Basic Dimension
http://sexualreligion.blogspot.com/
SVG remake by WClarke based on original by User:Sg647112c
Assumption 280: Three elements likely caused the emergence of the Muslim instinct, which is male as well as female kin bonded in nuDNA to inbreeding and incest. This mutational abnormality is unprecedented in other inbreeding cultures, which are only bonded in the male lineage and where females are refreshed completely every generation (chimps, bonobos, Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus, Neanderthals and Aboriginals). This can be seen from mtDNA which is the same for males but different for females, which also have different nuDNA:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110601/full/news.2011.338.html
Teeth from ancient human ancestors suggest that females joined new social groups once they reached maturity.
A chemical analysis of australopithecine fossils ranging between roughly 1.8 million and 2.2 million years old from two South African caves finds that teeth thought to belong to females are more likely to have incorporated minerals from a distant region during formation than those from males.
"What that's telling us is that the females grew up somewhere else and they died in the caves," says Julia Lee-Thorp, an archaeological scientist at the University of Oxford, UK.
Paranthropus robustus (2 Ma; 400cc)
A 2011 study using ratios of strontium isotopes in teeth suggested that Australopithecus africanus and P. robustus groups in southern Africa were patrilocal: females tended to settle farther from their region of birth than males did.
We saw it with Neanderthals:
[From the forests they took with them the habit to exchange juvenile females with other groups (chimps and bonobos). This is the well known hunters-gatherers effect found back also in Neanderthals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki3rWqtAf8o
(40:41/1:22:30)
We see this also with the Aboriginals, chimps and bonobos
Group identity is nearly always male kin bonded. Then there is some inbreeding in the male lineage but that is normally no disaster:
Y-linked
Problems arise as below with male and female kin bonded relations in the same family, when females are not allowed to genetic diversity. Then we get autosomal recessive disorders:
Postulated reasons for cousin marriages
'If a husband's tie to his wife should become more important than his solidarity with his brothers, the couple might take their share of the property and leave the larger group, thus weakening the strength of the lineage. There is a solution to this problem, however — a solution that marks out the kinship system of the Muslim Middle East as unique in the world. In the Middle East, the preferred form of marriage is between a man and his cousin (his father's brother's daughter). Cousin marriage solves the problem of lineage solidarity. If, instead of marrying a woman from a strange lineage, a man marries his cousin, then his wife will not be an alien, but a trusted member of his own kin group. Not only will this reduce a man's likelihood of being pulled away from his brothers by his wife, a woman of the lineage is less likely to be divorced by her husband, and more likely to be protected by her own extended kin in case of a rupture in the marriage. Somewhere around a third of all marriages in the Muslim Middle East are between members of the same lineage, and in some places the figure can reach as high as 80 percent. It is this system of "patrilateral parallel cousin marriage" that explains the persistence of veiling, even in the face of modernity.'
But this would mean a man marries in his own disadvantage giving his wife a stronger position than needed. Since when are Muslims so generous to women? All too often arranged marriages are explained as protecting wealth and social status of the family. But above reasons mostly show distrust in the own family. So, where comes the honor in the play?
To be realistic there are not many arguments for male and female kin relations from the same family. Are Muslim families in the Peninsula so rich that they must guard their wealth by killing their daughters if they don't wanna cooperate? And so what if his brothers don't wanna see the husband anymore after he divorced his cousin? What is worth lineage solidarity in this blood revenge culture? That a father or a husband cuts a female relative to pieces if she does not want to be incubator of family semen? Is that what is meant with "the honor of the family"? It's a disgrace.
Take the case of Sadia Sheikh who was forced to marry with an unknown cousin in poor Pakistan. The boy did not even know her and was forced into the marriage just before. So it are not the cousins but the parents who arrange these marriages. And may be the Belgium partner of Sadia and the German partner of Gülsüm had much more wealth, so what was the deal? And how can a family assist members at the other side of the world. Every socio-economic reasoning as cause of honor killings is bullshit, total disaster...
Sadia Sheikh R.I.P.
Shot in the abdomen several times by her brother, while her sister held her from behind, died within three days.
Gülsüm Selim R.I.P.
Strangled with an iron cord and beaten to death with an iron bar after invited to make peace again with the family:
Nobody can defend consanguineous marriages as protecting "the honor of the family". No social counterweight can justify these massacres on women.
On this site we conclude any interpretation of 'honor of the family' is a too light argument to cut females to pieces, this atrocity is completely out of proportion and so there must be a much deeper cause, which apparently is unaware to Muslims.
We think 'the honor of the family' is an absurd ground for the honor killing of daughters. If it really had something to do with social status, wealth, money and influence, then Muslims must by psychiatric monsters to kill their daughters for something so insignificant. We better believe the 'honor of the family' as form of social status is unrelated to honor killings. In stead we postulate an unconscious drive, an instinct for reincarnation into descendants in the earthly universe. Only there arises a level playing field for cause and effect. And then indeed, fathers have an interest in keeping as pure as possible the family to reincarnate not into hybrids. But it must be said it is easier to reincarnate into pure descendants of big tribes than of small families. But instincts are not reasonable.
In the Arabian Peninsula there was no central public administration and so in no time they lost track of descendants of the other families of the group. Therefore it is more likely the tribes of the 150 individuals fanned out across the Peninsula in a very early stage and did not keep track on each other. They must have built a symbolic wall around their group (endogamous tribal mantle) and let no females escape to other groups. So, they must have developed their well known and notoriously hostile relations between Bedouin tribes already in a very early stage of evolution.
SVG remake by WClarke based on original by User:Sg647112c
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110601/full/news.2011.338.html
Teeth from ancient human ancestors suggest that females joined new social groups once they reached maturity.
