Sad story.
But I LOVED the book "Feast of Roses" and the prequel- I wasn't consciously trying to exoticfy anyone- the book did that pretty well though.

Nur Jahan, all the way

I'm partial to Anarkali myself.

>> Another, More Tragic Namesake

Sounds like a crime of passion to me, husband comes home, finds wife in a 'compromising' situation with other men, completely looses it, kills her. Pretty common story, both in the west and the east, dont you think ?

Pretty common story, both in the west and the east, dont you think

You're so right. I can and should be more blase about femicide, because it's so ubiquitous.

You're so right. I can and should be more blase about femicide, because it's so ubiquitous.

well...maybe not blaze. but...this isnt a unique cultural thing. i mean, dishonor etc, makes it sound like a very muslim thing. but...a jealous husband isnt a new story endemic to this situation.

Emperor Shah Jahan spent his last days in jail as well after being ousted by his sons. Some googling here:

According to legend, writes Hambly, when Shah Jahan was on his death-bed, he kept his eyes fixed on the Taj Mahal which was clearly visible from his place of confinement. After his death, Shah Jahan was buried there beside his dead queen, Mumtaz Mahal.

She was drinking with two young men? Whose word do we have for that, just his? It sounds pretty far-fetched, the sort of thing an angry husband would say because he was suspicious.

Lots of loud WTFs here, especially because the schmuck had a second wife and then flew into a rage because his wife was possibly maybe chatting to another man. Sheesh.

To add insult to injury, I suppose the Bajrang Dal will be all over this case and point to the tragic Mumtaz as an example of What Happens to Girls who Convert and Marry Muslims.

No, only in India.

Does anyone remember the Tom Jones song 'Delilah'? (no I'm not that old, but my father had the record).

It sounds pretty far-fetched, the sort of thing an angry husband would say because he was suspicious

Not that his actions are anything but deplorable, but why make up such a tame lie? If he were to make something up it would be much bigger than just drinking with two men, I would think.

Sounds like a crime of passion to me, husband comes home, finds wife in a 'compromising' situation with other men

crime of passion? please. quite frankly, that defense is pretty hard to prove. plus, i don't know what's 'compromising' about drinking with other men. though, culturally, it could be seen as suspicious, it's not compromising per se.

Shah Jahan punched a sub-inspector and tried to flee. After the police caught him, the villagers gheraoed the force and tried to free him.

What's up with this bit? They wanted to give Shah Jahan some village-style justice first?

>> You're so right. I can and should be more blase about femicide, because it's so ubiquitous.

If I reacted in a horrified terrified fashion to every murder that took place in the world, I would not be able to live with any sanity at all :-)

But then, the point I was trying to make is, that use of hot-button words and phrases like 'honor-dishonor' and 'a woman’s life is worth so little' in the context of this story is a little bit racist, perhaps in a subconscious and subliminal manner.

Consider this, if this tragic story that appeared in telegraph india, appeared instead in LA times and was about a crime of passion in a predominantly white, Los Angeles suburb, would it be expected that such hot-button words and phrases be used to describe that murder ?

Probably not.. So whats happened here is that there is a larger world view about India, Indians, Indian muslims, muslims, third world countries, women, men etc. that the blogger has used to comment on a story thats rather sparse on facts and details, that itself is perhaps colored by the perspective of the original reporter.

The post is interesting to me only in how it illustrates the 'world views' or the perspectives of the people who commented on the original crime, as nothing much, that matters is known about the crime in any case. The entire commentary is sparse on facts, but pretty big on opinion.

If so, then whats the point in talking about the original crime anyway ? Lets talk about the opinion, how it has crystallized, and perhaps use the real incident as a kind of reality check..

plus, i don't know what's 'compromising' about drinking with other men.

Would you be completely comfortable with you husband going out drinking with other women?

Sudeep, the story did not appear in a US newspaper. And it was probably reported in the Indian press mainly because of the couple's historically evocative names, and also probably because it confirms some stereotypes about Muslims (notice any pattern in what 3rd Eye posts?) I think you're imagining a western maligning conspiracy where it frankly isn't an issue.

Would you be completely comfortable with you husband going out drinking with other women?

only if he stays away from tequila body shots

Would you be completely comfortable with you husband going out drinking with other women?

Sure. Those other women have nothing on me! :)

only if he stays away from tequila body shots

maybe you should add 'bloody marys' to that list too. Point is, while this guy was completely in the wrong, let's not "angelize" her actions either.

HMF:

I gotta take exception to your remark. If , in a marriage, you cannot trust your partner with members of the opposite sex then what is next ? Don't eat with them? Don't work with them?Don't talk to them?

The days are long gone when "drinking" was considered immoral activity .
I tend to agree with Sudeep # 13 - there is nothing particularly subcontinental about the story except its setting.Human nature is the same the world over - love, lust, passion, jealousy - there is nothing uniquely cultural about this.

no, we shouldn't, and i'm not sure whether having drinks is all she was doing (perhaps it would be more of a dishonour to him to reveal what else, if anything, was going on?). but if that was it, or even if there was more, there's a big difference between being comfortable with it, or even outraged, and killing for it.

I'm with Runa. Trust is the ultimate thing in a marriage, and if you can't trust your spouse to go out and have a few drinks with others, then what's really the point of the whole exercise?

As for "angelizing" the woman's actions, I don't see that there's any reason to demonize her actions either. For all we know, her drinking with friends was completely innocent, and I don't see the sense in blaming the woman for her husband's irrational behavior.

there is nothing uniquely cultural about this

True, but the names of the murderer and his victim have some brown significance, which is why I posted this story. Each blogger posts what we are moved by...for me, the juxtaposition of "Mughal" Mumtaz, so beloved and murdered Mumtaz...both named by their husbands, one killed by hers, well, I couldn't leave it alone. And while our community may not have a monopoly on DV, femicide or honor killings, I don't think there's anything wrong in creating a space to talk about them, if some of us are so inclined.

We don't know what she was or wasn't guilty of, but I'm fairly sure it didn't merit getting her throat slit, so how 'bout we not engage in unnecessary conjecture about her character?

I gotta take exception to your remark. If , in a marriage, you cannot trust your partner with members of the opposite sex then what is next ? Don't eat with them? Don't work with them?Don't talk to them?

It's not a slippery slope. Remember the pulp fiction debate? having an alcoholic beverage at her house, isn't the same thing as sticking their finger in the holiest of holes, but it's in the same ballpark.

It's not the 'drinking', it's the drinking at home that sends a clear message. Any sensible person knows I'm right, what would be your reaction if you came home to find your significant other sharing a cocktail with someone of the opposite sex? I think it's pretty clear, given all the little quippy answers given thus far.

Anna,

Don't get me wrong - I was definitely not criticizing your post.Just pointing out - before the inevitable misogyny in the des stuff begins - that some basic human emotions are the same the world over.

Of course the fact that the woman was named Mumtaz , teh fact that she changed religions for the man who murdered her make ot all very poignant.

I am a big fan of your posts and the fact that you have the courage to share your emotions through writing

I don't see that there's any reason to demonize her actions either.

I'm not, I'm seeing it for what it is.

For all we know, her drinking with friends was completely innocent, and I don't see the sense in blaming the woman for her husband's irrational behavior

SM playbook:

Rule 17-3: Assume any criticism of the female is a statement of justification male's action.

and i do agree with hema and runa - in a relationship - you cannot be watching over your partner at every moment - you have to trust that they love or respect you enough to be faithful. if my partner is unfaithful, i have to re-evaluate our relationship and whether i want to be with him, not his very existence.

what would be your reaction if you came home to find your significant other sharing a cocktail with someone of the opposite sex?

There are too many missing variables in your scenario, HMF...and in the scenario described in the Shah Jahan-Mumtaz story. You cannot generalize that having drinks in your home with a member of the opposite sex is automatically suspicious.

Rule 17-3: Assume any criticism of the female is a statement of justification male's action.

Dude, you did say we shouldn't angelize her actions. So while you may not be justifying the male's action, you seem to believe there was some sort of mitigating factor. That's where we part ways.

Any sensible person knows I'm right, what would be your reaction if you came home to find your significant other sharing a cocktail with someone of the opposite sex?

HMF,
My sensible reaction would be to kick my shoes off and ask him to make me one too.

The very fact that he is sharing a drink in my home makes it very obvious that there is nothing to hide. A drink is a drink is a drink and not necessarily a prelude to grande amour.

A sensible reaction is definitely not equating drinking to infidelity. And in any case, I do not think infidelity is justification for murder either.

I definitely agree with trusting one's spouse and not assuming every drink is one step to infidelity, but we all take sensible precautions, don't we? We meet friends of the opposite sex in a group and/or during the daytime rather than alone and with large amounts of alcohol or in a romantic setting. When people in couples travel a lot, though, drinking with friends of the opposite sex does happen more often, and the important thing is that my SO knows I had a drink with x friend, and I know he had a drink with x colleague, and everyone is open about the fact that they have spouses or SOs.

Having said that, the one time I walked over to a friendly neighbour's place in the evening to return a book and he was having a drink with a good female friend who was also a friend of his wife's, a month later we learned they were having an affair. Entertaining friends of the opp sex alone in one's home = not a good idea at the best of times.

appeared instead in LA times and was about a crime of passion in a predominantly white, Los Angeles suburb, would it be expected that such hot-button words and phrases be used to describe that murder ?

there are two points here. the easy & simple one is that in LA the community would not try to free the man. one can explain & understand behavior without accepting that it is proper and justified. so yes, men are men the world around. the key difference is how the community reacts to these tragedies, accept it as the nature of things or signal moral sanction through criminal prosecution. today in the USA the latter would be the case, though not always. societies and mores change (and in cases of flagrante delicto it hasn't changed that much).

but the second point here is that cultural mores differ. there is a wide variation across cultures in paternity confidence and assignment. how do we explain cultures, such as in working class white london, or parts africa, where 10-30% of the children might not be the biological offspring of their socially accepted father? cultures differ. in societies where female dalliance is socially accepted there tends to be a lot more female independence and less proportional male investment in this theoretical offspring. in the west the decline in this sort of rage about infidelity on the part of the woman has generally tracked economic independence and the loss of power of male clan lineages as powers within the social structure.

And in any case, I do not think infidelity is justification for murder either.

I agree. But I think that under the Indian Penal Code, infidelity would count as provocation sufficient to reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide. So maybe infidelity is sufficient legal justification, but would be pretty hard to prove in most circumstances.

Someone who actually knows something about criminal law in India, please correct me.

>>If , in a marriage, you cannot trust your partner with members of the opposite sex then what is next

It is a statistically proven fact that it takes an average of 3.21 seconds for a wife to materialise next to her husband when she spots another woman striking up a conversation with him in a party/get-together.

M. Nam

A drink is a drink is a drink and not necessarily a prelude to grande amour.

It almost certainly is if that drink is Zima

Don't get me wrong - I was definitely not criticizing your post.Just pointing out - before the inevitable misogyny in the des stuff begins - that some basic human emotions are the same the world over.

