is a very strong element of their national identity, despite the fact that officially the country is supposed to be secular.
____________________________________________
Posted by: Aris | February 20, 2008 9:35 AM
This could have happened in any country, religious or not. Don't want to be the nay-sayer here, but blaming a single violent misogynistic act somewhere on the globe entirely on religion seems a bit short-sighted to me. As a youth gang with destructive ambitions, they could've done any number of things.
Same goes for people who are obviously psychotic, in a clinical psychiatric sense. Yeah, they often refer to religion, but if one of them goes and says he's a giant monster penguin, then his sickness still stays the same and it's a waste of blog space to blame it on the penguins.
Sorry for the rambling. I like Pharyngula, and that's why I feel like stating my opinion sometimes when a post seems to me like a dent in quality.
Posted by: Yenzo | February 20, 2008 9:35 AM
I'm not so sure this would be an isolated event(s), gang-like activity. Many Muslim countries/communities have morality police - Taliban much?
Posted by: True Bob | February 20, 2008 9:39 AM
Yes, because nothing like this has ever happened before.
Posted by: MartinM | February 20, 2008 9:41 AM
1) The young men have natural urges and desires
2) These urges and desires are easily inflamed by the sight of too much leg or face exposed by young women
3) The young men thus aroused can not possibly be expected to restrain themselves from sexually assaulting the young women
4) Throwing acid at the women is a way for the young men to:
* render these young women less attractive
* discourage continuation of the practice of provocative dress by these women, and make an example of them to discourage other women
* sublimate the young men's sexual desires into violence.
Thus, honour is protected for all.
Posted by: Theo Bromine | February 20, 2008 9:42 AM
"blaming a single violent misogynistic act somewhere on the globe entirely on religion seems a bit short-sighted to me"
It may be a paraphrase from a scrubs episode but;
"yes, they're each one incident but when you put them all together it makes like.... a hundred incidents"
The simple fact is that while this sort of person exists all over the globe, religion gives them their excuse. The problem is not that violence occurs (although of course thats bad), the problem is that these "men", if you can call them that, did this with a clear conscience and approval from their "god" and many of their peers and elders.
Posted by: josh | February 20, 2008 9:48 AM
Theo: I wanna ask why, given that it's the men who lack self-control, it's the women who have to suffer for it either by dressing in a way they wouldn't necessarily choose or by enduring pain for dressing how they please.
Posted by: MercuryBlue | February 20, 2008 9:50 AM
With due respect, Theo, bullshit. Mutilating women isn't sublimation of sexual desire; if they're fucked in the head, it's consummating it, and if they're just motivated by cultural assholism, it's a means of controlling women.
I plump for the second one; it has nothing to do with "throwing acid on the bitches that get me hot" and everything to do with "throwing acid on the bitches who won't do what they're supposed to".
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | February 20, 2008 9:51 AM
I'm with you, Ric. Baseball bat it is. But it will be covered with rusty nails, and I might add a katana to the bunch of weapons.
And I'll beat the shit out of them while wearing an anime clichéed ultra-skimpy japanese schoolgirl outfit. Not that I'm a creepy otaku but I think it fits.
Posted by: Michelle | February 20, 2008 9:52 AM
If one of them goes and says he's a giant monster penguin, then his sickness still stays the same and it's a waste of blog space to blame it on the penguins.
Do I really need to point out that in this case no rational person would blame penguins because currently there's no evidence whatsoever that penguins could have caused someone to commit a violent act? The fact that a psychotic person claims a connection between his violent act and penguins does not establish a connection between the two.
However, what if we had evidence that penguins had established a supernatural belief system and wrote a manual for this system, which explained how those who follow the system will get a great reward if they just follow the instructions in the manual? Indeed, one instruction is to prevent women from showing flesh by terrorizing them, for their own good of course. Now some people -- clinically psychotic or not -- follow these imperatives contained in the penguin manual and commit violent acts against women who show flesh. Can we now blame the penguins?
