Not Thankful for Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is coming up and once again, Native Americans are fighting for their right to land and to life.

As Native Americans are being tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets and water cannons, Americans all over the country will be gathering over a Turkey to celebrate how wonderful the pilgrims and natives were to each other. There is not even one ounce of authenticity in the story of the first Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving is more than a lie. It is a coverup of sorts. It is glorification of genocide. And, with the Dakota Access Pipeline, the myth of Thanksgiving stings even more.

The native people of this (now referred to as “American”) land have never been respected. Even now, in 2016, their rights to land are being violated with the DAPL. The DAPL was rerouted through Standing Rock Sioux Reservation after the residents of Bismarck rejected it for health and environmental reasons. Now, with the NoDAPL movement, natives and allies, are attempting to do the same. The authority, however, seems to be saying that what is dangerous for the white residents of Bismarck is perfectly acceptable to impose upon the Native Americans of Standing Rock.

So, this year, while we gather for Thanksgiving and celebrate a holiday based on a story that never happened. Native Americans have found themselves dealing with a threat to their existence yet again.

Advertisements
Not Thankful for Thanksgiving

Trump is my President and I love America more than ever.

Donald Trump is President-elect of the United States and I feel more patriotic than ever, which is why I am not going anywhere. Not moving to Canada or even “back to my country”. In fact, not even going to unfriend my Trump-loving, fake-news-spreading, lacking-in-political-IQ friends on Facebook.

I am staying right here, so are you, and Donald Trump is going to be our President.

Like it, or not, this is the country we live in. The people electoral college has spoken and Donald Trump will be sworn into the highest, most important political office in the United States in just a few short months. As Hillary Clinton said in her concession speech on November 9th, we owe Trump an open-mind and a chance to lead.

But, if Donald Trump does all the things he’s said he’ll do – ban all muslims, deport Mexicans, grab women by the privates, etc. – then we will protest and we will fight. Because, this is the country we live in and we stand up for our rights, that is what we have always done. We will come together, we will organize, and we will stand up for ourselves and our fellow citizens.

The United States of America belongs to its people. Our government officials only have power because the people have granted it to them. This country is ours. It is our home. Donald Trump serves us, we do not serve him. We cannot let his toxic ideologies infiltrate our communities or local policies.The United States will continue to be our home long after Trump’s presidency is over. We cannot possibly abandon it. Furthermore, we cannot possibly abandon the marginalized communities that will become more vulnerable than ever after Trump and his white-supremacy fueled cabinet takes over. Forget Canada. We must stay and we must and fight back because we cannot lose hope in the future of this nation.

I do not feel patriotic any many days. But I have felt more patriotic after Trump’s win than ever before in my entire adult life. We live in a nation where protest has led to real change more often than not – the civil rights movement, women’s rights, the antiwar movement, gay rights, etc. In fact, our nation was founded on the basis of a protest – and a very successful one at that – The Boston Tea Party.

Since Trump’s win, here in Los Angeles, thousands have marched in protest. High Schoolers have come together under one voice and marched down hallways. University students have held rallies on their campuses. Young people are now, more than ever, participating and showing interest in their societies and the politicians that run them. We may have elected an openly racist and sexist man into office but the younger generations, the future of America, have spoken and they reject him. The youth is participating in civil society now more than I ever remember.

Let’s also not forget that our system of government is set up to keep tyranny at bay. Our founding fathers were smart in that sense. Checks and balances between the various branches of government will make sure Trump remains President, and not the fascist dictator he seems to aspire to be.

I cannot possibly be scared for America. I am hopeful. Donald Trump can be President and this nation will continue to move forward and progress. Why? Because, there are millions of Americans who care about humanity, and those Americans will rise up. They will bind together and stand up for one another if need be. They will protect one another and they will protect rationality. I am not scared for America. I am not scared of Trump. Why? Because, I believe in the power of democracy. I believe in power being within the people, in the hands of the individual.