Oh, no worries. :) I didn't feel like you were criticizing the post at all. I think I was just trying to pre-empt the inevitable, "Whyyyy did you post this??" ;)

I'm partial to Anarkali myself.

Sounds like a crime of passion to me, husband comes home, finds wife in a 'compromising' situation with other men, completely looses it, kills her. Pretty common story, both in the west and the east, dont you think ?

ANNA, thanks for this.

My sensible reaction would be to kick my shoes off and ask him to make me one too.

Even in the dusty backyards and fields in Dihata Village, in rural India. Are we being realistic and grounded in reality here? No doubt, in villages in India, people drink moonshine all the time, but drinking together with guys (while husband away) has a implied social connotation.

There is no justification for murder, absolutely.

However,

This is not a case from Manhattan, NYC or 6th Street, Austin, TX, or an upscale bar or condo from San Felipe, Houston, TX. It is from heartland of rural India - Understanding the basic social milieu is the key while someone comments from their swanky offices in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana.....I can see similar things happening in poor neighborhoods in Houston too or for that matter rich ones too.

but drinking together with guys (while husband away) has a implied social connotation.

I concede that, but if the woman in question really is about to do something nefarious, why would she do it in their home, when the husband could return any moment and catch her in the act? It just doesn't add up, and I refuse to believe that rural women are too unsophisticated to know how to go behind their husband's back.

It almost certainly is if that drink is Zima

man, that brings back memories. i was in high school when it first came on the market (boku was the light alcoholic beverage of the choice at that time). and an uncle at a party told me that it was OK for me to drink it because of the low alcohol content. i think uncle overestimated my tolerance.

while someone comments from their swanky offices in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana.....

cause we all know that Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana are "Swanky" places...ahh...the "Swanky" industrial midwest.

This is not a case from Manhattan, NYC or 6th Street, Austin, TX, or an upscale bar or condo from San Felipe, Houston, TX. It is from heartland of rural India - Understanding the basic social milieu is the key while someone comments from their swanky offices in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana.....I can see similar things happening in poor neighborhoods in Houston too or for that matter rich ones too.

just a minor note, i think there is a strong tendency cross-culturally for female infidelity rates to be inversely proportion with male income/status. that is, the wives of poor men cheat a lot more than the wives of rich men (often with men of higher SES than their own husbands, this was the pattern in lower class london families). so there might be a reason for poor men to fly into rage more often.

Kush,
My comment was in response to HMF 's question. I am not speaking on behalf of Dihata ,its denizens or any one else.

See this is exactly what I wanted to avoid !

cause we all know that Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana are "Swanky" places...ahh...the "Swanky" industrial midwest.

So you're saying it's not possible to have a swanky office in Ohio, Wisconsin or Indiana?

Tsk, tsk...anti-Midwest bias rears its ugly head once again at SM. It's almost like we can't go a whole week without someone trashing the Illinois and Michigans of the world.

razib, not sure if I buy the inverse infidelity proposition.

cause we all know that Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana are "Swanky" places...ahh...the "Swanky" industrial midwest.

the villagers gheraoed the force and tried to free him

You have got to be kidding me. I want to kick that guys ass first and then line up the villagers one after another and repeat the process.

>> there are two points here. the easy & simple one is that in LA the community would not try to free the man. one can explain & understand behavior without accepting that it is proper and justified. so yes, men are men the world around. the key difference is how the community reacts to these tragedies, accept it as the nature of things or signal moral sanction through criminal prosecution.

I dont know about that.. I remember watching atleast one COPS where the cops go into arrest someone from an african neighborhood and they are pelted with bottles/stones etc. The 'community' in that case making it pretty clear that the cops were'nt welcome. The only difference in this situation and the one in India would be that Indian crowds are a lot more aggressive when it comes to mob action against cops, and that Indian cops are not well equipped to deal with mob control problems. In this situation, it would be very possible for the crowd to take extremely violent action against the cops, things like a cop getting his arms chopped off with a sword, or getting burnt alive, or getting castrated would not surprise me at all.

So what happened probably has less to do with accepting that particular mans actions as proper and justified, but a general distrust and hatred of cops. Even if the cops presented evidence of the most convincing kind, noone from that neighborhood would believe them anyway.

>> but the second point here is that cultural mores differ. there is a wide variation across cultures in paternity confidence and assignment. how do we explain cultures, such as in working class white london, or parts africa, where 10-30% of the children might not be the biological offspring of their socially accepted father? cultures differ. in societies where female dalliance is socially accepted there tends to be a lot more female independence and less proportional male investment in this theoretical offspring. in the west the decline in this sort of rage about infidelity on the part of the woman has generally tracked economic independence and the loss of power of male clan lineages as powers within the social structure.

Sure.. what you say is true.. but how does it impinge on what I am trying to say ? That this is a story thats rich in opinion, but very sparse in details and facts. Like in Rashomon, we'll find layers upon layers in these tragedies, each discovered by an observer with a different perspective. The truth can not be described entirely in simple 'subaltern-izing' terms as 'honor-dishonor' or female empowerment issues. (Note that we are not even observers in this drama, we rely simply on reports and opinions by others.. )

Indeed, the use of such terms only indicates to me, what the world view of the person who is making these comments is, and does not shed any light on what actually happened.

Sudeep, I think there's a different dynamic when poor black neighborhoods pelt cops with things to get them to leave versus when people try to free someone because they don't think that person did anything wrong. I can't speak for the village -- I have no idea which rationale they're using, but if it's the latter then the two cases are not comparable.

Agree w/ Kush. If I may apply couple common sense filters to “It was just a drink” comments. How many women from conservative society do we know, who just chill w/ couple guys? The husband had a legit claim to WTF moment. Nothing more. Certainly not violence or murder.

There was a study some years ago re: drinks w/ strangers or casual acquaintances (perhaps Razib can magically produce link). More than half ended up being more than just drinks.

Dude, you did say we shouldn't angelize her actions. So while you may not be justifying the male's action, you seem to believe there was some sort of mitigating factor. That's where we part ways.

No, not necessarily. I wasn't making the statment: if she didn't have the alcohol, with other men, in her house, without her husband, then her fate would never have happened. In fact, I'm not even entertaining that case. I'm saying given that she did, the obvious context and implication of such actions shouldn't be swept away with statements like

"well if it were me, I'd just embrace him, sing him a lullably and thank him for inviting younger women to my house, just to show them how wonderful he and I are, and how much we trust each other!"

Give me a break. I'd bet even if a woman called her hubands cellphone and having a unidentifiable female voice answer, would set the fidelity neurons firing off like crazy.

( File under Humor)
Okay -lots of divergent views here.So an someone please mark for me on an acceptability scale the following:-
Scale is 1 to 5 5 = totally unacceptable 1= totally acceptable

a) Significant other (SO) has alcoholic drinks with (known) member of opposite sex in a bar after work
b) SO has tea ( chai) with member of opposite sex at home in your absence
c) SO has alcoholic drinks with (stranger/unknown) member of opposite sex in a bar after work
d) SO has lassi with (unknown) member of opposite sex at lunchtime in a restaurant
e) SO has alcoholic drinks with (known) member of opposite sex in (known) member's home

Evidently,I don't think about these things enough

>> Sudeep, I think there's a different dynamic when poor black neighborhoods pelt cops with things to get them to leave versus when people try to free someone because they don't think that person did anything wrong. I can't speak for the village -- I have no idea which rationale they're using, but if it's the latter then the two cases are not comparable.

Sure, there is a difference.. but like you said, we don't now what rationale was used ! Its just one more factual detail thats missing from the story in telegraph and the opinion by Anna. Why automatically assume that it was one and not the other just because the setting is in India ? In fact, there are many muslim/non-muslim dominated localities that see cops as a nuisance and an imposition and cops are simply not welcome there.. e.g. Dagdi chawl (Arun gawli's headquarters) in Mumbai, or the chawl where Dawood used to hang out before he moved out, or the Gurjar villages where Daku Nirbhay Gurjar used to hang out..

Ofcourse it a lot easier to say that they did it because they thought it was right.. :-P Without getting into recriminations, one must take this opportunity to examine ones world view and how it leads us on to conclusions and "facts" that are simply not there to be discerned from the facts in the original report. (Its a different matter that the original report itself may be colored by the perspective of the reporter :-D)

Sudeep, I feel you on the lack of context there. :)

Runa, I'm laughing. :) Based on these comments, I'm actually kind of saddened (although not surprised) about the "kinds of behavior" that tip-off people's infidelity radar! Not saying that it's not justified, but some of these things sound so innocuous (e.g. hearing a woman's voice answer your husband's cellphone).

seems odd that it sets off peoples alarm beels that the woman was having drinks with guys at her house. ive chilled with my frineds wives at home with drinks. nothing funny going on. its just that my friends wives are also my friends. same as when i was chillin at their house with just the husband...

Nothing more. Certainly not violence or murder/

Personally, I find it sad that comments like #48 need to always be tagged with statements like the above. As if any sane person would actually say his actions were justified in this case.

but some of these things sound so innocuous (e.g. hearing a woman's voice answer your husband's cellphone).

Everything sounds innocuous when it's printed text on a screen.

why would she do it in their home, when the husband could return any moment and catch her in the act?

HMF, the sad part is that people often do argue that such actions make it justifiable. It is sad that people have to use disclaimers to clarify that that is not what they're arguing, though.

Not just printed on the screen, but the context matters, and that of course varies by person and relationship.

but some of these things sound so innocuous (e.g. hearing a woman's voice answer your husband's cellphone).

Everything sounds innocuous when it's printed text on a screen.

Yep! Were you saying that during Othello or Omkara? (JOKE JOKE LOLZ ROFL LMAO)

but some of these things sound so innocuous (e.g. hearing a woman's voice answer your husband's cellphone). Everything sounds innocuous when it's printed text on a screen.

i mean...the answer to "who was that" is more likely. "that was my cousin. she was borrowing my cell phone for the day". i would imagine a relationship would require more trust than jumping to "is he cheating on me?"

It just doesn't add up, and I refuse to believe that rural women are too unsophisticated to know how to go behind their husband's back.

seems odd that it sets off peoples alarm beels that the woman was having drinks with guys at her house.

Just wild guess – you don’t live in Cooch Behar?

is it odder out there to chill with female friends without b*nging?

what I meant was people get caught cheating in their own home most of the times

Pinda USA,
I did not mean to sound harsh (apologies if I offended you). It just seemed odd to compare two very different social backgrounds. You could very well be describing my friend circle in # 53. I just wouldn’t assume it to be true everywhere else.

i would imagine a relationship would require more trust than jumping to "is he cheating on me?"

Any sensible person knows I'm right, what would be your reaction if you came home to find your significant other sharing a cocktail with someone of the opposite sex?

HMF,
My sensible reaction would be to kick my shoes off and ask him to make me one too.

Even if it was in the middle of a workday?

Also, I believe this question is discriminatory. What if you are a homosexual couple? Then the relevant question is what if you find your significant other sharing a cocktail with someone of the same sex.

Are there no guys here who have been in long distance relationships with non-cloistered women? Trust, people, Trust.