A chemical analysis of australopithecine fossils ranging between roughly 1.8 million and 2.2 million years old from two South African caves finds that teeth thought to belong to females are more likely to have incorporated minerals from a distant region during formation than those from males.
"What that's telling us is that the females grew up somewhere else and they died in the caves," says Julia Lee-Thorp, an archaeological scientist at the University of Oxford, UK.
Paranthropus robustus (2 Ma; 400cc)
A 2011 study using ratios of strontium isotopes in teeth suggested that Australopithecus africanus and P. robustus groups in southern Africa were patrilocal: females tended to settle farther from their region of birth than males did.
We saw it with Neanderthals:
[From the forests they took with them the habit to exchange juvenile females with other groups (chimps and bonobos). This is the well known hunters-gatherers effect found back also in Neanderthals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki3rWqtAf8o
(40:41/1:22:30)
[From the forests they took with them the habit to exchange juvenile females with other groups (chimps and bonobos). This is the well known hunters-gatherers effect found back also in Neanderthals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki3rWqtAf8o
(40:41/1:22:30)
We see this also with the Aboriginals, chimps and bonobos
Group identity is nearly always male kin bonded. Then there is some inbreeding in the male lineage but that is normally no disaster:
Y-linked
Problems arise as below with male and female kin bonded relations in the same family, when females are not allowed to genetic diversity. Then we get autosomal recessive disorders:
Postulated reasons for cousin marriages
'If a husband's tie to his wife should become more important than his solidarity with his brothers, the couple might take their share of the property and leave the larger group, thus weakening the strength of the lineage. There is a solution to this problem, however — a solution that marks out the kinship system of the Muslim Middle East as unique in the world. In the Middle East, the preferred form of marriage is between a man and his cousin (his father's brother's daughter). Cousin marriage solves the problem of lineage solidarity. If, instead of marrying a woman from a strange lineage, a man marries his cousin, then his wife will not be an alien, but a trusted member of his own kin group. Not only will this reduce a man's likelihood of being pulled away from his brothers by his wife, a woman of the lineage is less likely to be divorced by her husband, and more likely to be protected by her own extended kin in case of a rupture in the marriage. Somewhere around a third of all marriages in the Muslim Middle East are between members of the same lineage, and in some places the figure can reach as high as 80 percent. It is this system of "patrilateral parallel cousin marriage" that explains the persistence of veiling, even in the face of modernity.'
But this would mean a man marries in his own disadvantage giving his wife a stronger position than needed. Since when are Muslims so generous to women? All too often arranged marriages are explained as protecting wealth and social status of the family. But above reasons mostly show distrust in the own family. So, where comes the honor in the play?
To be realistic there are not many arguments for male and female kin relations from the same family. Are Muslim families in the Peninsula so rich that they must guard their wealth by killing their daughters if they don't wanna cooperate? And so what if his brothers don't wanna see the husband anymore after he divorced his cousin? What is worth lineage solidarity in this blood revenge culture? That a father or a husband cuts a female relative to pieces if she does not want to be incubator of family semen? Is that what is meant with "the honor of the family"? It's a disgrace.
Take the case of Sadia Sheikh who was forced to marry with an unknown cousin in poor Pakistan. The boy did not even know her and was forced into the marriage just before. So it are not the cousins but the parents who arrange these marriages. And may be the Belgium partner of Sadia and the German partner of Gülsüm had much more wealth, so what was the deal? And how can a family assist members at the other side of the world. Every socio-economic reasoning as cause of honor killings is bullshit, total disaster...
Sadia Sheikh R.I.P.
| Shot in the abdomen several times by her brother, while her sister held her from behind, died within three days. |
Gülsüm Selim R.I.P.
Strangled with an iron cord and beaten to death with an iron bar after invited to make peace again with the family:
Strangled with an iron cord and beaten to death with an iron bar after invited to make peace again with the family:
Nobody can defend consanguineous marriages as protecting "the honor of the family". No social counterweight can justify these massacres on women.
On this site we conclude any interpretation of 'honor of the family' is a too light argument to cut females to pieces, this atrocity is completely out of proportion and so there must be a much deeper cause, which apparently is unaware to Muslims.
We think 'the honor of the family' is an absurd ground for the honor killing of daughters. If it really had something to do with social status, wealth, money and influence, then Muslims must by psychiatric monsters to kill their daughters for something so insignificant. We better believe the 'honor of the family' as form of social status is unrelated to honor killings. In stead we postulate an unconscious drive, an instinct for reincarnation into descendants in the earthly universe. Only there arises a level playing field for cause and effect. And then indeed, fathers have an interest in keeping as pure as possible the family to reincarnate not into hybrids. But it must be said it is easier to reincarnate into pure descendants of big tribes than of small families. But instincts are not reasonable.
In the Arabian Peninsula there was no central public administration and so in no time they lost track of descendants of the other families of the group. Therefore it is more likely the tribes of the 150 individuals fanned out across the Peninsula in a very early stage and did not keep track on each other. They must have built a symbolic wall around their group (endogamous tribal mantle) and let no females escape to other groups. So, they must have developed their well known and notoriously hostile relations between Bedouin tribes already in a very early stage of evolution.
In the Arabian Peninsula there was no central public administration and so in no time they lost track of descendants of the other families of the group. Therefore it is more likely the tribes of the 150 individuals fanned out across the Peninsula in a very early stage and did not keep track on each other. They must have built a symbolic wall around their group (endogamous tribal mantle) and let no females escape to other groups. So, they must have developed their well known and notoriously hostile relations between Bedouin tribes already in a very early stage of evolution.
.jpg){kind=small}
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.
No comments:
Post a Comment