Like Secretary Clinton said, Trump needs a chance to prove himself. As someone who was devastated by his win, I am open to a President Trump. As a woman, as an immigrant, as an American, I am worried, but I am ready for a Trump presidency. I refuse to believe that we will become a nation that tramples on its people’s basic human rights.Millions of people may have voted for Trump, but millions more did not. Those of us who did not, are Americans just like anybody else and we have a right to claim our country and claim its future.

All I can hope for, in the next four years, is for Trump to be successful. More than anything, I hope he surprises his opposers and disappoints his supporters.

Trump is my President and I love America more than ever.

Pay-TV stays winning

In recent years Pay-TV has completely taken over television. Streaming/subscription services such as HBO, Showtime, Netflix, and Hulu, among others, have seen a rise in viewership. More and more people are leaving cable for streaming based Pay-TV.

Pay-TV offers flexibility. You can sign-up or cancel your subscription month-to-month. Viewers have the choice of when to watch their shows. You can stream all episodes in a one-day binge, or space it out across months.

Pay-TV is auteur driven and this makes it so that there is a strive towards not only making good television, but making television that can be considered art. On services like HBO, shows are created by folks driven by the art of storytelling. This makes all the difference.

When HBO first came out, it changed how we watch television and how television is made. It frontiered a revolution in television.

Pay-TV costs less. A person can have HBO, Netflix, and Hulu subscriptions and pay around $25 per month. In fact, if you share accounts with another person, it could be half of that. This is far more affordable than cable TV and for quality programming, too.

For college students and those just now moving out on their own, the budget friendliness of Pay-TV is very attractive. Not having to own a TV to access it, is another one. Pay-TV is portable. I can watch HBO on my phone, or TV, or laptop, or really any monitor with internet capabilities. In other words, I can take HBO (or Netflix or Hulu, etc.) anywhere I go.

On top of all of that, Pay-TV providers can put out whatever content they choose. There are fewer rules and regulations when it comes to profanity and nudity. This can be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on the viewer. HBO, specifically, is able to take risks with the content they put out. This is also both an advantage and a disadvantage. Sometimes, they really hit the mark – like with Westworld(HBO), Black Mirror(Netflix), or Good Girls Revolt(Amazon) – or completely miss the target.

With that all said, should quality television be a paid for service? A part of me wants to say no. Quality television should not be reserved for only those who can afford it. It shouldn’t be something that only affluent people have access to. At the same time, if television is art, then that art needs to be valued. The creatives who work behind the scenes need to be acknowledged for their work, both with awards and a paycheck. So, yes quality television should be paid for, but it should also be affordable enough for the general public to enjoy.

For me, quality television is television that is entertaining and thoughtful. When I watch a TV show, I want to see a story. I want to feel what it means to be human. I like to see the human experience and human condition at its very core, in front of my eyes, with beautiful cinematography. In most cases, Pay-TV is much better at doing this for the reasons stated above. A subscription based service allows shows to be made somewhat differently, with different goals in mind. HBO and Netflix can take risks or go out on a limb to try something new. Their goal is to make the next big hit, the next cultural phenomena. In other words, everyone in Pay-TV wants to make the next “Game of Thrones.”

“At some point in the past decade, cultural critics, including those in the employ of the venerable New York Times, have grown comfortable with the notion that a television series may be judged, first and foremost, as a work of art.” (Anderson)

When art becomes the motivation, innovation and creativity thrive. Television, as an art form, advances and progresses. The human imagination and capabilities venture into new worlds. This is exciting.

 


Anderson, Christopher. “Producing an Aristocracy of Culture in American Culture.” The Essential HBO Reader. (2008). Web.

Pay-TV stays winning

FOREIGNER AT HOME

Every time I see a news headline for a crime in my local city, the first thought that comes to mind is “God, I hope the accused doesn’t belong to my ethnicity.” It’s a weird thought to have, but also one that I believe members of minority communities are familiar with.