I like Pharyngula too, and its comments' section, but some comments do seems to me like a dent in quality.
____________________________________________
Posted by: Aris | February 20, 2008 9:56 AM
Yenzo said:
That's odd, because I don't live in fear of being sprayed with acid (or attacked at all in fact) by cowardly Christian fundies because of the length of my skirt in the UK. I clearly must pay more attention to the news.
This type of crime is not a crime caused by bored deliquent youths of the type that might steal a car and go joyriding or whatever in the West. It is an entirely different cultural phenomenon that is well documented and about controlling women who are seen as bringing shame on their culture or family. Attacks like these are misogynist, violent and controlling and can (and do) lead to the horrific murders of women deemed to have transgressed social codes, codes which are informed and enforced by the dictates of the various religions of the cultures which practice it.
Therefore, in so far as such cultures and their norms and traditions are informed by religion, yes religion does have a case to answer in this setting and needs to be one hell of a lot more active in condemning and putting an end to this practice than it has so far been (mostly the religious leaders, when asked, get mealy mouthed and say something along the lines of "it was all the woman's fault and even if it wasn't you can't blame us" - and that's just the nice ones) in order to exculpate itself from it.
As for the little thugs who did this - I agree whole-heartedly with PZ, it is a very strange and repugnant sort of honour which consists of terrorising of people who can't fight back. It may be a cultural thing, but to me they are simply spineless, bigotted and cowardly bullies.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 20, 2008 10:00 AM
In her book Infidel Ayaan Hirsi Ali tells of how she was astounded the first time she was in a Western, non-Islamic country and saw women exposing their bodies, and men ... ignoring them. It made no sense to her. She had always been taught and told that women's bodies drove men to distraction, and they could not control their urges. Without modest attire, women would be treated as sex objects and degraded.
She found out that it was the opposite. Women who wore scanty clothes and sandals on their feet were treated respectfully in the Netherlands, and women who wore full burkhas which covered everything but their eyes were shoved off the sidewalks as if they were animals in Saudi Arabia.
Ophelia Benson (of the blog Butterflies and Wheels) is apparently writing a book on fundamentalism and the treatment of women. If so, I will buy it. I agree with Phoenician in a time of Romans #13 above. For crying out loud, one of the girls was in elementary school. This was about control. In religion, you can be different than infidels because, unlike them, you are responsible for controlling your women. It sets you apart.
Posted by: Sastra | February 20, 2008 10:07 AM
I suggest these girls accessorize their outfits with purely ceremonial razor-sharp machetes in decorative scabbards, perhaps with matching trench knives, and military sidearms. Then we'll see, as I suspect, that 'honor' nuttiness will prove to be just another passing fad.
Posted by: Nelson Muntz | February 20, 2008 10:08 AM
My Mom tells me that when her high school became desegregated the white boys would escort the white girls to class for "protection", just in case the black boys got any ideas. The whole set of behaviors is so bizarre, misguided and wrong, and seem to me more like an elephant seal "protecting" his harem by controlling his cows than the behavior of rational human beings.
Posted by: Diego | February 20, 2008 10:13 AM
re: Post #10, 1 - 3, points out a salient consequence to that which secular societies applaud, the liberated female.
I read no religious justification (name of allah crap) in the article, so why conflate it with such? One can just as easily see the culturally provocative acts of the girls and the response applied as one of the law of unintended consequences in regards to the culturally destructive secular progression on display.
Posted by: Salt | February 20, 2008 10:18 AM
@18:
I fear that if that happened (women defending themselves) the reprisals would be grisly.
Posted by: Pleco | February 20, 2008 10:21 AM
what I don't understand, as a father of 2 girls, is how a father could control his anger and not severely kick a few muslim asses.
to Aris:
all evil in the world is caused by liberals, just ask Rush. It is very important to blame someone else for our failures, just ask Rush. Yet we all know that only conservatives have miserable lives, they hate a lot and most suck cock. conservative = simplistic moron!
