I had the pleasure of hearing this story right as I headed out the door this morning. Apparently her husband was in a lower caste, and he didn't approve of him from the beginning of the relationship. Nice way to start out '08.

Yeah it's not like she's an adult who can make her own decisions or anything.

This is off-topic, but unless it's already been done, I think it would be interesting to examine the Presidential Candidates in terms of who supports equality for women the most, if that's somehow possible?

A few items: Can we safely say now, then, that certain cultures are more sexist and misogynistic than others?

I was discussing this on my facebook blog, and it seems the conversation has turned into transnational feminism and how we can preserve and respect a culture, while at the same time, standing up for what we consider misogynistic. Like it or not, a crime against women is a crime against women, regardless of "culture."

Sometimes, and I caution to even say it, global feminism (though I realize this man is from Chicago), is best done via IGOs rather than grassroot NGO levels. Want to curb misogynistic practices? Put pressure on national governments to do something about it ...or they lose certain privileges.

No matter where you're from, this is wrong. This is a fine example of how the patriarchy and the objectification of women can lead to violence to women. After all, if you see a woman not as a complete person with her own autonomy, but something of an object, to be bought, sold and bartered for, then you can treat them however you want.

This is my favorite line:
She said that relatives approved of the marriage and that the caste system was not a consideration for her family in India, nor is it a consideration now in the United States.
"There was no family problem. There was nothing going on. Absolutely nothing," Devi said.

Nice one, auntie.

I don't see how this specifically have to do with the patriarchy, but whatever. The man would still have done it had we lived in a matriarchy.

Like it or not, a crime against women is a crime against women, regardless of "culture."

It was a crime against A woman, not against women. A crime against A woman is a crime against an individual.

This is a fine example of how the patriarchy and the objectification of women can lead to violence to women.

Err...he killed her husband, too. Trust ProFeministMale to ignore violence against men, even when it's right in front of his face.

DNX - but the reason this falls under the patriarchy is his motivation for killing, you idiot ...

If this were a completely random crime for no reason, it's one thing. But this is a crime based on the fact that the father saw himself as OWNING his daughter, and that no man should marry her without his permission. That, in itself, is patriarchal.

If this were a crime based not on gender and marriage, then that's a different story.

If you're so concerned for men's rights and well-being, you should be speaking out against this, too, because patriarchy is clearly hurting men (as in the guy he killed in the fire), as well as this man himself, who has decided that a patriarchal culture and practice is more important than his daughter and the relationship with his family.

I suspect this man also would have killed a son (and incidentally the son's wife) if the son had married "beneath" his caste. Even in cultures widely regarded as more enlightened, certain segments of society frown upon, and in subtle (and at times not so subtle) ways prevent the marriage of a child beneath his or her "station" -- whether "station" is defined by wealth or education or otherwise.

Of course, citizens of the more enlightened nations do not resort to murder in protest of such a marriage.

Tim, I am not so sure that'd be the case ...as in women's caste systems are often based on dowry - and in the cases in which the dowry are not sufficient, women are the ones being harmed for it, either via burning or having acids thrown on them ...

We've seen repeated cases of this over and over again ...and whether we want to political correct and culturally sensitive or not, the practice is misogynistic and unacceptable.

" A few items: Can we safely say now, then, that certain cultures are more sexist and misogynistic than others? "

Not when you compare it to good old-fashioned American Christian Patriarchy.

(Robin Phillips has written a decent summary of their views on marriage here, in case no one here has heard of it before.
http://robinphillips.blogspot.com/2006/08/my-book-on-courtship-and-betrothal_30.html )

I knew we'd get some folks wagging their fingers at "less enlightened" cultures. Whatever. Like violence against women isn't an issue in developed nations.

Dnx, nobody is advocating matriarchy. But what makes you think he would have done the same thing in a female-supremacist culture?
In a matriarchy, women would not be considered their father's property, to be handed over to another man upon marriage. So there'd be no conflict about that.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that feminists don't advocate matriarchy? That the absence of patriarchy does not necessarily mean matriarchy?
One sex does not have to "rule" over the other.
Why are relations between the sexes all about the dominant/submissive paradigm to you?

"Of course, citizens of the more enlightened nations do not resort to murder in protest of such a marriage."

See, this is the kind of bullshit that makes my blood boil. More enlightened nations? Like who, the US of A, where a woman is battered every 15 seconds and raped every 6 minutes? In Europe, domestic violence is the main cause of death for women ages 16-44. (See Amnesty International for the figures.)

Enlightened nations my ass. It's times like these when I'm ashamed to call myself a feminist and a female of color at the same time. With racism like this so rampant, who needs sexism?

You know what bugs me? I don't think this would have been a headline story if this woman wasn't pregnant.