It’s an interesting experience to be an immigrant in America. It’s funny that I even consider myself an “immigrant”, considering I’ve been an American since I was five years old and am a proud citizen. Los Angeles is the home I’ve known all of my life. Yet, I have never felt fully American. No matter how well I speak English or how many tax returns I file, there is always something about me that makes me feel like an outsider. Whether it’s my name, my looks, or my community – something always gives me away. I am perpetually, the “other.” To the world, I am an American. To most Americans, I’m a foreigner.

There is something to be said about being a minority in America. You constantly have to prove yourself. Prove that you are not “leeching off of the government”, prove that you are loyal and faithful to the country, prove that you are not a terrorist, or a criminal, or a rapist (cough cough), etc. etc.

Media biases don’t help. The only time news outlets actually cover minority communities is when someone from the community commits a crime. It’s a strong maybe that they’ll get coverage for festivals and protests and such. Other than that, the only time we hear about immigrants or ethnic minorities in the news, is when there is an accompanying mugshot.

Why does this matter?

Media representation matters for a variety of reasons. The most basic reason being the fact that we rely on news to learn about other groups of people.

If we are not immersed in a culture, we use various forms of mass media to learn about them. The news being one of the most important ones. So, when only crime stories are covered, it leaves the impression that x group is composed of only criminals. This is how the media helps establish and reinforce negative stereotypes about minorities.

In reality, criminality is not specific to any one group. It is a human phenomena. All humans have the potential to be criminals, regardless of their ethnic or religious or racial orientation.

 

FOREIGNER AT HOME

Let’s talk about racism in America.

Without mentioning Trump. Here is racism in America, at the most basic and primitive level.

Contrary to popular belief, racism is not a thing of the past. It is still alive in many aspects of society. Although America is viewed as a nation that stands for equality and freedom, the reality is a far cry from the perception. Whether or not it is blatantly expressed or hidden and subtle, most of society has a discriminatory view of minorities and non-white people. Racism is imminent in the workplace, in schools and communities, and in racial profiling. The root and base of racism is discrimination. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “discrimination” as, “treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit”. Discrimination comes from prejudice: having preconceived notions about a group of people and applying it to each individual in that group without knowing him. Whether or not someone is doing it consciously, discrimination is still evident in our world and it always leads to racism.

Racism plays a huge role in the job market. Although people of minorities now hold jobs previously dominated by whites, they are still discriminated against. When reviewing applicants for a job, most employers give preference to white people, regardless of experience or qualifications. A study done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that “ applicants with ‘white-sounding’ names were 50 percent more likely to be contacted by employers than those with ‘black-sounding’ names” (Feagin 135). A person’s name alone can have an influence on the way he is treated in society. Feagin also notes that in order to get the same treatment as a white person with no experience in the field a black applicant must have had 8 years of experience (135). Whether the employers were aware of their discrimination, this proves that it is still a mindset they (and many others) hold.

With a difficulty in getting a well-paying job, many Blacks and Latinos, as well as other minorities, cannot afford to live in good neighborhoods. This explains why so many of them live in underprivileged areas. “Nationally, 86% of whites live in neighborhoods where minorities make up less than 1% of the population” (Colombo 374). This is also due to the fact that minorities are discriminated against in the housing market. “Judging from housing audit studies, perhaps half of all whites are inclined to discriminate in some fashion, whether subtly or blatantly, in situations where they have housing to rent or sell to black individuals or families (Feagin 139). Minorities cannot find decent homes and end up settling for poor neighborhoods or ghettos because of discrimination. In a sense, racism and discrimination are pushing minorities into these areas and depriving them of the many luxuries available to the majority.