Posted by: richCares | February 20, 2008 10:23 AM
Evil, but they pale in comparison to honor killings--where your brother or uncle offs you [you = a female ] for some perceived moral failing. Some of these are religious in motivation, others appear to be rooted in some kind of tribal culture. Nevertheless is appalling that these sort of things can still occur in the 21st century.
The Bible may say that the human heart is evil in its inclinations, but I find it a little ironic that some of greatest evils are carried out in compliance with some sort of twisted moral code, often to satisfy some bloodthirsty deity.
Posted by: jeh | February 20, 2008 10:31 AM
richCares: 'what I don't understand, as a father of 2 girls, is how a father could control his anger and not severely kick a few muslim asses.'
In 'honour killings' the father is often directly involved if the girl has brought (perceived) shame on the family. Like by dating the wrong flavour of boy (Mothers are occasionallly not wholly blameless, either.) In some schools in the UK, posters advising young pupils what to do and whom to contact in the event of being threatened with forced marriage were not displayed because of 'cultural sensitivities'.
Posted by: Peter Mc | February 20, 2008 10:35 AM
@Salt- you appear to be blaming the girls for being "provocative." How exactly does _any_ form of "cultural provocation" justify maiming people with acid?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 20, 2008 10:35 AM
#14: Great. I'll bust out my summer yukata and a garotting wire and join you.
Posted by: Holydust | February 20, 2008 10:36 AM
I dunno - ignoring a widespread pattern of almost identical attacks across multiple countries, all explicitly motivated by the same specific set of religious beliefs is what seems short-sighted to me.
The only unusual thing about this attack is that the victims didn't get it in the face.
Posted by: Dunc | February 20, 2008 10:41 AM
Shorter Salt: dem gals asked for it. Classic 'blame the victim'.
So, if it is 'destructive secular progression' that caused these girls to be attacked, why would the gang of boys, influenced by a morally superior religious upbringing, sneak attack individual girls?
So sad that you besmirch the name of a useful substance.
Posted by: Janine | February 20, 2008 10:48 AM
"I read no religious justification (name of allah crap) in the article, so why conflate it with such? One can just as easily see the culturally provocative acts of the girls and the response applied as one of the law of unintended consequences in regards to the culturally destructive secular progression on display."
Hold on. If you're calling "secular progression" "culturally destructive" then aren't you kind of undercutting your whole point that there's no "religious justification" being used in the committing of that crime? In other words, what, exactly, is your point?
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 20, 2008 10:50 AM
to Aris: all evil in the world is caused by liberals, just ask Rush.
I have no idea what you're driving at.
____________________________________________
Posted by: Aris | February 20, 2008 10:56 AM
Which brings me to the next point: to even find out what "sandals on their feet" is doing in the same sentence as "scanty clothes", I need to think rationally. What -- at least -- men find sexy is strongly and negatively correlated to what they are used to seeing. 100 years ago, Salvador Dalí wrote "a woman's feet and forearms must be of exhibitionist beauty", and nowadays I read that line and wonder what a strange fetish that strange guy had. Then I remember this was just a decade or three after the sight of a lady's ankle drove gentlemen insane.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2008 10:57 AM
regarding my comments @ #10:
Possibly as a result of my anger and sadness in response to this story, I forgot about the Internet Sarcasm Filters. I was attempting to illuminate the twisted logic that might lead to this sort of reprehensible behaviour. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that some think I was seriously suggesting sublimating the the young men's sexual desires into violence.
To be very clear about my position: I strongly support women's (and men's) rights to dress however they choose. There are certainly cases in which I disagree with people's choice of dress - both on the side of the sexualization of dress for young girls, and on the side of burkas and hiqabs, but I think that is to be addressed by educating and encouraging correct choices. 35 years ago, female students at my highschool were required to wear skirts or dresses - pants were not permitted. However, when I chose to challenge the rules and wear pants, I only risked the ire of the teachers, and did not have to face the possibility of anything like the attack on these unfortunate young women.