I think most people here are conflating "causal" arguments with normative judgments. I happen to believe that the two are distinct, and that you cannot derive "ought" statements from "is" statements. Yes, understanding the cultural background helps us make sense of the event, but it does not in any way morally justify it (the latter will depend on the moral standard you hold; incidentally I happen to think that there are some moral codes common to most cultures; some good work being done in cog psychology about this. But again the latter tend to hypothesize about "is" statements). Coming to this particular incident, I think (normative judgment begins here) the man's behavior was barbaric to put it mildly. The level of culturally sanctioned hypocrisy that allows you to have two wives yet kill one of your wives on the suspicion of infidelity is simply staggering (I want to make this clear that this kind of behavior is not unique to India). It only shows deep rot and malaise at the level of the very identity of such a male.

Puli, when you get married, your drinking at friends'houses alone would be less, doesnt matter if its a girl or a guy

fair enough....

Are there no guys here who have been in long distance relationships with non-cloistered women? Trust, people, Trust.

yeah...and she cheated on me, then left....muahahahaHAHAHA!

Also, I believe this question is discriminatory.

True. It's also discriminatory against punk straight-edge people, my apologies to them too.

For you folks, how would you feel if you came home and found your significant other moshing, dyeing their hair purple, and piercing their thorax with someone of the opposite sex? hmm?

Are there no guys here who have been in long distance relationships with non-cloistered women?

Although, if any of you cloistered women are reading this, I think all that stealthy sneaking in and out could be kinda hot too. At least till we get caught and you get flogged or excommunicated.

found your significant other moshing, dyeing their hair purple, and piercing their thorax with someone of the opposite sex? hmm?

Again, what about homosexual punk straight-edge people? Also, it would depend on if the SO was listening to "our CD".

Again, what about homosexual punk straight-edge people

You and I are both insensitive pricks. What of homosexual, punk sXe people in wheelchairs, obviously incapable of traditional moshing. I guess, I just assumed they'd be completely understanding of each other. And are flawless.

it's the drinking at home that sends a clear message.

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

You and I are both insensitive pricks

Now I'm hurt. I'm a very sensitive prick, actually.

Guess that's better than being too sensitive about pricks.

Honour killings! Aaaarg! It just makes my blood boil. In the middle east, its actually encouraged by the mullahs

I'd bet even if a woman called her hubands cellphone and having a unidentifiable female voice answer, would set the fidelity neurons firing off like crazy.

Hmm. On some level, I think that's worse than having drinks with a person of the opposite sex in your home. It's very unusual to have a second person answer someone's cell phone. Still, I don't know if it would set off any alarm bells for me. I'd just figure that my husband was having a dork moment and left his phone somewhere else.

Still, I don't know if it would set off any alarm bells for me. I'd just figure that my husband was having a dork moment and left his phone somewhere else.

You should marry me if your current marriage doesnt work out.

I don't understand the husband's justification for flying into a rage...if he could have multiple sexual partners,how can he be so hypocrtical for killing his wife who was just doing what he's done to her?

''I knew Mumtaz was a woman of loose morals.''...what a ridiculous hypocrite! if he could have 2 wives, why cannot his wife have 4 boyfrieds? I don't care about religious sanction ,if the guy can have multiple wives why cannot the woman have 10 husbands if she can provide affection equally for all of them?

I am surprised no comparisons have been yet made to the OJ case, a marvel of western judicial and forensic sophistication, conducted on national TV, involving hundreds of highly trained experts, and ending in the same shameful way that many femicides in "backward" rural India do - the wife dead, the husband a free man.

Oh the delightful serendipity of an SM thread. I am trying to go back to the post and the thread is now about the drinking etiquette for women.

I am surprised no comparisons have been yet made to the OJ case...

Check #8

Sorry.

Hmm. On some level, I think that's worse than having drinks with a person of the opposite sex in your home. It's very unusual to have a second person answer someone's cell phone.

You can go back and forth with these nuances all you want.

Imagine this scenario: Let's say it was the opposite. Let's say he did call her on the phone (assuming both he and she had a cellphone), and an unidentifiable male voice answered and that triggered him to cut her throat.

then messages 20-60 on this thread would be a discussion about "whats the big deal? a guy answered the phone, it could have been anyone, how dare you try and justify the crime by that happening? bla bla bla" and then I brought in as a comparison, "well what if he walked in on her with two guys, having drinks casually"? then the answer would be,

"well thats obviously worse, he actually sees them together, he can read body language, on many levels that's worse..."

Now seriously imagine that scenario and tell me the event interpretation would be the same as it is here?

Look, HMF...I'm not really denying what you're saying on a normative level. All I'm really saying is that we have no way of knowing what the situation really was...and for me, her actions aren't immediately colorable as suspicious, just because having male guests in the house is unusual for a woman in rural India.

HMF: Was she in her home when she received the call? If it was the cellphone, how could the guy really be sure she was at home and not outside at the store? Could it have been her gay best friend answering the phone? If she was at home, why didn't he call her on the home phone when they might have been using peak minutes? Maybe there was a telephone repairman at home at that time? Clearly, we need to delve into these aspects before answering the question.

Seriously though, I don't understand what you are trying to get at with his line of inquiry.

and for me, her actions aren't immediately colorable as suspicious, just because having male guests in the house is unusual for a woman in rural India.

My point is, irrespective of what her actions are/were, they wouldn't seem colorable to you. And when I ask you and others to consider the converse, it's met with quippy comebacks. Which is fine, I'm all for a helping of Mr. Quip, but it tells me those things would bother folks at some level.

I did consider the converse, I just didn't find it persuasive. My guess is that Mr. Shah Jahan was a pretty suspicious guy to start with, and he married a woman who had already been married once before, so any slight, even imagined, was sufficient to make him do something completely unjustifiable.

HMF: There was (an apparently very latent) method behind my madness. I am genuinely trying to (a) understand what the point of these scenarios is, and (b) figure out how we can judge anything from the information we have.

And hema, that's Mr. Jahan to you. Thank you very much.

Under the Indian Penal Code it is criminal offence for a man to have illicit sexual relations with a married woman. It is not an offense the way around.!!!

In a rural Indian context and a good part of urban india, having a drink in private with a non-relative (only opposite gender) is code for "sex".

Food for thought : How many indian women go into a local toddy / arrack shop and have a drink. After all it is the 'local bar'.

Any half way decent lawyer would be able to get him off fairly lightly. If the woman has brothers, he can expect some rough justice after he gets out.

I had my first drink with my grandmother who for many years was my drinking buddy :) Her favourites Kingfisher and Old Monk. Both my parents are teetotallers!!

You're giving her the benefit of the doubt, and you still think I'm in some perverse way trying to justify the killing. I asked you to consider the converse in your personal case, not their case. Because there are too many variables as you said before. who knows what transpired between him seeing the two men and him cutting her? Maybe she admitted to being ridden by them twice, maybe she said nothing happened. who the hell knows? We do know what happened was not justifiable.

But this denial of the actual event occuring before, and what it *does* transmit, in terms of an implied social interaction, beyond 'simple friendship' is what I take issue with. I said it once, I'll say it again, if the husband was there with two younger women having a drink, and the wife walked in on them. you'd have no problem relating to any suspicions, 'colorability of the event' or what have you, felt by the wife in this instance, right?

It's just the knee-jerk "oh my god how dare you blame the victim!" reaction that I call bullshit on.

You're giving her the benefit of the doubt, and you still think I'm in some perverse way trying to justify the killing.

Well, in spite of your protestations to the contrary, you did also suggest that we should not "angelize" her actions...implying that there was something inherently suspicious about her actions...and I can't see why that is at all relevant, except as a justification for the killing. I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from.

I asked you to consider the converse in your personal case, not their case

And I've already answered too...by saying that I wouldn't find anything particularly suspicious about my spouse having a few drinks with a female friend at our house.

HMF: I think we are at a bit of an impasse. I know, from your general commenting history, that you usually come from a sane place (and I don't mean this in a condescending way at all), but I am not going to talk about personal experiences to justify that I am not being a hypocrite about this.

I read the post as "WTF. The dude just killed his wife?". I personally did not see anything specifically Indian/rural Indian in the nature of the response (jealousy/rage at being cuckolded/whatever), but I still DO NOT BLAME THE VICTIM.

I find Sudeep's question at #13 interesting though.

..implying that there was something inherently suspicious about her actions...

Within the context of rural India, and the social connotation of drinking as mentioned by melbourne desi, the answer is undeniably "yes".

Not in your suburbia in Michigan, or your enlightened social group but Dinhata ain't campus town @ Ann Arbor or any liberal-coed-concert going-white collar holdout. The Dinhata scenerio might even hold true in real small towns in your part of the country.

This does not justify any violence. We all understand (and respect) your decrying @ the violence but not even trying to understand the social dynamics actually on the ground is something.

Not in your suburbia in Michigan, or your enlightened social group

hema, finally, somebody who loves the Midwest!

Within the context of rural India, and the social connotation of drinking as mentioned by melbourne desi, the answer is undeniably "yes".

I get that, and I admit that I'm not from rural India and cannot personally identify. However, if you were a rural Indian woman who wanted to cheat on your husband, why would you do it in such an obvious way? Especially if getting caught carried the twin threats of reputational and physical harm? Rural women are not stupid, after all. That's why I tend to think any "bad act" on the woman's part was probably imagined rather than real.

hema, finally, somebody who loves the Midwest!

I don't know about that. Just sounded like regular old "what do you Americans in your swanky Ohio offices know anyway?"

I think what the objection here is on priorities. who really cares what happened before the incident, it pales in comparision to what happened after it. the anger here at supposedly not understanding rural indian culture is misplaced totally

and if there's going to be time spent analyzing rural indian culture in this case, what blatantly stands out in that regard, if anything, is the hypocricy of somebody who is already married finding it troubling that the other party had a tendency for infidelity. isn't that aspect of culture as interesting, if not more so, than drinking shmiking?

it pales in comparision to what happened after it. the anger here at supposedly not understanding rural indian culture is misplaced totally

This is exactly my point. I don't think the focus on rural culture in this case is particularly relevant, except as some sort of justification for what the man did.

Just sounded like regular old "what do you Americans in your swanky Ohio offices know anyway?"

You midwesterners are never happy. Even when we consider you as a part of the civilized America.

You midwesterners are never happy. Even when we consider you as a part of the civilized America.

This is true. One of my friends from college had a bad travel experience. In his words, "My plane got delayed for nine hours on the tarmac. To add insult to injury, this was in Cleveland".

Sahej,

The couple here is Muslim. By Sharia law applicable to Muslims in India, the man can multiple wives under certain conditions. Yes, there are some conditions. But the social mores does not sanction lovers. This said, illicit love happens everywhere.

Sure, his wife can have lovers but in the eye of culture/ society/ law of the land - wives and lovers are not the same, anywhere in the world. I have nothing against his wife having lovers.

Talking of sex in rural India, it oozes with it.....you see people humping in fields, couples eloping, rearrangements in partnerships. Nobody takes precautions. It is a primal force. Talking of sex and social more, I was in Middle East few weeks ago, that place was bursting out of its seems with open sex.