The reason these ghettos exist in the first place is related to jobs. With blacks and other colored people being mostly excluded from well-paying jobs and good neighborhoods, these people have no choice but to settle for a bad neighborhood where they can at least afford the rent. The schools in these areas are also very underprivileged. In most states, schools are funded by local property taxes and thus, schools in poor areas do not get as much funding as other public schools in richer cities. Students in these bad neighborhoods are deprived of the many necessities to receive a good education. They do not have textbooks, their classrooms are old and crumbling, and many are desperate for good teachers. In his book, Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol visits many schools, like the one in East St. Louis. The school he visits has ceilings in danger of collapsing, no heat in the winter, an unpleasant odor in the halls, barely useable bathrooms, and an insufficient supply of materials in the classrooms (Kozol 28). Other public schools, like New Trier High School in Chicago, provide a lot more for their students. Not only does New Triar have a beautiful campus with up-to-date technology, but it also offers students courses in virtually any major they choose (Kozol 67). They are both considered public schools, but a child born and living in the ghetto gets a different education, or lack thereof, than a child living in a better area.

Another unpleasant reality in today’s society is the existence of racial profiling and hate crimes. Racial profiling is the act of using one’s skin color as a reason to be suspicious of him. Without even knowing a person, most people make assumptions about him and put him in a category. Some stereotypes can be good, but most are negative, such as the belief that all women are bad drivers, all Irishmen are drunks, all Muslims are terrorists, or that all Hispanics are illegal aliens. These negative stereotypes lead to discrimination, and discrimination in turn leads to racism. When racism leads a person to hurt another it becomes a hate crime. “As of 2008 there were a reported 926 active hate groups within the U.S.” (Colombo 374). Now that a black president is in office, this number went up. Americans are not as accepting of one another as many choose to believe.

Stereotyping and discrimination based on mere ethnicity is far more widespread than many choose to believe. Even in schools, children separate themselves based on their country of origin. Not only do they alienate themselves from other ethnicities but they also hold a very negative view of one another. In many cases they act out this hate with violence. Children with different skin tones make easy targets for bullies because they stand out. “A racist bully may leave racially tinged graffiti on school grounds or verbally single out a minority student’s skin color, hair texture, eye shape and other distinguishing features” (Nittle par. 4). This issue has been in America’s schools for many years and these racist views will follow these children into adulthood, during which the prejudice they learned from their parents will be passed on to their offspring.

Another instance of racial profiling is the anti-immigration law passed in Arizona. The law makes it possible for police officials to discriminate against people based on appearances. An illegal immigrant from Canada is not going to be harassed the way an illegal immigrant from Mexico is. This is simple based on the fact that a person from Mexico, or other parts of Latin America, is identified based on his skin tone. This is why people who oppose the law have called it “an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status” (Archibold par. 6). There are many legal residents and even citizens of Hispanic origin who are going to be targeted and discriminated against because of this law.

While it would be nice to think that America has moved forward and racism is a thing of the past, this is merely a misconception. Unfortunately, acting as if there is no problem does not make the problem go away. Racism is prominent and alive and still a big part of society in the workplace, schools, and communities.


Archibold, Randal C. “Arizona Inacts Stringent Law on Immigration.” New York Times. New York Times, 24 Apr. 2010. Web.

Colombo, Gary, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle, eds. Rereading America. 8th ed. Boston: Belford/St. Martin’s, 2010.

“Discrimination.” American Heritage Dictionary. 4th ed. New York: Dell, 2012.

Feagin, Joe R. “Racial Oppression Today: Everyday Pratice.” Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparation. New York: Routledge, 2010. 135+.

Nittle, Nadra K. “Racist Bullying In School.” About Race Relations. N.p., n.d. Web.

Kozol, Jonathan. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Crown, 1991. Print.

Let’s talk about racism in America.

SHOW ME THE HONOR IN KILLING, I’LL WAIT.

Imagine a young woman, around sixteen years of age, raised in a society where her only purpose is to serve the men in her life, her father and brothers. Every day she cooks and cleans for them; she obeys their every wish and command. There are specific rules for her in this society, special rules that do not apply to the males. These rules are really just restrictions placed on her behavior and lifestyle. A male family member, such as a brother, must accompany her if she wishes to leave the house. Never mind that her brother might be a lot younger than she is. But she knows, she must be modest and obedient; that’s the only way to keep the honor of her family.