Posted by: Theo Bromine | February 20, 2008 10:58 AM
It isn't the modern western McDonald's Coca Cola civilization that destroys culture. Fundamentalism destroys culture.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 20, 2008 11:01 AM
Wonderfull! So the girls actions are "provocative" and the boys actions merely "the law of unintended consequences". You speak almost as though the boys were some impersonal physical force with no will of their own whereas the girls (one of them in elementary school) were the active agents whose foolishness in displaying "culturally destructive secular progression" was responsible for the attack.
Tell me, is there anything, anywhere in the world that can be done by a man to a woman that some idiot, somewhere, will not try and rewrite as her fault?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 20, 2008 11:02 AM
Piece on Turkey and the clash between secularism and religion in the NY Times, for what it's worth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/world/europe/19turkeyweb.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=turkey&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Posted by: Gûm-ishi Ashi Gurum | February 20, 2008 11:08 AM
I wonder how the evolutionary psychology folks explain that behaviour.
Posted by: Tulse | February 20, 2008 11:11 AM
God can always punish short-skirt wearers if It wants to in the afterlife - so why do these guys have to get involved? It is the fact that so many have to defend what they think is God's will that perplexes me.
These dudes need to holster their gentlemen and go learn, say, evolutionary theory.
Michelle: I can see your anime series in my mind's eye. Haven't thought of a title for it yet. Atheist Bitch Kendoka?
Posted by: Jit | February 20, 2008 11:11 AM
No, there isn't.
So are we to take it that you're completely unaware of the very widespread use of this specific form of attack (acid) in regressive Muslim countries, specifically to punish women who are seen as violating religious dress codes, and the justifications repeatedly offered both for it and the persistent failure to tackle it?
Posted by: Dunc | February 20, 2008 11:16 AM
It isn't the modern western McDonald's Coca Cola civilization that destroys culture. Fundamentalism destroys culture.
White man speak truth. Coca Cola go good with buffalo.
Posted by: RamblinDude | February 20, 2008 11:18 AM
"I wonder how the evolutionary psychology folks explain that behaviour."
It's that damn Y chromosome --the source of all evil (well maybe not all of it, but still an awful lot of it).
Posted by: jeh | February 20, 2008 11:23 AM
That doesn't cover the evolutionary angle, though -- what is happening is that individuals are killing highly related kin, in some cases offspring, and offspring generally of reproductive age (who therefore have had a lot of resources invested). This specific behaviour doesn't make sense from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.
Posted by: Tulse | February 20, 2008 11:30 AM
Memes don't care if you live or die, so long as they survive (if you subscribe to the cultural evolution theory involving memes, that is).
Posted by: Jit | February 20, 2008 11:33 AM
Acid disfigurement attacks in Pakistan (2006):
"While precise figures of the number of women who suffer from these crimes are not available due to lack of research, hundreds of cases of acid burns have been recorded annually over the past three or four years in Pakistan. The New York-based rights body, Human Rights Watch (HRW), estimates at least 280 women died and 750 suffered injuries in 2002 alone as a result of acid attacks.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan documented 46 attacks in 2004 in the southern Punjab alone.
Sameena Afzal, the chief coordinator of the 'Depilex Smile Again' organisation, set up in 2003 to offer medical help to female burn victims, said: "It is very difficult to find definite statistics. But we know the number is high. I have 150 acid and stove burn victims registered with me at the moment for treatment.""
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=34245
Posted by: Colugo | February 20, 2008 11:38 AM
Lilley De Lure,
We still a problem with so-called honor crimes in the UK, so I'm not sure it is fair to think of this as being a Turkish problem. Religiously motivated crimes, many of them involving serious violence, affect every society, so we should certainly guard against complacency.
Turkey has a relatively low crime rate, especially for the region, and they take law-enforcement very seriously. (The murder rate is somewhat lower than that in the US, for instance). Turkey has made great strides in creating and maintaining a secular system of government in the face of an enormously powerful and influential religious movement; they make at least as good a job of it as the US. (Possibly more so, because the secularization of Turkey has persisted in the face of Islamist revolution throughout the middle-east.)