The question never was justifying the violence, my issue is with nonchalance - "oh!, they were just having drinks", like our local pub, home watching Sunday night football over some bruskies, some cooed mixing, and discussing Satre and Picasso.

Well, I have no excuses for Cleveland, aka the mistake by the lake. Except at least it's not Detroit.

How many indian women go into a local toddy / arrack shop and have a drink. After all it is the 'local bar'.

Don't know. Am not an Indian woman. But Justine Shapiro did:
Lonely Planet South India

Kush,

I can see your point, but that issue can be taken up with the people who maintain that position. the most recent comments have not been on that topic, from my point of view at least

Sahej: The hypocrisy is striking but that is quite the norm in most of India. In Tamil Nadu a Chinna Veedu is quite common for men. How many rich and powerful women have a Chinna Veedu (in public).

Hema - the question is not whether rural women are stupid or whether they have affairs. Married men and women cheat all around the world and rural india is no different. The point is that a woman drinking with a non relative has just one connotation and most "uncivilized" husbands would resort to violence. Forget drinking liqour, if you are a non relative you would not be drinking tea in rural india with a non-relative inside the house. In many Indian states non-relatives are served tea in the front yard or 'thinnai' or 'cutlapadi' - same rules apply even if you are the village headman. Beating the wife for drinking with another man would be normal behaviour for many Indian men - both in rural and urban india. Further, nearly everyone in that social circle would agree that it is the right thing to do (beating one's spouse for drinking with a member of the opposite sex).

Whether the reaction is justified or not depends one's ethics and morality. Violence against women is totally unacceptable in a Western context. This is not the case in other parts of the world.

Even if this were to happen in the USA / Australia (although not in Sweden), most lawyers would be able to claim grave provocation successfully and obtain a reduced sentence.

As an aside - is Dr JJ a lesbian?

Pingpong

My best mate in Australia was a regular at the local arrack shop in an outskirt of Bangalore. She is White and under 30. She had quite a circle of drinking buddies who incidentally never ever groped her. She found it safer being in the local toddy shop than in the Taj WestEnd ( in Bangalore) where she got groped quite often.

She tried to get me to go with her - I refused as I dont particularly trust the toddy or arrack to be safe.

Many white western women visit local bars to get an authentic experience :)

Even if this were to happen in the USA / Australia (although not in Sweden), most lawyers would be able to claim grave provocation successfully and obtain a reduced sentence.

Actually, in most states in the US, adultery (of the real or imagined kind) is not considered sufficient provocation to get a reduced sentence. I do think that's true in India though (provocation + murder = culpable homicide rather than murder).

Whether the reaction is justified or not depends one's ethics and morality. Violence against women is totally unacceptable in a Western context. This is not the case in other parts of the world.

So violence against women in this context is acceptable in some parts of the world? And whether such violence is justified ought to depend on local sentiment about ethics and morality? This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm objecting to. The idea that the woman's conduct (whether perceived or real) justifies killing her is completely reprehensible, regardless of the social milieu in which it takes place.

Kush:
You have put it much better than I could.

Hema

Laws are a function of social milieu. I could be wrong on the adultery provocation defense. I was talking about a crime of passion. Instant reaction - not cold blooded killing.

Although you and I may find certain behaviours unacceptable, if the said behaviour is acceptable to the folks in those societies then so be it. You may want to change the social expectation but that is a discussion for another day.

Yes, violence depending on the context is acceptable to the folks that live in those societies. And in this case, the social system permits violence.

Here, the husband could easily go ahead and chop the balls of the men found in the company of his wife and no one in that society would complain. Shame that he did not do so. After all, it takes two to tango.

Ethics and morality are by definition subjective.
Eg. It is ok for a soldier to kill whilst it is not for others. It is ok for USA to invade Iraq while it is not ok for India to invade Saudi Arabia.

You can have the last word :)

After all, it takes two to tango.

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

However, if you were a rural Indian woman who wanted to cheat on your husband, why would you do it in such an obvious way?

This is exactly my point. I don't think the focus on rural culture in this case is particularly relevant, except as some sort of justification for what the man did.

The idea that the woman's conduct (whether perceived or real) justifies killing her is completely reprehensible, regardless of the social milieu in which it takes place.

i have to side with the 'village people' on this one. when i read the post, one of the first things that ran through my mind was, did they seriously mean she was drinking alcohol with these men at home? pretty uncommon for a woman in a village. when i used to go to my family's village, i was forbidden from leaving the house after i turned 10. as an unmarried woman, my family made sure that i was never around any of the male family employees without 'supervision.' hell, i wasn't even allowed to hang out with my cousin alone. it's not only about what may happen, it's about what people might think may happen. obviously, i am not in any way justifying this man's actions. but this is the sort of thing that people in villages will justify. although, i'm not sure i would go so far as to say justification depends on the set of ethics or morality of a community. in reality, however, the different laws of different countries do reflect their varying values and moral codes. but i also think it's pretty weak to say 'this is the culture and values of this society' when several members of the society (here, mainly women) do not accept or agree with these 'societal' values. the issue then becomes whether this is actually a reflection of societal values, or whether it is how a powerful or governing faction wants to deem said values.

Actually, in most states in the US, adultery (of the real or imagined kind) is not considered sufficient provocation to get a reduced sentence. I do think that's true in India though (provocation + murder = culpable homicide rather than murder).

Talking of sex in rural India, it oozes with it.....you see people humping in fields, couples eloping, rearrangements in partnerships

Since when did US magazine start covering panchayat meetings? Did C-SPAN tie up with them?

I'm with Sahej on this one. I actually don't really care that much about whether or not there was adultery, what drinking in a village means socially, etc. I think the back and forth has been happening, despite HMF and others saying they are not trying to justify the reaction, because it sounds just like that -- justifying. I know that's not the intent, and everyone's been clear about that, so why don't we move on? :)

Well, going on a tanget...there's a good old fashioned stoning today in Iran for a woman having a child out of wedlock...I wonder why the woman is the only one being punished? Wasn't a guy somewhere donating his sperm for the child?
IRAN: WOMAN 'TO BE STONED' ON THURSDAY
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.427604267&par

And I've already answered too...by saying that I wouldn't find anything particularly suspicious about my spouse having a few drinks with a female friend at our house.

Yes, I know, and quite frankly I find it dubious that any woman, any person, would be able to walk in on their spouse, having alcohol with unknown, younger, members of the opposite sex without any forewarning, and not have some kind of reaction. Either way, when I brought up the cell phone example, you commented you'd find that more suspicious at "some level", and personally I just find that very convenient. That the only reason you analyzed it in that way, was a matter of historical record: the actual events. I contend, if the events were reversed, you could (and most probably would) easily find reason the "cell phone" was not particularly suspicious, and the "having a few drinks" was more suspicious at "some level" It just seemed another way to downplay the obvious subtext to her action.

you did also suggest that we should not "angelize" her actions

And I still don't. But that doesn't automatically mean her actions deterministically & exclusively lead to her death. Of course, there's probably no way she could expect what happened, and no time or resources to guard against the possibility of death, but she'd be quite naive (even for a village girl) to not expect some kind of reaction. Her actions weren't harmless, innocent, and unworthy of some degree of suspicion, a degree that I think all of us, if we're truly being honest would have.

Don't you remember the pulp fiction debate? I'll quote it for you:

Jules: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... stop right there. Eatin' a bitch out, and givin' a bitch a foot massage ain't even the same fuckin' thing.
Vincent: It's not. It's the same ballpark.
Jules: Ain't no fuckin' ballpark neither. Now look, maybe your method of massage differs from mine, but, you know, touchin' his wife's feet, and stickin' your tongue in her Holiest of Holies, ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport. Look, foot massages don't mean shit.
Vincent: Have you ever given a foot massage?
Jules: [scoffs] Don't be tellin' me about foot massages. I'm the foot fuckin' master.
Vincent: Given a lot of 'em?
Jules: Shit yeah. I got my technique down and everything, I don't be ticklin' or nothin'.
Vincent: Would you give a guy a foot massage?
[Jules gives Vincent a long look, realizing he's been set up]
Jules: Fuck you.

Although you and I may find certain behaviours unacceptable, if the said behaviour is acceptable to the folks in those societies then so be it.

I can't speak to the dead but I'm willing to wager Mumtaz didn't find it "acceptable" to have her throat slit. Is she less a member of her society than her husband, or the villagers?

HMF:

I'm not disagreeing with you. It's my view that the subtext isn't particularly relevant, because society should (and the law already does) condemn killing people, no matter what the subtext. I know it's not your intent to provide justification for the man's actions, but all this focus on the woman's actions ultimately does just that, IMO.

Thanks for the Pulp Fiction reminder. I've always wanted to order a Royale with cheese...

At any rate, I'm with Camille. Why don't we just move on, honey bunny?

Girl to receive 60 lashes for illicit sex
http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/Police_and_The_Courts/10133839.html

Wow! According to some people, women are to be blamed for luring innocent guys into having sex with them

I know it's not your intent to provide justification for the man's actions, but all this focus on the woman's actions ultimately does just that, IMO

The subtext is relevant insofar as it shouldn't be ignored. but that's it. I don't know about "all this focus" I was just answering a claim (#14) that reeked of this very ignoring. Secondly, I'm always a little confused as to what we should be discussing on these types of threads. The man's actions? Yeah. It was bad, unjustifiable, etc. etc. , we all get it, we all agree on it. There's really nothing to discuss I feel.

I think question #13 is interesting. How would you have reported this story?

i have to side with the 'village people' on this one

Rahul, I'm surprised you didn't jump on this one, it's ripe for the picking.

What, are we going meta on the snark now?

That's gay.

Somewhat related to this discussion on the semiotics of actions is this article on the semantics of words in the courtroom by the always awesome Dahlia Lithwick.

great article, rahul. surprisingly, i didn't find the ban of the word 'rape' completely ridiculous. i see the comparison to the 'victim,' situation, though i'm not sure it's an altogether equal comparison. still, i think the accuser suffers for not being able to use 'sexual assault,' and also because the jury isn't aware of the ban. if i was a juror in a rape cse, and i never heard the words 'rape' or 'sexual assault,' i would be wondering why that was so, and taking those words out of play might colour the evidence in a way that's unfair for the complainant. i.e. those circumstances combined actually move away from the objective of a neutral playing ground for both parties.

There's really nothing to discuss I feel.

Why not the obvious double standard/hypocrisy of a society that thinks it's alright for a man to be drinking socially with friends (and whatever that implies from a fidelity standpoint), but finds the same behavior from a woman suspicious?

In other words, the woman's actions weren't the only things worthy of discussion here, but that's definitely the turn this discussion took.

i didn't find the ban of the word 'rape' completely ridiculous.

I don't find it completely ridiculous, and I have some sympathy for the view that the word "rape" has serious emotional impact on a jury. Unfortunately, I think this cuts both ways. A juror in a rape trial who doesn't hear the words "rape" or "sexual assault" may not become fully aware of the seriousness of the charges against the accused, for example.

hema, i agree - and that's why i think the jury not knowing that the word is banned is potentially detrimental to the victim. if i were a juror and didn't hear rape, i would think that maybe something serious didn't happen. on the other hand, if i knew the word itself was banned, i would be looking for other things that would substitute for pointing towards the assault.