Honor is the key word here. A concept, entirely manmade, that has come to hold utmost importance in certain societies. Women and girls have been bestowed this responsibility of “keeping honor” with absolutely no input on their part. They do not get to decide how this honor is defined or even what threatens it. Women do not get to decide how to dress. There are limitations to where they are allowed to go, whom to befriends, and even the men they marry. In other words, women have little power in deciding their own fates. The men in the family arrange marriage. A woman may very well not love her groom; in fact she may not know him at all. If she refuses the marriage she is beaten up. Often times, if a woman attempts to take her own power back, if she refuses a marriage or breaks one of the many codes of conduct established for her, she may be beheaded by members of her own family. Her death is justified on the basis that, she disgraced her family and therefore, deserved to die. Her murder is what they (ironically) call an “honor killing.”

Human Rights Watch defines honor killings as acts of vengeance, usually resulting in death, committed by male family members against female family members (“Violence against Women” 2001). The violence is always gender-based and usually perpetrated by a brother or a father against a female family member. What distinguishes honor killings from other crimes of the same nature is that it is justified on the basis of a woman “dishonoring” her family by engaging in what is considered immoral or unacceptable forms of behavior. These “unacceptable forms of behavior” will be discussed a bit later.

According to the BCC, it is estimated that more than 20,000 women are victims of honor killings worldwide each year (Maher 2013). This number is merely an estimate as honor killings are not usually classified as such by local authorities and are rarely prosecuted (Chesler 2010). Many deaths from honor killings are reported as suicides in order to conceal the reality. This also skews the numbers. Furthermore, some researchers, such as Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, argue in favor of using the term “femicide” instead of “honor killing.” She argues that the term “honor killing” is used by police and media in order to “culturalize” and dismiss the gravity of killing women (Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2012). While I agree with her argument and believe she has a valid point, I will be using the term “honor killing” as I believe it is more descriptive. Calling it “honor killing” makes it clear that these murders are in the name of saving face. However, doing so should not take away from the seriousness of these criminal acts. Honor killings should be discussed, understood, and analyzed without being justified or being dismissed on any grounds. The act of honor killing is a clear human rights violation; it is a clear attack on women, and it shall not be excused, accepted, or left un-dealt with in the name of culture or cultural relativism.

In communities where honor killings happen, the reputation of the family is of utmost importance. Why? Because, reputation dictates social status (Awwad 2001). The family’s honor is the responsibility of female family members and they maintain it by being obedient to men and by following social norms established by men. Therefore, if a woman “dishonors” her family by somehow going against a social norm, the only way to restore the family’s honor is to kill her. In most cases, many members of a family plan the act of “honor killing” together, at times even through a formal “family council” (“Introduction” n.d.). There are two particular victim populations: one made up of very young women (average age being seventeen) and the second, women whose average age is thirty-six (Chesler 2010). In both cases, the murder is carried out by the victim’s own family members: brother, father, or husband.

Honor killings happen all over the world. They are not unique to any one place, ethnicity, or religion. They are in fact, products of patriarchal, patrilineal, and patrilocal societies centered on the family unit. Most Middle Eastern societies tend to fall into this description; therefore, honor killings are more common in that region than in others (Awwad 2001). According to the UN, honor killings have been reported in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, the Syrian Arabic Republic, Turkey, Yemen, and other Mediterranean and Persian Gulf countries, but they also take place in Western countries such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (“Working Towards”). According to Sharif Kanaana, a professor of Anthropology at Birzeit Uiveristy, honor killing emerged in the pre-Islamic era and can be traced back to Ancient Rome (Awwad 2001). The purpose of the honor killing is to put power in the hands of men. It is a cultural practice most closely associated with patriarchy. It is not associated with Islam in form, though it is common in Islamic societies. However, to link honor killings to Islam, or any religion of the Middle East, will only manage to undermine the ideological complexities of gender dynamics which are characterized by patriarchy and patrilineal orientation (Awwad 2001). Honor killings, as defined in this post, are rampant all over the world and women everywhere can be, and are, affected by it.

