Let's ask the Council on Foreign Relations. The money man behind Hassan's company like to hang out with them.

 Reply

>> beheadings by Extremist Muslims are quite common in the news today <<

Not as common as beheading by Mexican drug cartel hit men:

[www.time.com]

 Reply

Fair point, but premature.

He might very well plead out and say "I felt that she shamed me and it was my duty to behead her and only Allah can judge me." Some honor killings are very coldblooded and have a religious justification.

That's different, somewhat, from a hotblooded murder.

There's no evidence here which is which. I agree that reflexively calling it an honor killing just because they're Muslim is a little ridiculous. Then again, you don't see a lot of spur-of-the-moment beheadings.

 Reply

"Muslim beheadings" aren't typically committed against women for "honor," but rather against convicted murderers, drug traffickers and "the Infidel" by Al-Qaeda types against people like Daniel Pearl.

There really is no pattern to the way honor killings are committed. In one case last year in Crazyland, Pakistan (the tribal areas, Baluchistan or Swat or some crazy place like that) the killing of two teenage girls involved gang rape, beating and live burial. Their crime? Refusing to be a part of inter-tribal arranged marriages.

 Reply

It's all still a man murdering a woman in his family because she didn't do what he wanted.

 Reply

I think what I'm trying to say is that people kill their spouses in all cultures, for a variety of different reasons, whereas an 'honour killing' is something we perceive to be a particularly reprehensibly Islamic act. Could be the guy was heartbroken, rather than because his wife was disobedient. I just think when we're labelling an act based on the culture of the perpetrator, we need to get it right.

 Reply

I am saying, this takes away from the real problem. Whether a man thinks it's ok to kill his wife because his whole culture actively encourages it, or because his culture has a sort of frat boy, Beavus & Butthead, hee hee, bitch was asking for it, I bet, attitude - it's still the same rotten attitude. The cultural nuances are barely relevant once the spouse is dead, I think.

True, the US has a legal system that does not recognize the legality of "honor killing", but this is not the same as saying that our culture no longer suffers the same problems of spousal abuse and murder, for most of the same reasons. Just because we have different names for them, doesn't mean the outcome is nearly as different as we like to pretend.

 Reply

"it is probably best to see this as the postmodern American struggle of one man to embrace his traditional cultural views at the same time as contemporary ethical standards, and failing"

For whom is that best? And on what are you even basing this assessment? Why can't he just be seen as a bastard who killed his wife? Would this be a cultural issue if he'd used good old American bullets?

 Reply

@pinkthing: "..For whom is that best?.."

For those of us who deal with abuse professionally, and occasionally have to testify in court in those type of cases. As well as those concerned about this event, who want to understand what is happening, instead of merely expressing outrage and disgust.

"..And on what are you even basing this assessment?.."

You may notice that I comment on GAWKER periodically. Those who know me know my professional background, but I am an academic anthropologist and physician, have lived many places around the world, and have worked in both forensics and public medicine. I've personally dealt with murder, rape, assault cases, etc. for some time now. Are you likewise a professional who deals with this subject? If so, perhaps you can give me some clue as to what your professional interest in the subject is.

"..Why can't he just be seen as a bastard who killed his wife? Would this be a cultural issue if he'd used good old American bullets?.."

Well, he certainly can be viewed that way. Everyone has a right their own perspective. I'm more interested in the inevitable reaction that such an event provokes in our American cultural milieu, and the unfortunate effect that it may have on the dialogue that is occurring between Islam and the West. I would argue that a broader context is better than one less so.

As it happens, I was (one of the many I am sure) individuals that forwarded this story to GAWKER to so what everyone's take on it was.

Thanks for the response.

 Reply

"As well as those concerned about this event, who want to understand what is happening, instead of merely expressing outrage and disgust."

When you testify in court about abuse cases, are you usually testifying for the prosecution or defense? I don't see how downplaying personal responsibility, while blaming a person's culture can really be for the good of anyone but the abuser.

 Reply

In most of the cases I've been called in, I've testified at the behest of the State, for the prosecution, but I have been asked to provide testimony for the defense in cases in the military. Regardless of which side asks for testimony, however, the scientific evidence presented is the same, so it is somewhat misleading to say for or against one side of the case.

"..I don't see how downplaying personal responsibility, while blaming a person's culture can really be for the good of anyone but the abuser..."

I don't recall downplaying anyone's personal responsibility; rather, I was pointing out the interesting questions that this case raises about acculturation, assimilation, and the importance of parent culture in a multicultural society.