After all, honor killings and the like have been happening in the U.S. for awhile now. And women are murdered by male family members every day...

But when I saw this on CNN.com the headline was "Father murders pregnant daughter."

If this girl hadn't been pregnant, would we ever even hear about this?

This incident happened a few miles from me, in a neighborhood where I used to live. The man accused of the arson is actually an immigrant from India.

It is a sad, sad story all around. In addition to the horror of the deaths of this man's family, many people have been displaced from their homes and lost everything they had due to his actions. The local papers have shown pictures of these people and they were of all races, ethnicities, and were men and women. The one thing they all had in common was they were all relatively lower class economically. And now they share being homeless.

And all the friends and relatives of this man say the same thing - no problems with the family, everybody was happy, blah, blah, blah. Well, obviously somebody is lying, or just not paying attention.

SarahMC - I think I love you! ;)

You just said exactly what I was trying to think of saying, but I wasn't able to put it into words the way you did. I mean, WHY is there always this power struggle? Why do a lot of men believe that we are trying to "dominate" them just because we want the same rights and freedoms they enjoy? At the risk of sounding cliche - can't we all just get along?? :)

Anyhoo - I just wanted to let you know how much I think you ROCK! Out of all the comments on all the blog posts I read on this site, your comments are always very intelligent and they hit home & ring true with me the most. Thanks for being... Well, just thanks for being! :)

I suspect this man also would have killed a son (and incidentally the son's wife) if the son had married "beneath" his caste.

I doubt that. Certainly, the father wouldn't have been pleased with a son who married beneath him, but I'll bet that the reaction would have been more along the lines of disowning his son, not murdering him.

Good observation, Tobes. Had she not been pregnant, this would not even be on CNN's radar. It's only tragic when a fetus is involved. /sarcasm

JunieB, those comments from the family infuriate me. What is the point of even playing "happy family?" Clearly, the situation was *not* butterflies and rainbows, or else the community would not be in this situation right now.

Aw, thanks MzStiletto! I'm glad you've stuck around. :)

Tobes, I think part of the reason this is such a big story in the Chicago area is it is the third fairly recent local news story involving fire and Indian immigrants. This link goes to the Chicago Tribune story that may not stay up for more than a week:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/39ftv6

Well, I _thought_ it was a good thing until reading this story.

radhika, THANK YOU.

In an off topic response to Spiknard's off topic question, I suggest you read this article and decide for yourself: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/02/whillary102.xml

Tobes, I'm right with you. I'm not sure this would be on CNN if the woman wasn't pregnant. And one of the charges against the father is 'intentional homicide of an unborn child'. It's horrible that this woman and her family were killed, but I'm a little scared of where the legal precedence of that charge is going.

I'll admit to being ignorant as to how the caste system works, but I'm willing to bet the reaction would have been different if it was a son who married below his caste. Somehow it seems like it is more acceptable for a man to marry a lower class woman than the other way around.

And SarahMC, you are spot on in the fact that a lack of patriarchy does not necesarrily mean matriachy. This is way off topic, but I've been noticing a trend in fantasy fiction that really bugs me. In every world where woman are in charge, for some reason the men are always enslaved.

The next time someone tells me they aren't a feminist, or that feminism is over or outdated or has done all it needs to, I will hand them a copy of this story and knock them in the head "should've had a V8" style.

It's terrifying that this level of woman-hate goes on and (as many ahve pointed out) goes largely ignored.

VT - I HATE separate charges for murdering a fetus. I think there should be a charge for murdering a pregnant woman. I mean, it makes me uncomfortable to make the differentiation between pregnant and non-pregnant women, but seeing as the #1 cause of death of pregnant women is homicide, it seems that they need extra protection. And murdering someone who is pregnant is just so heinous.

OK, I know I've bitched people out for racism and xenophobia, but this act is despicable. Let me make that clear. Everyone should condemn actions like this, including the South Asian American community. (which they have)

But I've said it once and I'll say it again. Condemning this man's actions does NOT give someone the right to unnecessarily bash Indian culture and imply that it is barbaric or entirely misogynistic. Yes, there are misogynistic elements in it, just like Western culture. However, Indian culture is far too diverse and far too vast to reduce to one form.

I wonder why feminism isn't so popular among women of color.

That, in itself, is patriarchal.

No it's not. It would have happened in a matriarchy. It makes no difference whatsoever. None. One of the reasons I don't fight against the patriarchy, is that I am not a blind ideologue.

SarahMC says: ''nobody is advocating matriarchy.''
Please, feel free to point out to me where exactly I stated someone was advocating matriarchy.

In a matriarchy, women would not be considered their father's property
People will kill regardless. She might not have been considered his property, but he might still have gotten angry at marrying the man (whom he had issues with), and killed him and her.

