UK Woman Groomed at 10 for Marriage, Speaks for 'Honor' Crime Victims

Asma was only 10 when her parents, who had migrated to Britain from Pakistan, began grooming her for marriage.

Before long, learning to cook, clean and be a good wife were more important than her homework and the rest of her education.

"I was living in ... England but it felt like I was living in Pakistan," Asma said on Tuesday, recalling how she was forbidden to ride a bicycle, go to the cinema or wear Western clothes for fear of bringing dishonor to her family.

Asma was only 10 when her parents, who had migrated to Britain from Pakistan, began grooming her for marriage.

This was the norm throughout western civilization only 100 years ago. Most girls expected wife and mother to be their primary roles in life.

Seems to me the "grooming" term is an attempt to make it appear as if marriage is the equivalent of sex slavery.

Which it can be, but certainly isn't always.

"There is no honor in forcing a girl to marry against her will, to use violence and abuse to deny a woman the right to choose the clothes she wears, the right to pursue the career she wants, the right to have the friends she wants," Bradley said."

Such idiotic remarks.

They define honor differently.

Especially from a western civilization that has defined honor so far down it doesn't really exist.

I don't agree with their honor system either, but at least I don't try to tell them they don't really believe in it.

I prefer the Napier approach. His response to a complaint that prohibition of suttee or widow-burning was an infringement on Indian national customs:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

I am a collector of children's and young adult literature from the late 19th and early 20th century; the literature does not describe a young girl in that era living in the confined and limited manner that this British/Pakastani girl describes. Young girls were allowed, even encouraged, to run and play, to do all sorts of things, including riding a bicycle. Education was important, as well as learning domestic duties, and aspiring to higher education and even careers were often emphasized in these books, although marriage of course was also elevated, even idealized. At some point, after the girl was grown up and had worked a few years as a journalist/writer, teacher, nurse, missionary, secretary (sometimes even a doctor or a lawyer) she did get married after a rather lengthy romance, often fraught with misunderstandings, until both parties were really and truly grown up (in their middle 20s!) These books were written to encourage young girls to aspire to all sorts of goals, from Louisa May Alcott to Lucy Montgomery.

I do not disagree. Western civ never sequestered its women in the drastic way Islam often has, nor indeed as drastically as the Byzantines, Persians and Athenians did.

My primary objections to the article were to the clueless Brit trying to tell “The Other” what they really believed. And of course to this person who almost certainly has no real concept of honor trying to define what it is and is not for another culture.

BTW, honor killings were pretty accepted, even legally, in a good many European countries till quite recently, though definitions probably varied. I don’t believe the exceptions in Italian law were taken out till the 70s or so.

In our own society till quite recently it was generally accepted as the right of the husband to kill his unfaithful wife and her lover. The “unwritten law” and all that.

I despise the way most Muslims treat their women, but it’s not unusual in history. For instance, it’s very similar indeed to the way women were treated under the Law of Moses. And not all that different from modern strict Orthodox Jewish groups.

Nobody likes to talk about it, because it’s very un-PC, but many native American groups, Australian aborigines, African tribes and others treated (and treat) their women very poorly indeed. For many of them Islam of a reasonably moderate variety would probably be an improvement.

In fact, when Islam started it was probably a step up for many women. The problem is that what was enlightened treatment of women for the 7th century doesn’t cut it any more.

You might find this discussion of the Hajnal line interesting.

It’s a dividing line across Europe between societies that traditionally treated women more like your description, and societies that traditionally treated them more like Islam. Which is in general much closer to traditional female status historically. Western Europe is very much the exception in this regard.

I ran across it recently and found it fascinating.

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.