I'm afraid that I couldn't disagree with you more about your statement:

"..I actually think that making this a cultural issue blinds people of *all* cultures to the prevalence of spousal abuse and murder in *all* cultures..."

In contradistinction, I would posit that it is impossible to see clearly without complete understanding of both the similarities, and the differences of all cultures. The promise of liberal multiculturalism is built upon the idea of coexistence of multiple points of view without coercion or violence. That's why the position of women globally, within their respective cultures, must be examined and brought into the light of day. It's no accident that many of this country's secretaries of state and ambassadors have been women. The message that that sends to other more chauvinistic cultures is unmistakable.

 Reply

"Regardless of which side asks for testimony, however, the scientific evidence presented is the same, so it is somewhat misleading to say for or against one side of the case."

But you were are not talking about scientific evidence. You were talking about culture and opinions. It's not even almost hard science that has been discussed here today.

"I don't recall downplaying anyone's personal responsibility; rather, I was pointing out the interesting questions that this case raises about acculturation, assimilation, and the importance of parent culture in a multicultural society."

When you say things like "it is probably best to see this as the postmodern American struggle of one man to embrace his traditional cultural views at the same time as contemporary ethical standards, and failing",

that sounds an awful lost like downplaying this man's *choice* to react to his wife's actions by murdering here. Nowhere in your statement do you indicate that this man, regardless of culture, had other options, yet *chose* kill. Besides which, you assume to have an idea what his cultural views might be, based solely on his religion. That's like assuming you know why someone did what he did just because he's Christian. Muslims, like Christians, come in all sizes, and most never kill anyone.

"That's why the position of women globally, within their respective cultures, must be examined and brought into the light of day."

I agree. I just don't understand why you act as if it's more important to start with someone else's culture, while you give every indication of being close to blind to the very same behavior within your own culture. You seem to be so worried about the message you send Muslims, while you ignore the message you send non-Muslims. You seem to think the religion and culture of a wife-killer matter much, much more than the individuals involved. This is also downplaying human choice.

You are acting as if humans are puppets to the culture they were born into. (I mean, the "culture" in which he lived when he chose to kill was an expat community in the US, actually. Not the same as a Middle Easter Muslim community, or an Eastern European community, either.) I am surprised that you could, as an anthropologist, act as if there is such a thing as one, over-riding Muslim community of which to speak, anyway.

"The promise of liberal multiculturalism is built upon the idea of coexistence of multiple points of view without coercion or violence"

Who is talking about a promise of multiculturalism here? A woman was murdered, and you're talking about anthropological theories. Does this mean that murder is any less or more murder, depending on what you were taught in kindergarten?

Sorry, I feel like you're still just going on about culture as if this guy being Muslim is the main thing that made him kill, as if other cultures don't have wife-killers, too, in large, large numbers. Individuals are not just representatives of cultures. They are individuals who make choices. He chose to kill.

You might was well say he had an MBA, and then do a statistical analysis of men with MBAs to see how much of a "cultural" thing it is for men with MBAs to kill their wives.

if you want to have an "us" and "them" think going on here, how about "we" ="people who think wife killing is bad" And the "they" = "people who think wife killing is good."? Why on earth keep trying to pin this on a culture when it's in every culture on the planet?

 Reply

Actually I was, yes. to refresh, you asked me about when I testified in court. That is, in fact, the testimony usually requested.

You continue:

"..that sounds an awful lost (sic) like downplaying this man's *choice* to react to his wife's actions by murdering here..."

How you *choose* to interpret what I wrote, is of course your affair. You are quite wrong, of course, but you seem to be on some kind of crusade to argue with someone, because of your general state of arousal, so let's continue with the fun.

"..Besides which, you assume to have an idea what his cultural views might be, based solely on his religion..."

Not at all. Merely from the information in the article, and his history on the net, there is much to be gleaned. Not simply his religion. So you are wrong again. Besides which, you at this point have absolutely no idea how much I know about him; whether I know him personally, whether we have had correspondence, whether we have had professional dealings, whatever. So in actuality, it is *you* who are making unwarranted and erroneous assumptions. I point this out here, so that you might more easily see these logical errors later in your diatribe.

"..I just don't understand why you act as if it's more important to start with someone else's (sic) culture, while you give every indication of being close to blind to the very same behavior within your own culture..."

Here again, I have to point out that your interpretation of the words is simply incorrect. It is hardly logical to claim that I am 'close to blind' about a subject for which I have been called to give testimony before a court of law. If you are upset at this event, which is understandable, given the nature of the events, lashing out at me isn't going to help you out. The obvious reason why I wanted to discuss this with the GAWKER populace, is that I thought the cultural ramifications were interesting, and there are generally quite a few literate and considered individuals here whose views are interesting to me. I thought you might also be one. Perhaps I was wrong.