I'm not going to address the rest of your rant, because I never said feminists advocated matriarchy and whatnot.

Thanks for playing!

Oh...and I wouldn't fight a matriarchy either.

"It would have happened in a matriarchy."

...and I bet you have a bunch of "actual' examples, huh? why use the silly/ purely hypothetical matriarchy argument, when someone just told you that feminism isn't about advocating one-sex rule? There isn't a connection between feminism and matriarchy, geddit? So your ranting about it is a red herring.

Your argument that murder would exist in non-patriarchal societies: maybe it would, but getting rid of the myth of ownership of women's bodies by men would surely reduce the number of murders.

There's actually never been a proven archaeological example of "matriarchy". There have been, however, matrilineal societies.

This is because women were INCLUSIVE and didn't rule over men through oligarchy -- even when bloodlines passed along their names instead of men's.

________________
religious or not, we're all affected...
http://www.religiarchy.com

I was about to respond to the claim that this case has nothing to do with the patriarchy (haw HAW), but I thought better of what would surely be a pointless argument.

Otherwise, this story is sickening and, sadly, not all that surprising. Although the family's culture is, I guess, relevant to a comprehensive understanding of the situation, it is wholly unnecessary in order for a rational being to feel (at the least) horror at such behavior.

You are the one who brought matriarchy up, Dnx. And to me and a bunch of other people, it came off like you were suggesting that's what we (feminists) prefer as opposed to patriarchy.

How is "he killed them because the SIL didn't ask for his permission to marry the daughter" NOT indicative of patriarchy? It's about the murder's belief that he owns his daughter and has a right to make life decisions for her.

dnx: One of the reasons I don't fight against the patriarchy, is that I am not a blind ideologue.

No, but apparently you're a psychic:

It would have happened in a matriarchy.

Oh, and you might as well wear a sign around your neck that reads "Male Supremacist," Dnx.
You acknowledge the existance of patriarchy but don't fight against it? You recognize that you have unearned privilege, and that women as a class are oppressed by men as a class, but don't want to change it. How can you be anything BUT a misogynist?

I don't fight against patriarchy, but that does not mean I support it. I fight to change laws; things that can be changed. I'm not like feminists in the way that I don't say: ''OMG! Women are beaten and raped! Evil patriarchy! We must stop it.'' I'm not an ideologue, and don't seek to change people's attitudes or things that are beyond our control, as humans, such as stopping crimes. As I said previously, I would not fight a matriarchy either for the very same reasons.

I have unearned privileges? Women are oppressed in North America & Europe? Tell me about it.

Theaetetus, if a kid beats up another kid and steals his candy, is it because we live in a patriarchy? No. Same thing here. In a matriarchy, the husband most likely would have gotten mad at the daughter for marrying a man he did not like, and murdered her (and the man).

Changing attitudes is beyond our control? Stopping crime is beyond our control?
So re-education has never worked to change people's attitudes towards slavery, or child-abuse, or women's roles? All our attitudes are constant, and have been with us since the dawn of time?

It must be nice to be so comfortable with your position in society. Your view might change if the majority of our culture's double-standards worked against you. Or if you faced the same threat of sexualized violence that women do.

Certain things won't change with legislation. Attitudes must change first.

Your kids/candy example doesn't include anything re sex roles or gender dominance, while the example in this news story does! How can this be so difficult?
Why, under matriarchy, would the husband (father?) feel he had the right to murder his daughter and SIL because the SIL didn't ask his permission to marry the daughter? Are you missing that part or something? About how marriage is looked at as a transfer of property (the woman) from one man (dad) to another (the new man)?

dnx:
I'm not like feminists in the way that I don't say: ''OMG! Women are beaten and raped! Evil patriarchy! We must stop it.''

And that is what makes you a misogynistic asshole. You don't give a shit that women are beaten and raped. Wow. Well at least you're honest. Most assholes at least pretend to care.

I have unearned privileges? Women are oppressed in North America & Europe? Tell me about it.

Ding ding ding! And now I know you're simply a troll and worth no more of my time.

Caste, if a child comes from a mixed marriage, comes from the child's father. So the kid, in this case, was a lower caste than the grandfather, probably adding to the ways the patriarchy was responsible for these murders.

And I second radhika's comment. Well spotted.

"A few items: Can we safely say now, then, that certain cultures are more sexist and misogynistic than others?"

Yeah, we can definitely say that certain *customs* are more sexist and mysoginistic than others, no matter how culturally authentic they may be. As for *cultures,* those contradict themselves and overlap with each other too much to pin down and rank as accurately.

"If this were a completely random crime for no reason, it's one thing. But this is a crime based on the fact that the father saw himself as OWNING his daughter, and that no man should marry her without his permission. That, in itself, is patriarchal."