Still, acid attacks do take place in the UK and US, so we shouldn't assume that liberal societies are immune from fundamentalist idiots carrying out hateful, misogynistic, cowardly attacks.
Also, we should take note of the small, but very serious, problem of violence against children - up to, and including, ritual murder - by fundamentalist Christian sects in the UK.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 20, 2008 11:41 AM
Consider the fact that it is a matter of family honor though, and the 'stain' on the honor of a family resulting from a daughter's behavior, can affect the reproductive prospects of other offspring. Where marriages tend to be arranged, status of a suitor family is likely to matter greatly in selecting mates.
Posted by: wonderer | February 20, 2008 11:43 AM
Other than the obvious religious factor, the biggest
problem is the dominance of the freaking male sex, the
biggest overwhelming perpetrator of crimes on this damn
planet. It is the male sex that is involved in the
majority of all manner and severity of violence and crimes
committed in any society, particularly more so in those
countries of arab origin because this slime is able to
exercise complete control through sheer and abject
violence. Without sounding extreme and totally trying to
be realistic in the face of controversy, if you could kill
off ninety percent of the male sex, you would wipe out
almost ninety nine percent of crime. This isn't survival
of the fittest, but rather perpetuation of the unduly
oppressed. Those European countries that have females in
charge seem to work well. Let us now confront the dire and
outrageous rebuttals, especially from males who seem to be
potentially threatened by such gender bashing.
Posted by: Holbach | February 20, 2008 11:43 AM
"Some of our worst mistakes do not come so much from bad deductions or faulty logic - but from a faulty premise and proneness to delusion."
Propagandists and framers know this axiom very well.
FRAME THE DEBATE! FRAME THE DEBATE!
Yes, this IS an UGLY story, and what are we to make of it?
This "story" originates from MEMRI.
MEMRI is a well-known notorious Israeli propaganda/peeyar organization dedicated to advancing Israeli interests.
PZ, you are either doing an experiment about framing, propaganda, and naivete; or you are a conscious Islam basher.
Posted by: gerald spezio | February 20, 2008 11:51 AM
A commentary about MEMRI, and there are plenty more if you chose to look;
http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/15069/135/
Posted by: gerald spezio | February 20, 2008 11:54 AM
Holbach,
a) Don't you think that a better explanation is that any culture or society with is predicated on the superiority of any gender (or race, or class, etc), it likely to breed opression, contempt, and violence against the supposedly inferior group.
b) That men have a greater propensity for violence is pretty much a physiological phenomenon, but it is also true that men are perfectly able to overcome such quirks of biology. Social factors - mental illness aside - breed and trigger violence, not simply hormonal imperatives.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 20, 2008 11:54 AM
Bernard said:
I understand that (I possibly should have made my post clearer) - I was responding to a previous post that was saying that this was just another group of bored youngsters and that it could have happened anywhere, so we shouldn't get steamed up about the religious and cultural implications of the attack.
I was making the point that this clearly is a religious and cultural issue (as are the UK and US religious crimes (I refuse to dignify such acts with the term "honour") that you mention) and we do ourselves and more importantly the victims, no favours by pretending it ain't so.
This is the origin of my comment about me in the UK. If this type of behaviour is just violent thugs being violent thugs and not a religious and cultural thing, then why don't I have this problem when wandering around in short skirts in a different culture which, nonetheless, has no shortage of violent thugs?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 20, 2008 11:55 AM
This "story" originates from MEMRI.
No, the story did not originate with MEMRI but with the Doğan News Agency, one of Turkey's mainstream press syndicates and was widely published in Turkey's major dailies. PZ just linked to MEMRI's coverage, but MEMRI did not have anything to do with the story (BTW, this is not a defense of MEMRI, but of the story's validity).
And what's wrong exactly with being an Islam basher? Shouldn't all rational people bash all superstition, wherever they find it? We should all be bashing away at Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Scientology, etc. etc. It is the obligation of anyone who cares about what is happening to our world to bash any irrational, transcendental belief system.