Why not the obvious double standard/hypocrisy of a society that thinks it's alright for a man to be drinking socially with friends (and whatever that implies from a fidelity standpoint), but finds the same behavior from a woman suspicious?

Well, I can't speak for society, but personally, I've always said that a negative reaction based on the obvious subtext, would be true irrespective of gender:

"Yes, I know, and quite frankly I find it dubious that any woman, any person, would be able to walk in on their spouse, having alcohol with unknown, younger, members of the opposite sex without any forewarning,"

In fact, that's why I flipped the question, because I acknowledge that if a woman walked in to see her husband, in a similar condition, she'd be perfectly entitled to some kind of reaction as well. But instead of admitting it, there was a subtle denial and attempt to explain it away.

If anything, I usually pick up on a double standard, where the woman is irrigated of any responsibility or contributory component at all. It's much easier to do so in cases like these, because someone who brings up points as I do, can always be accused of "blaming the victim" It's an easy cop out. But again, I'm not commenting on this particular case, but in lesser cases of verbal disputes, or violence of a non-fatal, and non-critical injury variety, the male is blamed 100%.

I'll give an example. A close family friend of mine divorced after 10 years of marriage. While sleeping with his wife (and by sleeping, I mean... actually sleeping, not "sleeping") his wife would choke him, scratch him, sometimes bruise him. He'd wake up with scars, scabs and such, but usually find a way to explain it away. After they had a child, another "incident" occured. He called it quits, divorced her to protect his child from witnessing that bullshit.

Do you know how people reacted? "He should have been stronger, he must have provoked her, he should have just dealt with it..." Would anyone even dream of saying these things if the genders were reversed? If you wish to bring up double standards, we can go all day long.

I'm not commenting on this particular case, but in lesser cases of verbal disputes, or violence of a non-fatal, and non-critical injury variety, the male is blamed 100%.

I guess that's the problem. I am commenting on this particular case, because I think the double standard is particularly obvious in this case. Whether that's because of the specific social mores of rural India, I don't know...but that's worth a discussion, IMO.

In fact, that's why I flipped the question, because I acknowledge that if a woman walked in to see her husband, in a similar condition, she'd be perfectly entitled to some kind of reaction as well. But instead of admitting it, there was a subtle denial and attempt to explain it away.

HMF,
I am really very sorry if I touched some hidden nerve when this thread started.What you need to understand is that everyone's threshold for Significant Other's behavior crossing "acceptable" limits is different. The only point I was trying to make in my responses is that its not right to say that the only reasonable response to seeing your SO in a similar situation is to freak out and go all cave-person.

We can agree that everyone is entitled to their own reactions and leave it at that

"He should have been stronger, he must have provoked her, he should have just dealt with it..." Would anyone even dream of saying these things if the genders were reversed?

What are you talking about? People say similar things about women who experience domestic violence all the time! "She should have been tougher. I wonder what she did to provoke him? Well, why is she so stupid that she stays with him when he treats her like that?"

Do you know how people reacted? "He should have been stronger, he must have provoked her, he should have just dealt with it..." Would anyone even dream of saying these things if the genders were reversed? If you wish to bring up double standards, we can go all day long.

I just read Rahul's article, and I do think there's a huge problem with banning the terms "rape" and "sexual assault." There's a difference in understanding between "sex," "forced sex," and "rape," and I think those differences are important to accommodate for, both for the psychological welfare of the victim, but also so that the jury understands the levity of the situation. Are they even told that someone is being charged with a count of rape/assault? Or are they told something else? This could be ridiculous, depending on how it's used in the courtroom.

I'm not commenting on this particular case, but in lesser cases of verbal disputes, or violence of a non-fatal, and non-critical injury variety, the male is blamed 100%.

Does this usually result in the male's murder, though? I mean I totally agree that there are double standards going both ways, but I'm not sure the consequences for stepping out of line cut equally both ways.

Also, I hope it is clear that I intend these questions to extend beyond merely the cultural context surrounding Mumtaz's murder. In the US, homicide is actually one of the leading causes of death of pregnant women (not strictly related to this topic, but sadly, I do believe undervaluing a woman's life is not restricted to any one corner of the globe).

Whether that's because of the specific social mores of rural India, I don't know...but that's worth a discussion, IMO.

Oh no doubt, I mean there's a huge disparity in him having multiple wives (even if it's religiously sanctioned) and her being asked to vest her emotions completely in him. I don't dispute that one bit. But let's not deny that her actions are a clear indication that she's not vesting her complete emotions in him.

But maybe you're right hema, maybe the truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', hema. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.

I agree with Camille...I don't see how the judge can ban the use of the word 'rape' in the first place (I know he has that discretionary power but it's still idiotic), and then, not even let jurors know that it's been banned. Totally ridiculous. How do they think they can ever successfully convict an actual rapist with these kinds of stupid rules? This is another one of the (relatively few) times that I'd side completely with feminist groups if they wanted to oppose this.

But maybe you're right hema, maybe the truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men.

Maybe, but we still love ya anyway! ;)

We need to get rid of the jury system in this country anyway, but that's a whole separate matter. Judges should decide cases. Although judges like that Nebraska judge do give you pause there as well.

We need to get rid of the jury system in this country anyway, but that's a whole separate matter.

Hmm, I don't know. I think the jury is eminently useful in criminal cases, but I think it should be thrown out for civil litigation (even though that would require a constitutional amendment for federal civil cases).

I think the blanket ban on the use of the words rape and sexual assault really makes it hard to conduct a meaningful trial. If there is concern about the prejudicial impact, I'd rather go with Weisberg's solution of "gentle admonitions". Certainly, not informing the jury of this restriction seems disadvantageous to the complainant.

Ok, I just want to disclaim by saying that I'm not typing this to be cruel or rude or mean or any of that.

HMF, I understand that you are all about the double standard. I understand that you're not a misogynist, and you clearly spend time thinking out your responses. All that said, I think what frustrates me the most is the underlying assumption that these "double standards" exist on an equal playing field. This is like previous conversations we've had about DV, and it's also like that huge conversation we had on whether "women have it easier" in job selection because they have less societal pressure to be the breadwinner. At the end of the day, guys generally have the leg up because we live in a patriarchal society that often punishes, ostracizes, and devalues women, women's choices, women's opportunities, and women's work. Probably one of the only cases where I feel it is difficult for men, as well, is when they're victims of DV, as you mentioned in the case of your friend. I know that you understand that also.

I just feel like I'm banging my head against a wall half the time because no matter what awful thing someone (usually male in these instances) does, the follow up comment is always, "well she's not perfect either." No duh! But what does that have to do with the factual underpinnings, i.e. that more women die at the hands of their partners than men, women are shunned or punished for trying to socialize on the same terms as men, and that there is a clear double standard in this relationship regarding expectations around fidelity, etc., and that those differing expectations are normalized and reinforced through legal channels and social norms? I think bringing up another perspective is important, but some acknowledgment of the differing reality would be nice, also.

Judges should decide cases. Although judges like that Nebraska judge do give you pause there as well.

i did an entire paper on this. i think both the jury and the judge as triers have their own drawbacks. judges are far less impartial than you think. their biases include education, wealth, race, criminal record etc. i would be very scared to leave the entire decision up to one individual. yes, some crimes do not require jury trials. but dealing with most felonies, i think there is too much at stake for the defendant to have his/her fate lie in the hands of one person. and appellate review is not a good checkpoint, because the majority of appeals are for criminal cases, and a very low percenetage are overturned. add to this the fact that trial judges are given an exteremely generous amount of deference and you can see the sort of problems that present themselves.

HMF, I've heard the exact same justifications and excuses made for men's violence towards women by people very close to me, particularly the "she must have provoked him" one. And as the original post notes, more women than men are killed by their spouses or lovers in these situations. There's a pretty important difference between jealousy and rage and hitting your spouse in a moment of passion, and killing your spouse. This in no way invalidates the outrage of someone making excuses for female-on-male violence or simply sneering at a man for putting up with it.

I'm not sure there are double standards at play in how people might judge your friend's case - he's less likely to have been visible, it would have been less acceptable to talk about it, more shame involved, and if much put-upon man kills his abusive wife he would probably not get as much sympathy as, say, a Kiranjit Ahluwalia. That's hypocrisy, yes. But nor would most families (and here I'm thinking of desi families as they are the ones I know mostly) accept a woman beating a man with a shrug of the shoulders, something sad but common, the way they would accept or overlook a man beating a woman; there's no cliche of the woman coming home drunk and beating up her husband as is the reverse. It's a stretch to extrapolate from these examples that the poor male is always the one unjustly blamed while the woman gets away scot-free; rather like the paranoid ads put out by men's associations in Delhi against anti-domestic violence laws that insist these laws are by their very nature fatally biased against men and very open to abuse by women, suggesting that a minority of cases of abuse is reason enough to get rid of these laws altogether, or of any pragmatic safeguards that assume women are more likely to be at the receiving end of such violence and therefore more likely to be telling the truth than possible perpetrators.

And I don't think seeing your spouse drinking with members of the opposite sex (or whoever floats their boat) is really justifiable grounds for a Crime of Passion. Unless drinking was sort of a euphemism for in flagrant delict.

Camille there was nothing cruel or rude or mean in any of that. As for a male victim of DV, well, what can I say. The solution seems pretty simple. Unless she calls the cops (or her dad and brothers) on you.

HMF, I hear the same exact thing said to female survivors of DV.

But when it's said to men, is taken with the same level of disdain and rejection?

But when it's said to men, is taken with the same level of disdain and rejection?

HMF, there's something of a hazing mentality among a lot of women who have put up with domestic violence or seen it happen around them - they sniff at a woman who complains the first time her husband beats her, and say things like "we all go through that, don't be a baby." You hear that all the time back home.

Hema and AK, thanks for your perspectives on the jury issue. There are drawbacks to either situations, but I feel most juries are composed of unqualified people, and are not fit to decide complex cases. They are certainly not fit to decide most medical malpractice suits, where their emotions tend to get the better of them.

Let me just make one remark about judges. Are you willing to put your fate in the hands of a man who willingly wears a powdered wig?

but I feel most juries are composed of unqualified people, and are not fit to decide complex cases. They are certainly not fit to decide most medical malpractice suits, where their emotions tend to get the better of them.

i cannot disagree with this statement. there have actually been several sociological and psychological studies done on jurors, and it wouldn't surprise you that emotions tend to take over logic in many cases. lawyers are specifically trained to use certain key words, stand in certain ways, speak in certain tones etc to produce the desired result with the jury. it's pretty interesting, and impressive, that you can manipulate the average person like that. it's also sad...

This is like previous conversations we've had about DV, and it's also like that huge conversation we had on whether "women have it easier" in job selection because they have less societal pressure to be the breadwinner. At the end of the day, guys generally have the leg up because we live in a patriarchal society that often punishes, ostracizes, and devalues women, women's choices, women's opportunities, and women's work.