Indeed.

As for the what-if-it-was-matriarchy-instead-of-patriarchy topic, I guess the only difference it would have made would be more mothers and fewer fathers committing these kinds of murders.

"This is way off topic, but I've been noticing a trend in fantasy fiction that really bugs me. In every world where woman are in charge, for some reason the men are always enslaved."

What about _Ammonite_ by Nicola Griffith and _Y_ by Brian Vaughan and Pia Guerra? OTOH, those are kinda more SF than fantasy.

"OK, I know I've bitched people out for racism and xenophobia, but this act is despicable. Let me make that clear. Everyone should condemn actions like this, including the South Asian American community. (which they have)"

Right on! I'm also reminded of Imam Zaid Shakir's reaction to the murder of Aqsa Parvez: http://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2007/12/30/4745399-sun.html

"But I've said it once and I'll say it again. Condemning this man's actions does NOT give someone the right to unnecessarily bash Indian culture and imply that it is barbaric or entirely misogynistic. Yes, there are misogynistic elements in it, just like Western culture. However, Indian culture is far too diverse and far too vast to reduce to one form."

I totally agree!

(Well, apart from nitpicking that "Indian culture" isn't even one culture and "Western culture" isn't one culture either)

Thank you Mina. :)

On another related note, we need more multiracial/multicultural feminists up in this joint. Not just to dispel myths about other cultures, but to fight racism and xenophobia within American feminism. (Which is prevalent, as I have seen myself in this thread.)

The thing that struck me was the assistant state attorney describing what they believed happened. That the father poured $3 in gasoline outside the couple's front door and then lit it while they slept.

radhika: THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. As a South Asian (though not American), I was somewhat scared to read these boards in fear of the "OMG their cultures are backward" comments. Lo and behold, they are here.

No problem, Tiara. I've already emailed Deministing about this particular problem and I expect something to be done. (Right, Jessica?)

whoops, Feministing. teehee.

Dear Sarah, please take a biology class. This is not ''pop-psychology'' here. Anyway, it would have happened regardless because some people think they ''own'' others. Why do you think slavery existed? Flesh-control will always exist.

Dear Luna, nice try, but I don't try to stop violence against men either. Back to the drawing board for you, kiddo!

Parents always think they ''own'' their kids.

I find the use of the term ''patriarchy'', ''privilege'', and ''misogyny'' is way overused in here. Don't you boys and girls know how to say anything else? Like ''science'', for example?

***rolls eyes***
DNX= Troll

Tim= lone asshole who does not speak for regular feministing readers.

Of course, citizens of the more enlightened nations do not resort to murder in protest of such a marriage.

You were being sarcastic, right? I really really hope so. Either way though, the problem with calling one group of people more "enlightened" than another--and this should be obvious--is who makes that decision. And clearly no one is going to decide that they are less enlightened. Radhika's pointed it out, but feminists already have enough to deal with that we don't need to toss racism into the mix.

This is the kind of story that makes me, if not quite retract my opposition to capital punishment, not as ardent in said opposition. I can't say that I'll be picketing the prison the night he gets his lethal injection or whatever.

Alan

***rolls eyes***
holly the contrarian=Troll

Actually- dnx= dnx-1.
here's his website: http://iblognews.wordpress.com/
he links to (or was up until two weeks ago) antimisandry.com- where he also reprinted 2 emails from me.
Oh, and you know, dnx, I
ve always posted under the name "holly", so try again.
(oh, and it was cute in the e-mail where you derided me for using the word "fucking", and then employed the word antimisandry.com- in response to an e-mail directed solely to you)
You're a real class act!

I guess that word just shouldn't come out of the mouths of ladies.

GO HOME. NOW.

Take a biology class? What? I don't see what biology has to do with this topic. We use the words "patriarchy," "privilege," and "misogyny" because this is a feminist website and we talk about feminist issues.
When something is anti-woman, or supports the male power structure, we identify it and name it.
You've already admitted that you don't oppose misogyny, so what is your purpose?
And it's a lie that you don't fight against violence against men. Are you not from the antimisandry site? Clearly you think men's rights are important but don't give a shit about women because you're not a woman and don't relate to or empathize with them.

Oh, Dnx. Biology does not equal destiny. Human being are complicated... that's what that whole civilization thing we've been working on is all about. And some people want civilization -or at least our own society -to be as equitable as possible for all participants. It's that kind of thing that leads to things like progress and a better life, but if you don't like the advances that civilization has brought I suggest that you go live in a cave and leave reasonable people alone.

relating to the fantasy - matriarchy topic I was thinking over the drow in forgotten realms, last I read in War of the Spider Queen the Eilistraee groups seemed to give off a matriarchal vibe which would be comparable to current western patriarchy. The male, Ryld, didn't really feel included or welcomed in the society but they weren't hostile, just more concerned with Halistra then with him. But I haven't read a lot of other books concerning Eilistraee settlements.... I may need to pick up the Lyriel stories to find out more.