____________________________________________
Posted by: Aris | February 20, 2008 12:08 PM
I dunno. I'm not entirely convinced that it really is better to stay alive in a cultural environment where an elementary school girl can be publically mutilated on the theory that God hates even the tiniest visible hint of her sexuality.
My wife and I saw Persepolis a few days ago, and I spent the whole movie wondering how people can stay in an environment like that. If I were the father of the little girl in this Turkey case (either of the girls, actually; the defference in age and presumed sexual maturity shouldn't really matter), I'd take my family and leave the country that day, even if it meant living in poverty somewhere else. This isn't an instance of juvenile delinquency or street crime; it's a symptom of a sick culture. I don't know what the prognosis for curing that culture is, but as a father I wouldn't bet my family on it.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | February 20, 2008 12:12 PM
I shudder to think what those "honorable" curs would do to this young lady.
Posted by: Kseniya | February 20, 2008 12:13 PM
Acid spray attacks are probably about 1000x as "culturally provocative" as miniskirts in Turkey.
Posted by: windy | February 20, 2008 12:24 PM
I am a conscious Islam basher. I'm also a conscious Christianity basher, a conscious Judaism basher, a conscious Scientology basher, a conscious Wiccan basher...you name any religion, I'll bash it for you.
I'm surprised that anyone is still surprised by this obvious fact.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 20, 2008 12:25 PM
Lilly,
I think that the coinage of the term honour-killing, and its continued use is a problem; I simply used the term here because it is common vernacular. Perhaps I should make more of an effort to avoid using the term.
More so, I think that the media should substitute a more appropriate label, possibly, something along the lines of religiously- or culturally- motivated violence/murder. (I suspect that it is politically convenient for them to avoid using such direct language, for fear of upsetting cutlural and religious groups.)
I did suspect that your point was as you clarified, but I just wanted to be clear that none of us should think that this particular case necessarily has to do with geography.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 20, 2008 12:32 PM
Tulse, "...individuals are killing highly related kin, in some cases offspring, and offspring generally of reproductive age (who therefore have had a lot of resources invested). This specific behaviour doesn't make sense from the perspective of evolutionary psychology."
Why should it? Cultural influences can sometimes override instinctive influences.
Posted by: Richard Harris | February 20, 2008 12:33 PM
Bernard Bumner said:
No worries, I didn't mean to come across as precious at all, it just sticks in my craw to call crimes like these "honour" crimes when it's so perfectly obvious that honour is the last thing they demonstrate on the part of the perpetrator.
Granted, I'll try and be more clear next time :)
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 20, 2008 12:43 PM
Although this nasty incident seems to have been motivated by religious "morality", specifically Muslim morality, misogyny is nothing new in any country. I'm not defending supposedly "secular" Turkey. I think that religion is a problem everywhere it rears its ugly mind-warping head - but there's plenty of this kind of crap going on against women right here at home. Just check out all the creepy, hysterically hate-filled anti-female websites based right here in the US. Rape, mutilation, torture, murder - it's all out there for those who, for some unfathomable reason, think a person's humanity is based on what their genitalia looks like.
Posted by: Dorris | February 20, 2008 12:45 PM
Aris, gerald spezio is a silly little git who pops up here every so often and accuses PZ and the rest of here that makes up the echo chamber of being deluded by Israeli propaganda. The proof that we are deluded by such propaganda, most people here do not have kind things to say about islam. Which is really funny because there are some conservatives who accuse us of coddling that religion.
I think of gerald as being a vile and thinly veiled anti-semite. How else can one explain why he thinks The Mossad hold such control over all of us.
Posted by: Janine | February 20, 2008 12:51 PM
Any male who acts or thinks in terms of "honor" probably needs to be castrated.
Posted by: Hal | February 20, 2008 12:53 PM
@Jit 37: Love it. You write, I draw!