You are correct - all of those above discussions do cross paths. But you're forgetting the discussion of patriarchy, where I stated that some subtle forms of patriarchy are perpetuated by women, and in some cases even invited, and encouraged. Men are rewarded by being "men"

When women say, "I want a man who makes firm decisions and sticks to them" (which many women do), they are to some effect saying - "my decision making process is subjugated and not as important" aren't they?

They are certainly not fit to decide most medical malpractice suits, where their emotions tend to get the better of them.

I agree with that, at least to some extent. I think the problem is not so much the emotions of the jurors, however, but the vast amount of complex factual information a jury has to absorb to decide a med mal, toxic tort or patent cases, for example. The cases often boil down to competing testimony from experts on both sides, and all this can be very taxing to a jury. That's why I'm of the view that civil juries may be somewhat superfluous.

ak:

If you happen to have a copy of your paper, could I get one? This is a topic I have an outside interest in myself. Thanks!

but you're forgetting the discussion of patriarchy, where I stated that some subtle forms of patriarchy are perpetuated by women, and in some cases even invited, and encouraged

Your example, which I read as an example of perhaps subscribing to a trait attributed to masculinity, may or may not be supporting the status quo on gender roles. A woman who says she wants a guy who makes firm decisions may also want the right to make firm decisions and stick by them. If I said I wanted someone who is health-conscious, for example, that could be construed as saying I want a guy who is buff (playing into the de facto ideas about men), or it could just mean that I want someone who values his own physical and mental health (e.g. eating right, working out, taking out time for reflection).

I have witnessed fairly complex patent cases that hinge on the specific meanings of certain words, being decided by juries with absolutely no experience in the area at all. And they were subject to days of obfuscating testimony by expert witnesses and so on. I have no idea how anybody can trust the decision that would have come out of their discussion. It's sort of like an SM thread :)

As for trial by judges, the danger is that they let their significant biases inform their decision. I think all these debates about which way the supreme court leans etc. are a good example of that.

No duh! But what does that have to do with the factual underpinnings, i.e. that more women die at the hands of their partners than men,

Camille, don't take this the wrong way, but I believe on another thread, you severly misrepresented the female on male DV statistic, to which I provided a report to counteract it. Not saying you're above statement is false, women are on the receiving end more so, but you've err'd on the side of underestimating the male victim before.

women are shunned or punished for trying to socialize on the same terms as men

As for this, I believe there is a biological reason, as it concerns sexual intercourse. For a woman, the risk is higher in terms of resources needed during pregnancy. Women produce one egg a month, males produce 5 billion sperm a day (or whatever the figure is). These are biological facts. So, to me, it's only natural that society has evolved to 'protect' women more so than men. Now, I agree as those biological constraints can be circumvented (via birth control, etc..), it will take time for society to 'catch up' As things like abortion and birth control become normal, I'm all for women f*ckin' till their hearts content - I would be lying if I said I was a willing servant to that cause.

A woman who says she wants a guy who makes firm decisions may also want the right to make firm decisions and stick by them.

That's counterintuitive, the statement is usually made in the context of "I want a man who makes decisions for us"

I would be lying if I said I was a willing servant to that cause.

I meant to say, "I would be lying if I said I wasn't a willing servant to that cause."

I have witnessed fairly complex patent cases that hinge on the specific meanings of certain words, being decided by juries with absolutely no experience in the area at all. And they were subject to days of obfuscating testimony by expert witnesses and so on

Exactly. Add to that the fact that witness testimony and evidence presentation is often interrupted by various objections, motions in limine, requests to approach the bench, etc., and I think the jury's task become next to impossible.

One interesting idea that one of my colleagues has floated is that, at least in patent cases, all the expert testimony should be conducted separately, videotaped and then shown to the jury after the confusing legalese has been edited out. This doesn't address the issue of the testimony being obscure in itself, but it does eliminate one potential source of jury confusion. It's debatable as to whether this violates the 7th Amendment preservation of jury trials, however.

So, to me, it's only natural that society has evolved to 'protect' women more so than men.

Also, I did not "severely misrepresent" DV stats. The statistics I cite, and the statistics I've often used, come from reports and sources that are commonly accepted both in the world of DV-service providers, but also in the world of public health research. And, in addition to the prevalence of DV, it is important to take into account the severity. While all DV is reprehensible, there is a difference between being yelled at and being murdered! Is this really so hard to accept? You've often provided alternate statistics, but I think the same questions you ask of my stats (i.e. are these reports credible?) can be http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004519.html#applied to your stats as well. We are not going to reach an agreement there.

We can list examples up the wazoo, but it's not going to change the fact that context matters. I'm sure you're right at times, I'm sure I'm right at times. It depends on the people involved, the conversation, the background, etc., etc., etc.

So I'm done. I just wanted to bring up my point because I think it is silly to pretend there are not larger issues, trends, and norms at play when we discuss horrific incidents like this.

all the expert testimony should be conducted separately, videotaped and then shown to the jury after the confusing legalese has been edited out.

This was also manipulated by both sides in the trial I saw. Crucial technical statements would be taken out of context and misrepresented, and while what was happening was clear to me as a technical person (watching the trial), if I'd been an untrained jury member, my head would have been spinning with all the statements, counter statements, clarifications etc.

There's a book called The Gift of Fear in which the author asserts that a man's greatest fear of women is that she will laugh at him; whereas a woman's greatest fear of a man is that he will kill her. That's the difference we're talking about here.

I'm not saying that to man-bash or to downplay male victims of violence, I believe that all human beings have violent and selfish impulses. But in regards to DV I think the statistics clearly show the actual, on-the-ground consequences hurt women with greater severity and frequency.

For a woman, the risk is higher in terms of resources needed during pregnancy. Women produce one egg a month, males produce 5 billion sperm a day (or whatever the figure is).

So why am I sharing this : because ,while your intentions may be the best unlike aforementioned Shankaracharya, you really need to rethink how you say it.

Thats it for me because the conversation has kind of veered where it should not be going

I am so disgusted by this that I can't even type a response. It's clear to me now -- there is no point in discussing anything regarding women with you, because I'm just going to get frustrated, and then I'm going to have to read ridiculous statements like this.

Disgusted? How about you point out a logical flaw, and prove its ridiculousness. Isn't it true that sexual intercourse involves a higher risk for females in terms of physical strain on the body? I have no idea what you read from the comment, but it wasn't anything more than what I stated. Seriously, most women I know don't really find an issue with this.

Also, I did not "severely misrepresent" DV stats.

Here was the stat report I quoted. And it wasn't you, but someone else that exaggerated the stat, so I apologize for that.

You may be interested in knowing that some 20+ years ago the then Shankaracharya ( of Puri ,I think) said exactly this when justifying Sati in India

See? this is what I mean by cop-out. It's such an easy thing to accuse a point like I had made, in support of self-immolation?? I see it's much easier to assuage one's conscience by accusing the other of "blaming the victim" as it is to understand the true point being made.

HMF, if you're going to quote sociobiological arguments, pick slightly more sophisticated ones, please. Human behaviour has evolved in many many layers with many more variables at play than the simple sperm and egg numbers game.

And the nice thing about being human is being able to make moral judgements and decisions and not being completely driven by biological imperatives.

And the nice thing about being human is being able to make moral judgements and decisions and not being completely driven by biological imperatives.

I never said completely, nor did I even make any claim on "morality"

Hi all,

Longtime lurker, first time poster. My compliments to the bloggers-- I'm hooked!

On the issue of DV against women vs. against men-- I worked last year as a counselor at a domestic violence shelter in Pennsylvania, where I live. I think it's important to remember that DV isn't a zero-sum game. Yes, violence against women is much more widespread, and because of the sexist way the laws and police force are set up, there's very little justice for it. I've met plenty of women who were burned, cut, beaten, etc. and called the cops, only to have the cops show up two hours later, ask what she did to make her husband so angry, and leave. As for violence against men-- it happens much more often than is reported. In the state where I live, there is ONE bed-- one bed, in any shelter in the state-- for a male DV victim. Men who call the police to report violence against them, by a woman or by a male lover, are ridiculed and sometimes subjected to further violence. So it's hard to go by the statistics of reported incidents.

In the case of the Mumtaz story, it sounds like there was some history of power and control-- his description of her as a "woman of loose morals," to whom he was showing kindness despite her flawed nature, reminds me of the way so many of our residents' abusers indoctrinated their wives. DV isn't just about physical violence-- the abuser has to make the woman believe that she deserves the violence, that she has no intrinsic worth, and that she'd be worse off without him (or reverse the genders). If you hear it enough, you begin to believe it and even to submit to the violence.

I've never been to India and can't speak to the cultural factors at play here. But I did grow up in a poor, industrial neighborhood in the US where DV was common, and where women were occasionally killed by angry husbands. (Sometimes my mom's friends would come over in the middle of the night crying, and we'd lock all the doors.) There was something of a cultural perception that this was a normal state of affairs, maybe not great, but men, what can you do? It took those women speaking out and fighting back to even begin to start changing that. I don't think anyone could have come in from the outside and changed things by telling people they were backward-- which rich liberal types love to do. People would defend themselves from that, and rightly so-- but that didn't make wife-beating something worth defending. I guess my point is that change has to come from the oppressed themselves, or else it becomes paternalism.

Sorry this is so long! Argue away... :)

See? this is what I mean by cop-out

HMF,
Read what I wrote carefully.At no point did I accuse you of blaming the victim.I quoted one statement you made and requested you tothink about tempering the way you say something because the very same words have been used to justify terrible crimes against women.

I have already apologized if anything I said has touched a nerve with you .There is no need to get so defensive !

OK, can people educate me about male victims of DV? I just can't understand it. Unless you're physically weaker than your wife (I've never seen that) OR you're afraid that if you hit her back she'll call the cops (or her male relatives) on your ass. Or you're just so nice that you can't hit a woman, regardless of the fact that she's abusing you physically in the first place. Or, perhaps, out of concern for your kids on some level. But overall, I can't grasp this concept of a woman consistently and chronically abusing a man. The man must have some personality problems himself.

OK, can people educate me about male victims of DV? I just can't understand it. Unless you're physically weaker than your wife (I've never seen that) OR you're afraid that if you hit her back she'll call the cops (or her male relatives) on your ass. Or you're just so nice that you can't hit a woman, regardless of the fact that she's abusing you physically in the first place. Or, perhaps, out of concern for your kids on some level. But overall, I can't grasp this concept of a woman consistently and chronically abusing a man. The man must have some personality problems himself.

because u love her even though she hits u. u think shes still the sweet grl u met when u first fell in love, and cant change that image in your mind. u feel like its ur fault that shes hitting you. you feel bad about urself. u dont know whats wrong with u.

But overall, I can't grasp this concept of a woman consistently and chronically abusing a man.
Domestic violence really isn't about the ability of one person to physically overpower the other. It's about power and control, and I can see situations where a woman could exercise power and control over a man, even where he is physically larger/more imposing than she is.

Also, at least some domestic violence against men occurs in same-sex relationships, so the whole "the man must be stronger" thing is a bit of a red herring anyway.