In a matriarchy, or even a matrilineal society, the status of the couple, as a couple, would come from the woman, so the woman could not possibly "marry down." The woman might have to consult her mother for permission to marry, but since there are no cultures where women kill their adult children, only cultures where women sell out their adult children to their husbands who *then* do the killing, there's no good reason to believe that a matriarchy would have the cultural belief that it's okay to kill a child for marrying down or marrying without permission. Even if so, it would be the mother who grants or doesn't grant permission, not the father, and very likely it would be the sons who would be required to marry someone of higher status... except they wouldn't, because in a matrilineal society what would matter much more than the children of sons is that sons support their sisters' children. Every matrilineal society there has ever been works by creating clans headed by women, women take care of the kids, men outbreed and then have kind of not so much to do with their own children, but they heavily participate in raising and providing for their clan's children, who are the children of their sisters. So actually in a matriarchy marriage probably would not exist, or not as we know it, and a mother would not be so concerned about who her son marries as to kill him over it.

So no, this crime would not have happened under a matriarchy. Or a matrilineal society. On the other hand, women murdering their kids because God told them to *might* still happen, because that isn't caused by patriarchy, it's caused by men totally ignoring what goes on with women caring for kids until the women go insane. A matrilineal society would probably still have the women care for the kids, it's just that the importance of that task would be greatly increased in society. (And perhaps the women wouldn't be allowed to go insane and kill their kids because their mothers, sisters and female cousins would notice a problem first.)

"The woman might have to consult her mother for permission to marry, but since there are no cultures where women kill their adult children, only cultures where women sell out their adult children to their husbands who *then* do the killing, there's no good reason to believe that a matriarchy would have the cultural belief that it's okay to kill a child for marrying down or marrying without permission."

OTOH, according to the Latin roots of the words "patriarchy" just means rule by fathers and "matriarchy" just means rule by mothers. This doesn't specify *how* the fathers or mothers would rule.

Therefore, if it's possible for some varieties of patriarchy to allow fathers to kill their adult daughters and sons, then that is a good reason to believe it would also be possible for some varieties of matriarchy to allow mothers to kill their adult daughters and sons.

"Even if so, it would be the mother who grants or doesn't grant permission, not the father, and very likely it would be the sons who would be required to marry someone of higher status... except they wouldn't, because in a matrilineal society what would matter much more than the children of sons is that sons support their sisters' children."

OTOH, would that apply to every possible matriarchy? I heard that some patriarchies out there don't have patrilineality.

And it's a lie that you don't fight against violence against men. Are you not from the antimisandry site? Clearly you think men's rights are important but don't give a shit about women because you're not a woman and don't relate to or empathize with them.

Your logic is incredible...NOT! Just because I go on antimisandry doesn't mean I try to end violence against men. Learn to read. Here's a great site for you: http://www.starfall.com

I only care about some stuff. I go on there because sometimes it gives me ideas on what to write about. I've only made around 20 posts in 4-6 months, so I don't go on there much. Furthermore, I do care about women's rights, but most of the ''rights'' you claim women not to have are lies, myth, or not rights at all. I've asked some of my feminists friends, and they don't know what I can write about for women. Tell me, and I'll make a post about it. It's gotta be an issue affecting many women, and not individual incidents such as this one.

Anyway, my next post on my blog will be ''20 Examples of Feminist & Masculist Nonsense.''

Mina, it's true that matrilinearity is found in some male-dominated societies. This is because it makes more sense with human biology. The idea that the people responsible for caring for the young, who suffer physical harm during labor and need a lot of care at the time that their babies are also most helpless, should be sequestered with their *own* family rather than people they're not related to... that makes a lot of sense. And it also makes sense that given that we always know a woman's child but not a man's child, that focusing on who the mother is for inheritance purposes makes sense even if inheritance is male to male. (Thus, some male dominated societies -- I hesitate to call them "patriarchies" because they were all about uncles, not fathers -- transmitted power and goods from man to sister's son.)

However, the idea that a society that venerates mothers and grants them power over their families rather than granting the power to the fathers should then have the girls go off to their husbands' homes makes no sense. I can't imagine how you could have a matriarchy without matrilinearity. The societies that are male-dominated but matrilineal are actually much more egalitarian than a traditional patriarchy, and part of the male domination may have been observer bias from the people studying those societies; women usually had separate but valuable power structures of their own. For an actual matriarchy to send women away to live with strangers seems absurd given how human biology works; the only reason to have patrilinearity is if you want to have patriarchy and therefore sons must inherit from fathers, so women must be sequestered *away* from family so that they can be controlled better and their reproduction can be governed by their husbands. Otherwise patrilinearity makes very little sense with human biology.