Posted by: Michelle | February 20, 2008 12:54 PM
Appropos of nothing directly related to the current conversation, when I read this line I couldn't help hearing k.d. lang's voice in my head, singing "Tears don't care who cries them...."
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | February 20, 2008 12:58 PM
Posted by: locksmyth | February 20, 2008 12:59 PM
I fail at blockquotes :(
Posted by: locksmyth | February 20, 2008 1:01 PM
@Salt- you appear to be blaming the girls for being "provocative." How exactly does _any_ form of "cultural provocation" justify maiming people with acid?
Posted by: Stephen Wells | February 20, 2008 10:35 AM
It doesn't. But neither can it be deemed religiously based.
As PZ said:
I understand this kind of thing is done to 'protect' the honor of women with a religious justification
Posted by: Salt | February 20, 2008 1:03 PM
> Shouldn't there be some kind of deep cultural shame that
> their young men are being indoctrinated into growing up as
> bullying cowards?
In my experience, men from Middle-Eastern countries will threaten to sneak up behind you, in groups, to attack you. I had a run-in with a group of Middle-Eastern penis-weilders (they definitely weren't "men") at an airport where they collectively tried to cut in front of everybody else in line. One of the idiots had a huge cart loaded with stuff that he pushed into my bags which knocked all of his crap off of the cart. He, and his friends, all threatened me to "watch my back."
Middle-Eastern men seem to avoid direct conflict, instead choosing to sneak up from behind to ambush. To me, this is a dictionary definition of chickenshitness.
After that incident, I read a bit about the cultural differences and I have even less respect for Eastern culture than I did before. While there are certainly exceptions (individuals who act like people instead of mindless cattle), the normative seems to be a bunch of cowardly dickheads... so it's no surprise to me that a group of cowardly Middle-Eastern men would attack women from behind. They're only a slight step up from a pack of wild dogs.
Posted by: Dan | February 20, 2008 1:09 PM
— Sir John Falstaff, in Henry IV, Part One
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 20, 2008 1:10 PM
Hal,
a) Plenty of men are also the victims of such killings ( stonings of unmarried lovers in Pakistan, for example).
b) Women are often complicit in them, via condonation and provision of alibis, if not participation in the actual violence.
This is a cultural sickness, and although its seeds might have been sown almost exclusively by men, its continued existance goes beyond mere issues of gender.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 20, 2008 1:14 PM
This isn't about the women's "honor" at all. The men in question are worried about their own "honor", which appears to depend largely on keeping women from gaining very much independence.
I'm reminded of a British colonial official whose job it was to suppress suttee, the religious tradition of immolating a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. When told that banning suttee would interfere with traditional practices, he stated that it was his country's traditional practice to hang anyone who burned women to death, and he fully intended to honor it. Apparently the sort of thing the Turks could use right now.
Posted by: Yossarian | February 20, 2008 1:21 PM
Abortion opponents are the local version. They are caught between feeding rhetoric to the rabid fundies on how doctors performing medical procedures should be killed and then watching their coffers dry up when one of the elect actually kills a doctor. Rather than go the legislatures and do the difficult work of changing laws, they post the names, addresses, and schedules of abortion providers.
Another point is the dearth of women in the movement. For decades, the only public face was that of a loser male seeking to "kick the dog". Now there are paid female spokesmodels to adjust public conceptions of the actual membership.
The group actually cowers in fear of what the populace would do if we knew their true aims. Prison is the least of their worries.
Posted by: Mold | February 20, 2008 1:21 PM
Richard Harris :
As someone who is deeply suspicious of the imperialism of evolutionary psychology, that was precisely my point. Here is a behaviour that seems to deeply reduce the inclusive fitness of the practitioners, and yet it is very common in some cultures.
Posted by: Tulse | February 20, 2008 1:25 PM
If a male animal acts irrationally violent and aggressive the proper response is to remove the over-excited animals testicles. Relieved of the burden of the aggression producing testosterone the male animals become calmer, more manageable and less prone to violence.