The man must have some personality problems himself.

I find this statement fairly objectionable. Many people say DV victims (even female ones) have "personality problems" that lead to their abuse in the first place. I think this becomes a way to blanket and ignore the real problems of domestic abuse victims, which are not necessarily related to gender.

People in abusive relationships all have personality problems - insecurity, dependency, low self worth - that's why they stick around and put up with the abuse. The physical aspect of the abuse is one thing, and the emotional aspect is another. It's not so strange that a man might put up with an abusive spouse even if he's physically bigger (and that's not always the case, particularly if one partner makes up in weight and assertive personality what he or she lacks in height). The restraints of shame, a sense that there are no options and divorce is not respectable, that the other person is just going through a phase and is an adequate spouse in other regards, could apply to men as well as women. It helps to be big if you're going to be a bully, but some of the most effective bullying is psychological, so why shouldn't a women be capable of bullying too?

Are you the same Sp as SP? I've worked in a coding environment before, we're used to case-sensitive nomenclature.

you tothink about tempering the way you say something because the very same words have been used to justify terrible crimes against women.

Fire can be used to heat a home, or burn it down. But fire is fire.

Disgusted? How about you point out a logical flaw, and prove its ridiculousness. Isn't it true that sexual intercourse involves a higher risk for females in terms of physical strain on the body? I have no idea what you read from the comment, but it wasn't anything more than what I stated. Seriously, most women I know don't really find an issue with this.

What I meant by saying "there's no point in discussing this with you" was not a judgment of you or your pov. I'm just saying, outloud, that I recognize that when you and I talk about DV it doesn't really go anywhere. We just say the same arguments in different ways over and over again. This is totally ok. It's the same way with my friends -- there are some topics we just don't bring up because it doesn't go anywhere. It's what we do to stay congenial. I know I'm opinionated, but when I engage in conversation I'm trying to take in other views and think, reflect, or grow in my understanding of the issue. I don't have that experience when I talk about DV, or women in society, with you. I also don't have that experience when I talk affirmative action with melbournedesi or Manju. This doesn't mean I don't respect your viewpoint, it just means that we're not moving anywhere, so what's the point?

OK, can people educate me about male victims of DV? I just can't understand it. Unless you're physically weaker than your wife (I've never seen that) OR you're afraid that if you hit her back she'll call the cops (or her male relatives) on your ass.

It helps to be big if you're going to be a bully, but some of the most effective bullying is psychological, so why shouldn't a women be capable of bullying too?

Absolutely. There are all sorts of forms of abuse and control, and often the physical bullying is only one aspect. DV workers use the Power and Control Wheel to help illustrate the various forms it can take.

People in abusive relationships all have personality problems - insecurity, dependency, low self worth - that's why they stick around and put up with the abuse.

I think this is at best an oversimplification. You don't have to have pre-existing "personality problems" to be a victim of domestic abuse, any more than you have to be from one specific culture or class. It happens everywhere, to all kinds of people. When I began my DV training, I thought, naively, that as a feminist with some education about the issue I was somehow "above" abuse-- surely I would have the wherewithal to just walk away, right? But when we actually delved into both the emotional dynamics of relationships, marriages, families etc. and also the material barriers that keep people in abusive relationships (financial dependence, shame and guilt, stability), I was disturbed to see some of my own relationships reflected-- and every single person in my training found the same thing. Are we all just deeply neurotic? Yes, the traits you mentioned certainly don't bode well for a person's ability to resist abuse, but they exist to some extent in everyone. A smart abuser can cultivate those traits in a perfectly healthy person and make them grow to the point where they override the victim's limitations.

I also agree that such thinking can easily lead to a "those abuse victims are all just crazy/weak/deserving" mentality. It's a slippery slope...

would also like to see how this operates in the context of matriarchal societies. I think the paternalistic view of women certainly predates any "biological" arguments about eggs.

That's the thing though, I'm trying to separate this type of sexual/relationship "paternalism" from the equal pay for equal work, etc.. etc.. I'm saying women are protective of their daughter's sexual behavior for the same reasons pertaining to biological risk. My guess is that matriarchal societies would develop the same kind of precaution against female sexual activity.

but when I engage in conversation I'm trying to take in other views and think, reflect, or grow in my understanding of the issue. I don't have that experience when I talk about DV, or women in society, with you.

believe it or not, the inverse isn't true. I appreciate the responses you and others provide, even if it's pejorative, hostile and combative in tone.

My guess is that matriarchal societies would develop the same kind of precaution against female sexual activity.

There aren't any truly matriarchal societies, but in matrilineal, matrilocal societies like the Nayar of Kerala, there's considerably less policing of female sexuality than in patrilineal ones; Nayar women were expected, even encouraged, to take several lovers. I don't buy the 'sexual double standards evolved to protect women' argument, especially when those double standards lead to honour killing - dead women don't bear too many babies, you know. More rigorous policing of female sexuality is designed to protect men from the shame of cuckoldry; it isn't meant to benefit women.

Thanks for all the responses. I can see how psychological or emotional manipulations (of a susceptible person) over a period of time could potentially lead to male DV. By the time it's happening, the guy is buried so deep in it that he doesn't see it for what it is, or feels powerless to stop it. I can see how a lot of it could be mental and not physical. I think with female DV, in addition to all the psychologic factors, there are also cultural and social factors, as well as physical ones.

Nayar women were expected, even encouraged, to take several lovers

Just when I want to back out of a thread, another gem comes along...is the above true? Who encouraged them to do so? So pre-marital/extra-marital sex is encouraged in matriarchal (or matrilocal, whatever) societies? My understanding of matrilineal/matriarchal societies is that men are still in control, but instead of your father (or father's family) or your husband, it's your maternal uncles (or the males on your mother's side in general) who are in charge. No?

And Camille, coming from a society as patriarchal and patrilineal/patrilocal as the Punjabi culture (or northern Indian culture in general), do you wish that you came from a matriarchal culture instead?

There aren't any truly matriarchal societies, but in matrilineal, matrilocal societies like the Nayar of Kerala, there's considerably less policing of female sexuality than in patrilineal ones; Nayar women were expected, even encouraged, to take several lovers.

I don't know too much about this, but a quick read here, shows the women were encouraged to take different lovers as part of a "group childraising" model, not some kind of "let the women be free" attitude. Either way, a societal institution (group child rearing) was in place to care for women during this period.

Regardless of the society, place, and time, you're not getting around the 9 months of taxed body resources. That will indeed have some implications in which male and female sexual behavior is looked at.

Anyway, going to Las Vegas tonight (yeah boyeeeee!), won't be checking back on SM until Monday....thanks in advance to all responses.

Anyway, going to Las Vegas tonight

There's a city where women make bank

What I find grating here is the blithe sense of ignorance that "the way it's always been" is unfair. I don't think you're even right on the on-the-fly explanation you give about biological realities HMF. But, given that, do you not see how blatantly unfair this situation, and most similiar situations are, more often to women? There are double standards, you are pretty correct. What part does fairness play in this discussion? I am not getting your strident defense of masculinity here; there's almost totally no need, since the ledger is so plainly already tilted in your direction

And by that, I mean the direction of dudes who are both clueless and happy to be clueless about the basic structure of such discussions. Really its pretty galling and I can totally empathisize with Camille. Its not that you bring out wonderful airtight arguements of logic. You're just bandying about tropes that have the force of a biased social system on their side. Without the pre-existing weight your arguements have by virtue of already being normative, nothing you have said would make any sense at all

Amitabh, here's an article about Nayar kinship practices:

http://orion.oac.uci.edu/~dbell/html/body_gough.html

Nayar society certainly wasn't some sexual free-for-all; there were heavy penalties incurred for women who had liaisons with lower caste men, for example, but they still had more sexual freedom than women in patrilineal societies.

My understanding of matrilineal/matriarchal societies is that men are still in control, but instead of your father (or father's family) or your husband, it's your maternal uncles (or the males on your mother's side in general) who are in charge. No?

Well, in matrilineal societies, maternal uncles and brothers don't have any particular reason to police the sexuality of their female relations; a husband has an acute interest in ensuring that the children that his wife bears are his, but your sister's kids are still your nieces and nephews, no matter who fathered them.

I don't think you're even right on the on-the-fly explanation you give about biological realities HMF

Uhh. so all the women who give birth stuff pillows under their shirts for 9 months? I don't mean to be so sarcastic here, but to admit the huge gap in biological function, and not even entertain the possibility it determines the attitudes towards the act that causes the biological function, is frankly, beyond me.

Without the pre-existing weight your arguements have by virtue of already being normative, nothing you have said would make any sense at all

Again, connecting it to larger behaviors of women not getting paid, being more likely to get attacked, murdered, raped, not being treated equally in the legal system, etc.. is misquoting me to the fullest. If you're saying that women having a gestational period of 9 months, that it involves various levels of heightened hormonal flow, etc is normative, then yes, I agree, I'm taking refuge in this fact.

You're tethering the discussion on what you consider biologically fixed ideas; but, which came first, the point of view that sex costs women more somehow, or the biological "reality"? If you want to go that direction, it can go any number of ways. It might not be plausable to you, but biology could just as easily be used as a means to enhance women's sexuality. Imagine a society in which its thought that a pregnant woman, more than any other deserves the majority of social services. Then, not only is she free to have sex during the majority of those 9 months, but she would be rewarded for being pregnant by society as whole

So what I mean by that is, I think a lot of the arguements you make are already laden with this baggage that the normative way of looking at things is already tilted towards your position

but, which came first, the point of view that sex costs women more somehow, or the biological "reality"?

I don't see a distinction between the two. Nearly every women I speak to agrees that being pregnant is physically uncomfortable as the body has to get used to providing nutrients for two. Are you really trying to argue the point that sex bears an equal biophysical risk to men and women?

Imagine a society in which its thought that a pregnant woman, more than any other deserves the majority of social services.

What social services are you talking about? Pregnant women are offered seats on trains, subways, as well as maternal leave from work, etc..? I don't know what you mean by this question.

Then, not only is she free to have sex during the majority of those 9 months, but she would be rewarded for being pregnant by society as whole

I don't see how this connects to social services.

....Or for example, maybe there is a biological reason or reasons that women live longer than men. Combine this with menopause and the suggestion could be made that the optimal individual for a society's success is not an 18 year old dude, but a 60 year old grandmother. I'm not saying this is the only way to look at it, but, you have to admit, there's a plausability there that is negated by just going along with the same old way these issues have been thought about in the past

I don't see a distinction between the two.

The distinction is that what you consider evidence for your position given a biological fact could be weighted by social expectation regarding this fact.

Are you really trying to argue the point that sex bears an equal biophysical risk to men and women?

I think you would need to say context matters more than may have previously been assumed

What social services are you talking about? Pregnant women are offered seats on trains, subways, as well as maternal leave from work, etc..? I don't know what you mean by this question.

Well take these social interactions, and expand them to include any number of things that are provided to by a social structure to selected members. tickets to the playoffs, ect, ect

The distinction is that what you consider evidence for your position given a biological fact could be weighted by social expectation regarding this fact.