As for how matriarchy and patriarchy *should* work vs. how they actually do... we've never seen a matriarchy, but in all societies we have seen that have honor killings, it's never women who do the killing. This implies that honor killing serves a specifically male agenda and women wouldn't feel the need to do it. (Women might well do something else that is rather unpleasant; we don't know, because we've never seen a truly female-dominated society.) So yeah, in theory you could have a matriarchy where honor killings are committed, but I can't see why. Given what we actually do see women do across cultures, given what we actually see female animals do, and given the motivations for honor killings, it seems hard to imagine why a matriarch would kill her daughter (or her son) for marrying an inappropriate person. Unless maybe there was warfare involved.

Some commenters have expressed some discomfort with the charge of homicide of an unborn child. It appears that, under Illinois law, that is an offense distinct from murder, and the fetal homicide statute specifically exempts acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented.

If the statute were a back door attempt to restrict abortion rights, I could more easily understand the concern, but under the present circumstances, why should the state not punish intentional fetal homicide? Certainly a woman who has lost her potential offspring at the hands of an assailant or another who intended to do serious harm to her or to the fetus has suffered a grievous loss. Why should the criminal law not recognize that loss and punish accordingly?

Given India's gender ratios I wouldn't be so quick to claim India is all wonderful regarding women's rights.

...'Cause anybody said anything resembling that, Farhat.

"I HATE separate charges for murdering a fetus. I think there should be a charge for murdering a pregnant woman."

I like your approach. Promotion of "murder of/harming a fetus" which can be seen in some criminal charges, can only be used against the pro-choice movement.

Would murder of a pregnant woman be a kind of hate crime, then?

"I've asked some of my feminists friends, and they don't know what I can write about for women. Tell me, and I'll make a post about it. It's gotta be an issue affecting many women, and not individual incidents such as this one."

Aside from the fact "honor killing" is a recognized phenomenon, how about . . . rape? Your women friends heard of that one?

"but in all societies we have seen that have honor killings, it's never women who do the killing."

I've heard of women ordering such hits, though:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2003/10/05/mom_gave_long_distance_order_for_honor_killing_police_say/

"This implies that honor killing serves a specifically male agenda and women wouldn't feel the need to do it."

I guess that depends on whether "my daughter eloped, I must kill her to restore my reputation" and "my neighbor dissed me, I must kill him to restore my reputation" (yes, I've seen gang shootings described as honor killings) count as one specific agenda or two different agendas.

"Given what we actually do see women do across cultures,"

Yeah, I was thinking of what women and men do in patriarchies, and wondering how much of what men do in patriarchies would be done by women in matriarchies.

"given what we actually see female animals do, and given the motivations for honor killings, it seems hard to imagine why a matriarch would kill her daughter (or her son) for marrying an inappropriate person. Unless maybe there was warfare involved."

And/or racism and/or religious fundamentalism and/or paranoia about having a dissed rep, I guess.

"If the statute were a back door attempt to restrict abortion rights, I could more easily understand the concern, but under the present circumstances, why should the state not punish intentional fetal homicide? Certainly a woman who has lost her potential offspring at the hands of an assailant or another who intended to do serious harm to her or to the fetus has suffered a grievous loss. Why should the criminal law not recognize that loss and punish accordingly?"

It should recognize that loss by recognizing that *she* is the victim, not by counting the fetus itself as a separate victim.

"Would murder of a pregnant woman be a kind of hate crime, then?"

That sounds workable. You know how race-based murders are hate crimes whether one's killed for being black or killed for being white? A reproductive status-based murder should count as a hate crime whether one's killed for being pregnant or killed for not being pregnant...

For the love of all that is good, could we please all agree that this DNX is a troll-- we boot trolls do we not? He is dragging the discussion into his own stupidity and it's driving me mad having to skip all his crap to get to relevant discussions.

A quick view of his "website" should tell you all you need to know. This guy has no interest in advancing the discussion here. -- He posts "hilarious" stuff from feministing.ORG -- real gems like,

"A feminist must say “Patriarchy� at least ninety-seven times per hour. The ten millionth time you say “Patriarchy� you will trigger a shower of confetti and receive a fabulous prize."

Time for this guy to go... anyone who feels so entitled to come here and waste time and call other bloggers "kiddo" should lose privileges. The topic is just too important.

Sorry I haven't had my morning cup of coffee yet, short fuse and all. But seriously, why is this guy still here??