In 2009, a woman by the name of Hanmig Goren from North London testified against her husband in court. Her husband had killed their fifteen year old daughter for falling in love with a man twice her age and from another branch of Islam (Shafak 2012). She had disgraced her family and her father decided she must die as a result. There are many cases such as this one. Oddly enough, family’s honor is often linked to the sex organs of daughters and wives. As a result, many women are killed for “sexual impropriety” which could mean an extra-marital affair, being too promiscuous, or even being the victim of rape (Chesler 2010). If shame is brought upon the family, the women are to blame, even if this shame is a result of the wrongdoing of a man, such as rape, against a female child or teenager(Baker, et al. 1999). This victim-blaming complex is the result of the belief that a woman’s virginity belongs to her father and then should be gifted to her husband (chosen for her by her father). A woman’s body, in essence, belongs to the men around her.

There are a variety of reasons why an honor killing might occur. At its most basic, it is an act of vengeance towards women who refuse to follow established social norms. A woman can be targeted for refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce, or committing adultery (“Violence against Women” 2001). The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that “dishonors” her family is sufficient enough to trigger an attack on her life. The attacks are not in response to the dishonorable act as much as they are in response to public knowledge of the act. Meaning, violence against women will only occur if her illicit activities become publicly known (Awwad 2001). Women on whom suspicion has fallen are not even given an opportunity to defend themselves. Once the rumors and gossip start, the only way for the family to avoid losing face in the community is to seek immediate revenge and commit a killing (“Broken Bodies” 2001). In these societies, individualistic autonomy is seen as a threat to the collective family and its reputation. Therefore, if a woman is too independent, not subservient enough, refusing cultural norms, or having unapproved friends or boyfriends, she is bringing shame to the entire family. The only way to erase the shame is to immediately punish her by death.

Those in power establish and reinforce ideologies that are most beneficial to them. Hegemony and ideology further the creation of a “truth” that will benefit the segment of the society that has the most power (Johnson 1997). Keeping women subservient to men keeps men subservient to the state. Therefore, sexism as an ideology is not only condoned by the state, but reinforced by it. Sexism as an ideology has influenced, facilitated, and even given legitimacy to existing penal codes regarding honor killings. The state has often displayed an ambivalent approach to the issue. As described by Shalhoub-Kevorkian, in some places police award certain men the title of ‘honorable’ and consult them when abused women call for police help. This alliance between men and the state results in women going to the police for help only to be given back to their family by force, then killed. Furthermore, abused women described how when they tried to ask for help from the Israeli police, officers were not only uninterested in their victimization but took advantage of their vulnerability by sexually harassing them, neglecting them, or ridiculing them (Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2012). Not only is the state refusing to combat honor crimes, it is also contributing to it.

In many places, such as Jordan and Syria, lenient penal codes have provided legal loopholes for perpetrators of honor killings (Awwad 2001). “It is an unholy alliance that works against women: the killers take pride in what they have done, the leaders condone the act and protect the killers, and the police connive the cover up (Culture of Discrimination n.d.). Behaviors, like extramarital sex, are often criminalized so that the kill can more easily be justified. The state encourages this violent behavior because “internal violence is an optimal way to destroy the “collective consciousness” of the group (Shalhoub-Kevorkian 2012). It keeps members of the society from requesting freedom or resisting oppression. Honor killings further the interests of oppressive patriarchal regimes. If men are busy monitoring women’s behaviors and launching attacks on women, the state can get away with a lot more. Femininity and masculinity in these societies are constructed in such a way that gives men complete power and control. At the same time, women are virtually powerless and have no part in constructing or challenging social norms. Most honor killings are rarely prosecuted as such. Even in the West, many people including the police shy away from calling it an “honor killing”. This makes it so that the act is easier to repeat as it is rarely acknowledged and rarely prosecuted. Honor killings are often not condemned by the major religious and political leaders in the communities (Chesler 2010). On the contrary, they remain silent. This conspiracy of silence hinders progress in annihilating the practice.