You my dear, are becoming quite boorish.

"..Who is talking about a promise of multiculturalism here? A woman was murdered, and you're talking about anthropological theories..."

Yes. Anthropologists tend to do that. Funny how it works, isn't it?

 Reply

"You my dear, are becoming quite boorish."

That's funny coming from the guy who started off that way.

 Reply

Yes. Anthropologists tend to do that. Funny how it works, isn't it?"

Funny wasn't really the word I was looking for. Not everyone is a one trick pony that way. Some people can get outside their one little area of knowledge now and again. Please forgive me for not understanding that you are not one of those people.

 Reply

Yes. And some people spout off about everything under the sun, whether they know anything about it or not. Not you of course...

"..Please forgive me for not understanding that you are not one of those people..."

Sure! I'll remember that the next time I'm addressing my medical students on diabetes, or my residents on CMS policy.

And forgive me for snickering when I see you write that.

 Reply

But my boorish tone is my most endearing quality! Well, except my encyclopedic knowledge, and dashing good looks of course...

 Reply

Just not so much about this topic, though. You're apparently so enamored with what you think is superior intellect, you can't even tell when you're playing the fool.

Emperors New Clothes seems like the text you need to read next.

I have to admit, you do amuse me, though.

 Reply

This is a very important lesson. So many people think they can rely on restraining orders (as Hassan's wife did), when they really can't. One of the first cases I remember reading about involved a man whose ex had a restraining oder against him. He stabbed her to death in the middle of the street, in broad daylight. When the cops got there, the knife was still in her chest, stuck through his copy of the restraining order.

As far as preventing it, one of the best things people can do is to teach their daughters to leave at the first signs of abuse. Don't wait around hoping this guy will change.

I already recommended one book that is more academic, but for family members, esp. abused women themselves, I recommend *Why Does He Do That: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men* He also has a wbesite with a lot of useful information. [www.lundybancroft.com]

 Reply

C'est vrai. It truly is impressive. Sometimes I amaze myself.

"..You're apparently so enamored with what you think is superior intellect, you can't even tell when you're playing the fool..."

What's humorous to me, is people who are so afraid to play the fool, that they never have any fun. Perhaps my idea of fun is playing the fool on GAWKER...

Heh.

 Reply

Hardly the most egregious of murders, but certainly noteworthy. How about spousal murder for half a can of Coca Cola? I mean not even a whole can...

"..As far as preventing it, one of the best things people can do is to teach their daughters to leave at the first signs of abuse..."

A minor correction. You seem to be under the impression that women are the only ones who get abused. Of course your whole schtick goes with the indignant female, so I can appreciate the riff you are playing, but the fact is that there are males abused by wives, uncles, family friends etc. And then there is the whole 'males don't report it because of image' thing that goes with that.

Play fair pinky.

 Reply

I don't get that. If one tries to frame this as more of a cultural issue, it only increases the perceived differences and tensions between the cultures. I don't see how emphasizing it as a cultural phenomenon would improve the dialogue. I would think it would only breed more "their culture is alien" attitudes. I would think also that lending less credence to the cultural associations of the act would provide a measure of comfort to non-native women who may otherwise feel alienated or sense a lack of recourse. I would think that the fact that their culture is being implicated in such an atrocious crime would be cold comfort, if comfort at all.

 Reply

I see your point, and the 'unfortunate effect' that I refer to is just that. However, I would point out that the success of the post-war cultural interactions between Japan and the US were based upon understanding of both the commonalities and the differences inherent in each society. As I stated above, one needs to look at both. It is unfortunate that xenophobia is the reaction of many to these events, especially since the West espouses a multicultural ideal. So it is important to explore this area rather than ignoring it for fear of the resultant reactions.

 Reply

Yeah I know what current stats are. Problem is, when people say 'domestic violence', they frequently forget that the term includes elder abuse, child abuse etc. These other problems of coercion and violence are just as real. In fact, I've had masters level trained psychologists try to deny that spouse abuse of husbands by wives was even important enough to be included in teaching materials for young doctors on the subject, if you can believe that.

As to your wish for a lethal device; we already have those, and they really don't do the trick. They just kill people. The hope would be to stop the culturally transmitted tendency to think in ways that lead to this sort of final result. In my opinion, the only way to deal with this problem is to open it up, and uncover the tacit acceptance and rationalizations which allow it to flourish. Until we do that, it will only be violence. Men on women, women on men adult on child, or all the other possible permutations of violence one upon another.

 Reply