Thank you, Tobes. That and the "other jerk". It's painfully obvious that all they're doing is trying to get our goat. Both- waste of space. I made the initial (I think) mistake of engaging dnx.
Yes, please stop feeding the trolls! It's irritating. I know *some* commenters love to debate... but stop.
I'll also be the ass and go ahead and say one of the debaters is really getting on my last nerve. Having to skip her comments, now.
"I are so smart. I are so smart. S-M-R-T"- or, however that Simpson saying goes.

Tell me again how patriarchy is a good thing?

Sorry, no.

I can't say that I'll be picketing the prison the night he gets his lethal injection or whatever.

Illinois suspended its capital punishment program after it was discovered innocent people were being executed. Little consolation, but Chander (already 59) will die slowly of old age in a cell.

I find the use of the term ''patriarchy'', ''privilege'', and ''misogyny'' is way overused in here.

Poor dear. Perhaps you should go elsewhere where your views and poor grammar are appreciated.

''Aside from the fact "honor killing" is a recognized phenomenon, how about . . . rape? Your women friends heard of that one?''

I focus on English-speaking countries. Rape? That is kind of broad... What about rape do you want me to write about?

Holly, all you did was call me a troll before anything else.

''He posts "hilarious" stuff''
I've posted ONE post from feministing.org and that's IT. You have to be one of those dumb feminists; just love to twist things to suit you, don't you? No wonder average Joe & Jane don't take you seriously!

and seriously, ladies, if the average Jane and Joe don't take you seriously, you might as well pack up the site, stop arguing passionately and with conviction, quit your day jobs and start making your boyfriends or husbands sandwiches.
after all, feminists are so dumb.

if you have so much disdain feminists in general and this site in particular so much, dnx, why do you come here?
can you at least see why folks are calling you a troll? maybe a little? just tad?

and seriously, ladies, if the average Jane and Joe don't take you seriously, you might as well pack up the site, stop arguing passionately and with conviction, quit your day jobs and start making your boyfriends or husbands sandwiches.
after all, feminists are so dumb.

if you have so much disdain feminists in general and this site in particular so much, dnx, why do you come here?
can you at least see why folks are calling you a troll? maybe a little? just a tad?

and seriously, ladies, if the average Jane and Joe don't take you seriously, you might as well pack up the site, stop arguing passionately and with conviction, quit your day jobs and start making your boyfriends or husbands sandwiches.
after all, feminists are so dumb.

if you have so much disdain feminists in general and this site in particular much, dnx, why do you come here?
can you at least see why folks are calling you a troll? maybe a little? just a tad?

sorry for the triple post, trigger finger got all itchy.

I am from Menarebetterthanwomen.com.

I have no wish to make a false pretense that I come here in peace - I have not.

I just find the discourse between "SarahMc" and Dnx" laughable.

Sarah, how old are you? Sorry, how old are the feminists here? Why is "Dnx" a troll simply because he disagrees with you?

He asked a simple question.

How are women being oppressed in North American and Europe?

Really?

Oppressed?

HAHAHAHAH.

Please, don't make excuses for women's inability or find an outlet to apportion blame(men ie. patriarchy).

Its getting old.

Read the fucking article. The man killed a man and a woman. Suddenly, it has transmuted to *gosh*, a crime against women?!? Misogynist??

Feel free to plant tags or labels on me. Call me misogynist, sexist, chauvinist blah blah, I don't care. One thing for sure - I don't blame women for my problems. I stand up and solve them. Pronto. I get things done, can't say the same about the bunch of womymn on this site.

Women oppressed? Don't fucking kid me. Who pays alimoney 99% of the time? Who gets conscripted for the draft? Who gets treated harsher in the judicial system? Yeah... men.

Tell me about a time women were oppressed and I be glad to hear it. I will be first in line to defend her but tell me about a time when men are getting oppressed in today's world, I can write a book.

I will be defending the patriarchy - If that pisses you off, shoot me. Undeserved privileges? HAHAHHAHA, you got to be fucking kidding me. That is what I would call AFFIRMATIVE ACTION which is in place.. *wait*... for WOMEN.

HAHAHAHA.

Call me a troll all you want, I am leaving.

Btw, do check out the site. With every feminist that goes on to harm men, there will now be an increasing number of male rights activists who will fight for men.

~ Sayonara.

When something is anti-woman, or supports the male power structure, we identify it and name it.
What is wrong with the male power structure? It has led to the progression of society into today's world world. If men wanted to enslave you, you would never have the chance to be here.

You've already admitted that you don't oppose misogyny, so what is your purpose?
Non-sequitur. Really not funny. Again, feel free to attach these little "labels" all you want. Boohoo, I care - Not.

Clearly you think men's rights are important but don't give a shit about women because you're not a woman and don't relate to or empathize with them.