To combat honor killings we must first break the walls of silence. Better knowledge of the crime is required and desperately needed by feminist organizations and human rights campaigns. Without this knowledge, it is difficult to best eradicate the practice. Laws should be put in place and enforced to ensure that those who commit these honor killings are prosecuted justly. States must do a better job of providing protection for all of their citizens, including women and girls. Public campaigns should be launched that ask members of these cultures to question the legitimacy of such crimes. The state, religious authorities, and activists should come together to educate, prevent, and prosecute honor killings.

But beyond all of that, societal consciousness as a whole needs to be shifted. Honor killings are proof that in many parts of the world the feminine is oppressed. It is not just the woman that is attacked but also her femininity. Feminine energy, whether it be in a woman or a man, is under attack by patriarchal societies. Vandana Shiva’s feminine principle comes to mind as she recognized that until there is a balance between masculine and feminine energies in the world, women (and their oppressors) will not be free. Men must be taught to respect and value women as equal individuals and not as machines to masterbate and reproduce with.

The ideologies that give way to crimes such as honor killings need to be addressed. Patriarchal, patrilocal, patrilineal societies put the man above the woman. Men are more important; therefore, women are less than human. If women are less than human, then their deaths do not matter. Manufactured notions of purity are placed above human life. Disgustingly, women are punished for the crimes of men in instances of rape and abuse.

The very same misogynistic/anti-woman values, beliefs, and ideologies that give way to the murder of women elsewhere, give way to the murder of women at home. “In the US, 1,500 women are killed by their spouses, boyfriends, or intimate partners every year in what are called crimes of passion” (Kumar 2015). These are honor killings by definition and this is an alarming number. Furthermore, it illustrates that femicide, including honor killing, is not exclusive of any one region or religion.

It happens right here, too.

At the heart of these heinous crimes is a type of moral policing that is reserved only for women. Women are expected to be subservient to men and the patriarchal order. Toxic misogynistic views of what it means to be a woman and made-up notions of purity and chastity are forced upon women, who are then punished by death should they rebel or refuse.

For women who have been victims of honor killings and honor crimes, society has failed. It is society itself that has allowed for harmful sexist beliefs to pass. It is society that polices women’s behavior, then punishes them should they choose not to follow it. It is society that allows for lenient penal codes to allow for men to get away with rape, assault, and even murder. It is society that needs to change. Both laws and ideologies are in need of revising. The role of the woman in society and in the family needs to be acknowledged and valued. A woman’s right to life, and a right to determine how to live that life, need to be acknowledged and valued. Furthermore, it needs to be protected to the fullest extent of the law. After all, women are people, too, and there is absolutely no honor in killing.


Awwad, A. M. (2001). Gossip, Scandal, Shame and Honor Killing: A Case for Social Constructionism and hegemonic Discourse. Social Thought and Research, Vol. 24 (No. ½), pp. 39-52.

Baker, N.V., Gregware, P.R. & Cassidy, M.A. (1999). Family killing fields: Honor rationales in the murder of women. Violence Against Women, 5(2), 164-184.

“Broken bodies, shattered minds: Torture and ill-treatment of women”. Amnesty International.

Chesler, P. (2010). Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings. Retrieved from meforum.org

“Culture of Discrimination: A Fact Sheet on “Honor” Killings”. Amnesty International. Amnestyusa.org

“Introduction – Preliminary Examinatino of so-called honour Killings in Canada”. Justice.gc.ca

Johnson, A.G. (1997). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Temple University Press.

