What degree of wrong / abhorrent / inhuman / Farzana Iqbal’s murder was, has been discussed everywhere in detail. The mandatory condemnations have poured in as expected, repeating the same things that are said every time a woman has to be killed to protect the honour of the ‘unfortunate’ men in her life. When the reaction is as familiar as the crime, you are just wasting column spaces and airtime.
Whenever a woman is killed for honour, raped, burnt, attacked with acid or tortured in any form, our complete focus seems to be on dissecting the rather obvious mindset of the criminal. It is easy to ‘discern’ misogyny and patriarchy when its offshoot is a woman being stoned to death in front of the Lahore High Court. It is easy when daughters are buried alive; when a husband beats the hell out of his wife; when the daughter-in-law is burned alive, when acid is thrown at a woman’s face or when she is raped in broad daylight.
Deliberating over the criminal’s mindset in this case is a pointless exercise not only because the victim’s suffering makes it rather patent, but also because it is not the frame of mind that needs to be – or can be – changed.
[quote]If the idea of virginity were a human being it would be charged with the genocide of women[/quote]
The criminal in these situations is a fundamentalist. He takes an ideology – misogyny in this case – and takes it to extreme proportions. Highlighting misogyny in misogynist extremism is a waste of energy because it is virtually impossible to teach right from wrong when a person has penetrated radicalism. The reason why someone can muster what in saner parts of the universe would be ‘audacity’ to murder someone in front of a high court, is because the criminal’s ideology is prevalent in the society, even among those that might be vociferously condemning the murder. Therefore, most of the effort needs to be dedicated to uprooting a dangerous ideology’s milder forms, which provide credence to the extremist versions. It is easier to uproot a sapling than a fully grown tree. Misogynist extremist can’t be curtailed until misogyny in all its forms is eradicated.
The most critical aspect of a murder committed owing to “immoral behaviour”, is neither the murder nor the murderer. The most significant factor is the definition of morality. The actual murderer is the skewed standard of morality. The concept of “honour” in “honour killings” emanates from these double standards in morality.
Reducing an individual to the status of a body that needs to be covered, a role that has to be played, the guardian of virtue, or the source of honour for a family is the direct corollary of gender discrimination in any form. And here is the bottom line: a murder owing to gender inequality is a radical extension of skewed morality owing to gender inequality.
If the idea of virginity were a human being it would be charged with the genocide of women spanning millennia. The idea that a woman’s modesty is somehow related to what she is wearing would be charged with rapes galore.
Linking honour and modesty to a woman’s body has resulted in more dishonourable and immodest actions than anything else. When it is believed that objectification of a woman can be reduced by covering her body up and by equating her to a “treasure” that needs to be protected from “thieves” or a “lollipop” that needs to be covered to ward off “insects”, one traces the nadir of self-defeat.
“Enlightened” people flaunting the hijab as the solution to the objectification and suffering of women, making the entire family clan a stakeholder in an adult woman’s sex life, adhering to different standards of modesty for men and women, while simultaneously scorning at “honour killings” showcase how those condemning the suffering of women contribute to it themselves. “Honour killings”, a term that needs to be renamed in synchrony with its bestiality, cannot be eradicated till women are given ownership of their bodies and the possession of their own sexuality.
The ideas of honour, modesty and virginity are synthesised by patriarchal societies for the enslavement of women. They are made the slaves of their own bodies, which in turn are the property of their male guardians. Breaking these shackles is obviously punishable by death, to maintain the patriarchal status quo. When the whole existence of an individual is formulated by a perverted concept of honour, once that is breached the woman is obviously reduced to a tarnished corpse. Killing her off is a mere formality.
The murder itself is just a brutal tip of the iceberg. The iceberg is made out of an assortment of taboos involving sex, the female body and a woman’s societal and familial roles. And those who want to chop off the tip, while conforming to the iceberg, end up being inadvertent accomplices in this murder that is committed by a misplaced sense of morality.
Whenever a woman is killed for honour, raped, burnt, attacked with acid or tortured in any form, our complete focus seems to be on dissecting the rather obvious mindset of the criminal. It is easy to ‘discern’ misogyny and patriarchy when its offshoot is a woman being stoned to death in front of the Lahore High Court. It is easy when daughters are buried alive; when a husband beats the hell out of his wife; when the daughter-in-law is burned alive, when acid is thrown at a woman’s face or when she is raped in broad daylight.
Deliberating over the criminal’s mindset in this case is a pointless exercise not only because the victim’s suffering makes it rather patent, but also because it is not the frame of mind that needs to be – or can be – changed.
[quote]If the idea of virginity were a human being it would be charged with the genocide of women[/quote]
The criminal in these situations is a fundamentalist. He takes an ideology – misogyny in this case – and takes it to extreme proportions. Highlighting misogyny in misogynist extremism is a waste of energy because it is virtually impossible to teach right from wrong when a person has penetrated radicalism. The reason why someone can muster what in saner parts of the universe would be ‘audacity’ to murder someone in front of a high court, is because the criminal’s ideology is prevalent in the society, even among those that might be vociferously condemning the murder. Therefore, most of the effort needs to be dedicated to uprooting a dangerous ideology’s milder forms, which provide credence to the extremist versions. It is easier to uproot a sapling than a fully grown tree. Misogynist extremist can’t be curtailed until misogyny in all its forms is eradicated.
The most critical aspect of a murder committed owing to “immoral behaviour”, is neither the murder nor the murderer. The most significant factor is the definition of morality. The actual murderer is the skewed standard of morality. The concept of “honour” in “honour killings” emanates from these double standards in morality.
Reducing an individual to the status of a body that needs to be covered, a role that has to be played, the guardian of virtue, or the source of honour for a family is the direct corollary of gender discrimination in any form. And here is the bottom line: a murder owing to gender inequality is a radical extension of skewed morality owing to gender inequality.
If the idea of virginity were a human being it would be charged with the genocide of women spanning millennia. The idea that a woman’s modesty is somehow related to what she is wearing would be charged with rapes galore.
Linking honour and modesty to a woman’s body has resulted in more dishonourable and immodest actions than anything else. When it is believed that objectification of a woman can be reduced by covering her body up and by equating her to a “treasure” that needs to be protected from “thieves” or a “lollipop” that needs to be covered to ward off “insects”, one traces the nadir of self-defeat.
“Enlightened” people flaunting the hijab as the solution to the objectification and suffering of women, making the entire family clan a stakeholder in an adult woman’s sex life, adhering to different standards of modesty for men and women, while simultaneously scorning at “honour killings” showcase how those condemning the suffering of women contribute to it themselves. “Honour killings”, a term that needs to be renamed in synchrony with its bestiality, cannot be eradicated till women are given ownership of their bodies and the possession of their own sexuality.
The ideas of honour, modesty and virginity are synthesised by patriarchal societies for the enslavement of women. They are made the slaves of their own bodies, which in turn are the property of their male guardians. Breaking these shackles is obviously punishable by death, to maintain the patriarchal status quo. When the whole existence of an individual is formulated by a perverted concept of honour, once that is breached the woman is obviously reduced to a tarnished corpse. Killing her off is a mere formality.
The murder itself is just a brutal tip of the iceberg. The iceberg is made out of an assortment of taboos involving sex, the female body and a woman’s societal and familial roles. And those who want to chop off the tip, while conforming to the iceberg, end up being inadvertent accomplices in this murder that is committed by a misplaced sense of morality.