So going by your logic, you have to be A) a woman or B) an unequivocal supporter of everything feminism stands for?

How fucktarded is that.

Feminism is about oppression, hegemony and censorship.

My posts will disappear in a couple of days. Just watch it happen. Why? Because feminists like you and the site's owner are afraid of the truth. You are afraid of debate, you are afraid of rational discourse. So the course of action that is being undertaken is ... you hide under the sophistry and guise of language using words like "troll" to oust MRAs or silence all opposition.

C'mon, get real. I have been posting on both male rights sites and feminists sites. Never once has a male rights site deleted comments that are pro-feminism. Infact, most of the guy, the men were engaging, forthcoming and responsive. In comparison, feminist sites(like these) just shut you off the minute you go against their doctrine.

I've posted ONE post from feministing.org and that's IT. You have to be one of those dumb feminists; just love to twist things to suit you, don't you? No wonder average Joe & Jane don't take you seriously!

^ So true.

But really, since you women are obviously masochists who relish the joy of being oppressed and subjected to abuse:

Please, make me a sandwich as I am feeling hungry. It will be such a fine show of oppression.

Anyhow, men are better than women. I guess that explains why you are all feeling grumpy. Grow out of your penis envy, ladies(HAHA!). Blow me.

oh, you poor tiny little man.
what did your mommy do to you?

Men are better than women, but no misogyny there, right?
There are numerous thread on this site consisting of feminists explaining feminism calmly and politely to men who ask questions, pose challenges, and act civilly.

Patriarchy hurts men too, babe. Blame patriarchy for that list of problems men face.

Feminism benefits everyone. Even assholes.

This site, among others, discusses the myriad ways in which women in the West are oppressed/marginalized (in addition to women in other parts of the world).

It's not our job to walk you through each thread.

i've always thought that womb envy was a more reasonable way of explaining misogyny.
every person is, at some point in his/her life, dependent on a woman for his/her survival.
i think there are quite a few men who bitterly resent women for this simple fact.

"i've always thought that womb envy was a more reasonable way of explaining misogyny.
every person is, at some point in his/her life, dependent on a woman for his/her survival."

Dependent on a woman or a girl at some point.

For example: a 12-year-old isn't an adult, even if her father and father-in-law said so 9 months ago and she's dying in childbirth today.

"Men are better than women, but no misogyny there, right?"

What does he want, a cookie? He seems to want praise for not enslaving women, as if he's not just supposed to not enslave people.

*headdesk*

Well, it probably won't do any good, but it can't hurt. Here ya go, mansvoice (we've got several of those here, by the way -- just maybe not one quite as irrational and overexcited as yours):

Play nice with others, now.

What a bunch of idiots. Is there anyone here who made it pass college without a major in Women's studies or Political Science? Buying your major doesn't count, really. There is a clear distinction between a chauvinist and a misogynist but if you wish to place a tag on me as a misogynist, go ahead. I am *sooo* bothered.

Like I said, the whole issue why men are afraid to speak up against sites like these are because of stupid tags that feminists place like "misogynists", "sexist" blah. I don't care. Put what you want on me. Your opinion counts for nuts in the real world.
Why the fuck should I blame the Patriarchy? I have never blamed anyone for anything. Can you women read or do you wish to spend some time in 3rd grade taking english classes before you come back to post? I am tired of the inane, vapid diatribe that is coming off feminists. And you proclaim yourself as "intelligent", "enlightened" women. HAHA, yeah right.

Feminism benefits everyone?
How the fuck does it benefit men? I am sure affirmative actions benefits men huh? What about child support, child custody, alimoney and the draft? Holy fucking shit, they cater to women only. How fucking hypocritical.

And haha @ the mother's insults. Can any of you women actually grow out of these insults and get something new? OMG! I was molested as a child by a woman!! *Next...*

There are numerous thread on this site consisting of feminists explaining feminism calmly and politely to men who ask questions, pose challenges, and act civilly.

Bull fucking shit. It is obvious from the way that you have been treating Dnx that you are a hypocrite. Please read through your past posts and shove this bullshit up your ass.

Don't you womymn want to be treated equally as men? Then handle the tough talk.

Men created this entire world. Patriarchy or not, men built this world brick from brick, house from house. Women were only here to carry on the species. Even contemporary, men come up with 90% of the inventions, scientific discoveries and breakthroughs. Really... men must give up the world that we have built to a bunch of whiney old cows because they said so? LMFAO. I will be defending the patriarchy, Sarah. I don't know what you think of me, how you judge me - whatever. In the near future, I will do my best to strengthen the patriarchy unit. I don't see how it is "oppressive" or "destructive". You work your way to the top, its as simple as that. Losers complain about the ladder, winners climb