Kumar, Deepa. (2015). Liberation at Gunpoint: The Politics of Feminist Imperialism. Retrieved from wearemany.org.

Maher, Ahmed. (2013). Many Jordan teenagers ‘support honour killings’. Bbc.co.uk

Shafak,E. (2012). Honour killings’: murder by any other name. Retrieved from thegaurdian.com

Shalhoub-Kevorkian, N. (2012). The Politics of Killing Women in Colonized Contexts.

“Violence Against Women and “Honor” Crimes”. Human Rights watch.

“Working towards the elimination of crimes against women committed in the name of honour” (PDF). Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

 

SHOW ME THE HONOR IN KILLING, I’LL WAIT.

EXPOSING THE OVER-EXPOSED : KIM KARDASHIAN

Yesterday, in Paris, Kim Kardashian was tied up, gagged, thrown in a bathtub, and robbed of 1o million dollars in jewelry by four men disguised as police officers.

Yup, you read that right. But, how does something like this even happen? Where were her body guards? Her security team? Her glam team? Her reality TV show crew? How did she escape? Who found her? Were her kids with her? Is she okay?

Virtually every news source covered the story, even CNN. As a media frenzy followed the incident, more and more questions were raised. Was this a publicity stunt? Another “Lochtemess”?

The public had their doubts about the validity of the reported stories. But more than that, the public had no empathy. Comments ranged from “who cares” to rape jokes and even death wishes. These types of comments were so common, they prompted responses from other celebrities.

Why is wishing death on another human perceived as okay? Why was aggression, especially of the sexual variant, the popular response? Is Kim Kardashian no longer a human? Moreover, is she now public property?

twitkim1-619-386

She is arguably one of the most powerful celebrities in the entire world. Her products – TV shows, mobile apps, clothing, books, etc. – are consumed by millions of people. Even those who claim to hate her,”keep up” with her. Yet, when something terrible happens to her, she receives very little empathy.

The Kim Kardashian empire is built on over-exposed-ness. She has done a tremendous job of reclaiming her sexuality and her body, through magazine covers, Instagram posts, and even her husband’s music videos. She has shown the public so much of her personal and private life, that the public now seems to believe they own her, that she is, in fact, property. Possibly, more than any other celebrity, Kim K is criticized to the point of harassment.

Regardless of whether she posts nude selfies, speaks up about social justice issues (like BLM or the Armenian Genocide), or even gets robbed at gun point (i.e. Paris incident) – she always seems to be in the wrong in the eyes of the general public.

0630_forbes-cover-072616-celebrity-kardashian_1000x1292The general consensus seems to be that Kim Kardashian is a talentless waste of fame. And yet, she has 84 million Instagram followers, her reality show is on its 12th season, and her mobile app alone has brought in $100 million since its launch in 2014. Clearly, somebody is lying. A lot of people are, actually.

Aside from being the person we love to hate, who is Kim K? For one, she is an undeniably successful business woman. Lots of people have had their sex tape leaked, even more have had their own reality shows, only Kim Kardashian has managed to build a multi-media, multi-million dollar empire from/through it all. Give credit where credit is due, she is a badass businessperson.

Does this mean Kim K is a saint who deserves no criticism, whatsoever? Absolutely not. 

Let’s criticize her, but let’s do it for the right reasons.

Perhaps, we can talk about how she has normalized plastic surgery culture to the point of turning voluptuous body types into a caricature. Let’s talk about how her airbrushed images contribute to the misrepresentation of human bodies in the media. Or, how about the numerous ads on her Instagram for “waist trainers” and diet pills – all of which are bogus, dangerous, AND targeted to young women.

Let’s discuss how all of these things go against messages of body acceptance that Kim K often claims to support. Let’s call her out on it. Let’s expose her hypocrisy.

But, for the love of anything, let’s not wish her death or rape when she has a
gun to her head.

 

EXPOSING THE OVER-EXPOSED : KIM KARDASHIAN