That's like saying, "newtons law of gravitation could be weighted by a socialized expectation that people have for things to fall towards the earth." At some point you must concede a scientific fact exists, irrespective of social opinion regarding that fact.

Well take these social interactions, and expand them to include any number of things that are provided to by a social structure to selected members. tickets to the playoffs, ect, ect

Are you saying there should be a pregnant section in the staples center? You're all over the place.

Are you saying there should be a pregnant section in the staples center? You're all over the place.

No, I'm really only saying a few basic things, but giving you examples, and also joking around a bit (about the playoffs). I'll stick with a sports analogy. NBA players don't perform a social function that is neccessary, or by itself really all that important. But they are given quite a lot of social services and benefits. That's because, somehow, society has made it so that, if you are good enough to make it to the NBA, you can lead a pretty sweet life, all out of proportion to what you contribute back to society.

As a thought experiment, think about if pregnancy was so valued by society that, as soon as someone became pregnant, they got all the benefits that now accrue to NBA players

Admittedly, this is an unconventional example. But its meant to suggest that, if you look at the context around a biological fact, the meaning of that fact could change. I'm just saying to consider that possibility.

That's like saying, "newtons law of gravitation could be weighted by a socialized expectation that people have for things to fall towards the earth." At some point you must concede a scientific fact exists, irrespective of social opinion regarding that fact.

What you consider a scientific law is just a material phenomenon. People mitigate their material world through social action.

There aren't any truly matriarchal societies

And Camille, coming from a society as patriarchal and patrilineal/patrilocal as the Punjabi culture (or northern Indian culture in general), do you wish that you came from a matriarchal culture instead?

believe it or not, the inverse isn't true. I appreciate the responses you and others provide, even if it's pejorative, hostile and combative in tone.

What you consider a scientific law is just a material phenomenon. People mitigate their material world through social action.

But its meant to suggest that, if you look at the context around a biological fact, the meaning of that fact could change

Wait a minute. are you saying because pregnant women don't get sneaker deals, it's automatically incredulous to consider biological differences when evaluating attitudes towards male and female sexual behavior? What?!

As for NBA players not contributing to society, I believe they actually do, in advertising and revenue dollars. Trust me, they wouldn't get paid that much money if they they didn't earn it back somehow to the people that pay them. You might find it morally incomprehensible that in our society so much money goes into professional sporting, but that a different discussion altogether.

I think Sahej brings up excellent points about how we internalize our judgments and norms re: women and then turn around and code this in what we think is "natural" or "biological."

but then if not biological, then where do these norms and judgements come from? There must be some kind of source, correct? Let's assume the "carefullness of who women should have sex with" is solely a male-centric view (which it's clearly not) - and this view is somehow used to a priori classify pregnancy as more physically taxing, then where does the view come from? Some kind of internal hatred for women? If that's the case then why would a woman ever enter into any social contract with a being bent on preventing her from having unbridled sex and Nike sponsodred Air-Jordans, or I guess Air-Amniotics, she's entitled to?

What you consider a scientific law is just a material phenomenon. People mitigate their material world through social action.

Sure, so they'll use english/latin/greek symbols (like G for the universal gravitation constant, and a for acceleration, etc...) to describe the concepts, but the phenomenon doesn't change. In the same way, english words like "amniotic sac" and "hormonal shifts" and hindu-arabic numerals such as "9" are used to describe # of months.

HMF,

I think I made that as exchange as clear as I can, hope you get my point, or some of it. Its just ideas, as sure of it as I sound!

But I do think in general, there's more "give" around some facts than we assume, biological, social, ect

HMF, the idea that the differential parental investment of men and women might make women more reticent about casual sex and more choosy about who their partners are is a reasonable hypothesis. However, that isn't what you were arguing upthread; at #156, you put forth the idea that societally imposed restrictions on female behaviour are designed to 'protect' women. Really, do you think practices that restrict female freedom of movement, mate choice, and in extreme cases lead to injury and death came about with the wellbeing of women in mind? Sexual double standards serve to assuage the fears of men; they aren't meant to protect women.

I agree that it is totally ridiculous to assume that our cultural and social realities in any way, shape or form, resemble the cultural and social realities of an Indian village.

1. Drinking alcohol is HARAM in Islam. That means it is forbidden and viewed as a sin.

2. As Kush Tandon pointed out, as per Indian law, muslim men are allowed up to four wives. This is an Islamic thing as in Islam, men are allowed to be married to up to four women at a time, but women are allowed only one husband at a time.

3. Regardless of religion, the culture(s), conditionings and folklores of rural India are thick with concepts such as "pati-vrat-dharma" (intense and unbreakable loyalty to one's husband), "sati" (in this context "sati" means "chastity", as a woman who is intensely chaste to her husband is often referred to as a "sati-savitri" - those familiar with the stories of Sati (Shiva's wife) and Savitri (another glorified woman in Indian folklore/mythology/history) will know what I'm talking about here.

In the states of U.P., Rajasthan, etc, it is not at all uncommon to see non-Muslim women veiling their faces when in public, or even when at home, in front of other male members of the family such as one's father in law and elder brothers in law.

Codes of conduct can be really, really, really, intense there.

So no, it's not likely that women of rural India just casually sit around and drink alcohol with male "friends" - either friends known to their husbands or not.

Can it happen? Yes. Does it? Probably, but rarely.

Another factor - a woman over here who is having an affair might say to her lover, "meet me tomorrow at that little obscure Thai cafe on the West end of town, then from there we will check into the Hilton around the corner"

In a small village in rural India there are no discreet cafes to meet at or Hilton's to check into!!!!!

If you are having an affair it will have to be in someone's home. If you think your spouse will be gone for the day or out of town for a few days, you would try to pull off a rendevous in your own home.

In the states of U.P., Rajasthan, etc, it is not at all uncommon to see non-Muslim women veiling their faces when in public, or even when at home, in front of other male members of the family such as one's father in law and elder brothers in law.

Mean to point out that even Hindu and other non-muslim women often observe this "purdah" system in many North Indian villages, towns, even cities -- in keeping with concepts of "modesty" and "chastity".

you put forth the idea that societally imposed restrictions on female behaviour are designed to 'protect' women.

I meant in the sense of protecting them from a bodily investment. The potential risk far outweighs the male potential risk, I didn't mean protect in the sense of "making sure she's a good girl" or anythinig constraining like that. Secondly, you are positing that it's a male centric view, I disagree, because if anything, one could argue that men right now wish for much lower thresholds for women to engage in sexual activity. That's why "getting lucky" is called "getting lucky" To say women are just drones walking around following rules men set for them is a bit derailing, dont you think?

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here, HMF. I'm talking about social mores that dictate that a woman may face a beating or worse if she leaves her husband's house without his permission; I think you may be talking about dating scripts that allow a certain amount of coyness to women. If that's the case, I probably agree with you, to a certain extent.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here, HMF. I'm talking about social mores that dictate that a woman may face a beating or worse if she leaves her husband's house without his permission;

Seeing that the couple was Muslim, the local Muslim views regarding proper punishment for such (perceived) behaviour would have to be examined as well.

The Islamic legal system(s) say various things from place to place, time to time.

I'm talking about social mores that dictate that a woman may face a beating or worse if she leaves her husband's house without his permission;

Do you mean leave in a temporary or permanent sense? And yes, I'm not talking about these types of restrictions - because these aren't strictly sexual in nature, they're more of a "showing face to society/ what will the neighbors think?" line of reasoning. Where as women I think have a naturally evolved instinct to prevent them from having strong sexual activity proclivities, as their biological risk is higher. This could also explained as to why women aren't immediately "turned on" by looks alone. Although it seems that way most of the time.

Where as women I think have a naturally evolved instinct to prevent them from having strong sexual activity proclivities, as their biological risk is higher. This could also explained as to why women aren't immediately "turned on" by looks alone. Although it seems that way most of the time.

There is a widely held Indian belief from ancient (or at least medieval times) that women are 9 times lustier than men. The statement saying such is in some purana, sutra, tantra or vedic supplement.

In line with this the Bhagavat Purana relays that Kardama Muni had to expand himself into 9 forms to sexually satisfy his wife - the famous Devahuti, mother of Kapila, incarnation of Vishnu (more on the topic and some commentary here http://www.gaudiya-repercussions.com/lofiversion/index.php/t1576.html )

Much discussion has been generated within the Vaishnava community worldwide regarding this topic and what exactly is meant by 9 times more lusty than a man.

One theory is that women have a capacity to enjoy sex more than a man (muliple orgasms, etc).

Sarah - I suppose I should have put "personality problems" in quotes as I was referring sardonically back to what someone had said about people blaming the victim for his or her "personality problems." I get you, believe me. I've been at the receiving end.

"Human behaviour has evolved in many many layers with many more variables at play than the simple sperm and egg numbers game."

SP, human behavior will never evolve beyond the sperm and egg numbers game...that's the point of evolution..Just witness the rise of Hayden Panettiere :)

Anyone notice how the man cheated on his wife and married this other woman and called her Mumtaz. also he continued to live with his first wife.

The very thing he did to his wife, his wife is not allowed to do to him, and he ended up killing her.

That the social set up he lives in thought he was justified in doing what he did.

Anyone bring up the issue of multiple spouses for Muslim men runs one way only? Anything special about that?

And despite all these facts/ data, we are supposed to condone "cultural differences"

C'mon, give me a break...

many many double standards here...

Crimes of passion indeed.!!!What if the first wife, poisoned the man when she found out he got himself another wife?

Oh Pleaze....

The Feast of Roses was great, but if you liked Nur Jahan in The Feast, check out the prequel, The Twentieth Wife. The Twentieth Wife starts off Mehrunnisa's tale.

Anyone notice how the man cheated on his wife and married this other woman and called her Mumtaz. also he continued to live with his first wife.

The very thing he did to his wife, his wife is not allowed to do to him, and he ended up killing her.

That the social set up he lives in thought he was justified in doing what he did.

Anyone bring up the issue of multiple spouses for Muslim men runs one way only? Anything special about that?

And despite all these facts/ data, we are supposed to condone "cultural differences"

C'mon, give me a break...

many many double standards here...

Crimes of passion indeed.!!!What if the first wife, poisoned the man when she found out he got himself another wife?

Oh Pleaze....

The double standards of polygamous cultures have been discussed for centuries and in my own recent experiences talking to men who come from such backgrounds, they always cite the differences in male and female anatomy and psycho-sexual differences as a justification for polygyny over polyandry. For instance;

Having more than one husband at a time does not benefit a woman because she would be getting pregnant too often and then controversy over the paternity of various babies would ensue (although one polyandrous community in India has figured out a solution to that - rotation of co-habitation with the wife -- where there is a will, there is a way.)

Women "naturally" desire to be intimate with one long-term partner whereas men "naturally" desire to have as many sexual partners as is possible for them. This argument supposedly has evolution and modern day men-mars-women-venus pop psychology behind it.

There are usually greater numbers of women than men in any given population and thus polygyny affords all women a guaranteed husband, despite the possiblity of low numbers of men.

The arguments are many.