This is not punishment. It is simply a matter of removing the malignant influence of a hormone these young men are clearly unable to handle without become a threat to themselves and others.
It is the humane thing to do.
The E-string from a guitar, pruning shears or a sharp knife will work. As would a squirt of a strong acid or caustic...
Posted by: Art | February 20, 2008 1:36 PM
Hold on. If you're calling "secular progression" "culturally destructive" then aren't you kind of undercutting your whole point that there's no "religious justification" being used in the committing of that crime? In other words, what, exactly, is your point?
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 20, 2008 10:50 AM
Are you implying that in a purely secular culture such "crime" would not happen? If so, then it appears you'd say that secular progression can only be culturally destructive where religion is present.
Posted by: Salt | February 20, 2008 1:36 PM
I've heard of these killings when women are raped or found to have been committing adultery, but I don't hear about any men being killed for the same crimes - since in some of the religions providing justification, both of the adulterous partners are supposed to be killed, you would figure a religious justification would lead to similar numbers of men being killed (or if, as in previous cultures with similar sexual mores, multiple men have sex with a single woman, the ratio of males to females killed would be > 1). Are the killings of men not reported or are the perpetrators of such acts that baldly hypocritical (and disrespectful of the religions they take as justification, to boot)?
It seems as if conservative religious cultures hate their own beliefs (why else would they do such violence to them, by violating them?), the world (for refusing to cooperate with their wishes), and by implication the deities that are implied in both. They can't really like people much, either (why else would they choose to cause people such harm?). What do those cultures want from life (other than perhaps its end)? (I know that most here would generalize this - though I think some of the questions diminish in relevance the more respect accorded by the beliefs to people, to the world at large, and to themselves.)
Posted by: Hap | February 20, 2008 1:37 PM
#61
Posted by: Hal
Well, I've been vasectomized, but regardless, I think you are incredibly naive.
Matters of honor/respect/status play important roles in all social primate societies including human ones. Variations in perspective result in variation in what is seen as honorable, but it is simply human nature to categorize others according to relative status. If you think you are above such things, may I suggest that you are a hypocrite.
Posted by: wonderer | February 20, 2008 1:47 PM
RE "Atheist Bitch Kendoka" in #14, #37, and #62:
I'd love to see that! I picture something a little like Blood+ mixed with Club-to-Death-Angel Dokuro-chan. Maybe a bit of Read or Die too. Yomiko Readman seems like a good fit on this idea.
A cute schoolgirl going around all innocent until she wreaks horrible vengance on the perpetrators of destructive insanity. With maybe a whack from the classic Anime Mallet Of DOOOM for those whose irrationality isn't quite severe enough to deserve swift death. But you'd need the obligatory cute mascot character, maybe the IPU or FSM. Probably couldn't get the rights for Saint Dogbert, exorcising the Demons of Stupidity.
(And I AM a crazed otaku, as if this post was not evidence enough :P )
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 20, 2008 1:52 PM
PZ, any posited transcendental & infallible system/religion deserves to be bashed from the cool objectivity of a scientific perspective.
Yessir, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. are no different. All are rife with dogmatic religious blinders, and all of them belong in our scientific gun sights.
It appears, however, that you are practicing "un-natural" selection when you routinely pounce on the idiocies of Islam much more than any other - except Christianity.
Four such Muslim bashings in the last few weeks.
One of those recent posts, the alleged story of a Muslim mother teaching her daughter the "joys" of suicide bombing, has been debunked as pure unadulterated anti-Muslim agit-prop.
I suggest that if you quantify your recent routine focus on the clear idiocies of Islam (four in a row); you will find the exclusion of monstrous daily atrocities in the name of Jewish exceptionalism and outright genocide in Palestine.
Moreover, the amount of anti-Muslim agit-prop to select from dwarfs the amount of anti-Israel propaganda in the mass media.
The recent escalation of anti-Iranian agit-prop in the name of outright pre-emptive attack and murder cannot be missed by any objective observer, and anti-Muslim propaganda is part of the framing for attacking Iran.