« And it can also be used to loosen those pesky lag bolts.... | Main | Philosophy is the smile on the dog »
We were fighting in Egypt when they signed this agreement
by jean at 03:58 AM on June 26, 2004
You meet the most interesting people once you stop to chat. For example, I've met some very interesting people who just happened to attend parking lots. Maybe it's some combination of them being by themselves on the lot all day and me always being fascinated by other people's stories. I'll never forget Gabriel, who I met in Santa Monica. He was in his fifties and was an Egyptian immigrant, so at first we didn't talk much. I was raised knowing that a married man does not speak to a single woman, and I respect that some people still live by such rules. So at first we just exchanged pleasantries as I left him my keys or pulled out of stack parking.
But after a couple of months he took a paternal interest in me, and we'd talk in a general way about our lives. I learned that his wife was a beautician and that his son, who'd just turned 12, was sneaking into the living room at night to watch pornography on cable. Gabriel didn't like that but said, "He's a young man. If I stop this, he'll find another way." He told me about visiting Egypt after being away for nearly a decade. He was in his forties and stayed at his father's house. He and his brothers wandered the Cairo for nights as if they were young men again, but such was their respect for their father that they told him each time which district they were going to and when they were going to be coming back. When Gabriel's father passed away he took it very hard. I still remember how much I could tell it affected him, because I knew that it was inversely proportional to the amount of emotion he actually revealed.
Sometimes we'd wax philosophical about the changing world. Gabriel said that it was hard to raise children in America. A father had to be strict to raise children well. Girls, especially, could easily go wrong. Any way that a boy could go wrong could always be fixed, but the honor of a female was more fragile. Gabriel said that in Egypt, the whole community worked together to raise children. If your daughter was sneaking out of the house at night to go god-knows-where, the neighbors would tell you. It would be any father's duty to let you know. And you needed to know immediately, because the only right thing to do with a daughter who so crosses the line is to kill her.
I was taken aback. But I believe I'll always think that Gabriel is a very good person. He even said once that if he'd ever had a daughter, he would've liked her to be like me. Which is more than my father has ever said.
comments (15)
I've heard of that concept. I think it's called honor killing and it isn't a crime in many locales. But I wonder if it works i.e. if there are indeed less "immoral women" running around going god-knows-where.
by anna at June 26, 2004 9:07 AM
You know I just had a daughter, right? Are you trying to tell me something?
by mg at June 26, 2004 9:33 AM
Jeez. It's hard to accept, though. Especially to hear that from a guy who's been living in the US for that long - you'd have thought he was a little more naturalized.
by Andy at June 26, 2004 5:34 PM
Not really, MG. I've been working on this post in my head for a few months.
Anna, I think it ends up going both ways. The men probably have free rein to do whatever they want to any woman they find outside at night, and the only punishment they'd ever have is to pay that woman's family off (if the family would even admit to her existence by then). And the police and the courts would not ask for anything more. So females are probably supposed to understand that, and know that sneaking out is an irrationally dangerous thing to do.
And Andy, it is a little strange, isn't it? But maybe it just goes to show how easily one can write off another, very different and bewildering culture (e.g., "modern American culture is so degenerate that it doesn't apply to civilized people"), and thus close oneself off from learning from it at all.
by jean at June 26, 2004 6:39 PM
P.S. MG, I'm sorry if it freaked you out. Like I said, it freaked me out too. There are some things that are freaky about being female... maybe that's the point. :)
by jean at June 26, 2004 6:41 PM
Good point Jean. Definitely a double standard at work there. It also raises a question that has plagued me for years: It's said that men are more likely to stray from monogamy than women. Usually this is offered with some pseudo-biological nonsense about hunting/gathering or something. But each time a man (assuming it isn't a gay or prostitute or completely unattached mate thing) does cheat, isn't that another instance where a woman is too? So shouldn't the numbers pretty much even out over time?
by anna at June 27, 2004 8:20 AM
It is a pure double standard. It is alive and well in America also. We don't kill women here but they are labeled as "sluts", "whores" et.al. While this may not be as cruel as, say, stoning, it does leave a very negative mark on a woman. A lot of the time a woman feels that if she's going to be branded a slut then she'll just be one when all that was really going on is a few bad decisions on her part. So the people and society labeling her are creating a worse monster than was there in the first place. On the other hand it a rite of male passage to be with multiple partners and everyone just shakes their heads and says things like "boys will be boys".
by Ezy at June 27, 2004 9:23 PM
"But I wonder if it works..." Ya Anna, when you kill women for exercising their free will, there are fewer of them around. Interesting that when Saddam kills someone for being a dissident, he's called an immoral dictator. But when a nation allows it's women to be killed for being "moral dissidents", it's the right thing to do. Sounds like quite an effective way to subjugate half the population based on sex.
by chris at June 28, 2004 5:52 AM
I meant amont the ones remaining alive. And can we just put an end to this damn stoning thing once and for all? If the UN was good for anything, that would be it.
by anna at June 28, 2004 7:44 AM
Ya, I know what you meant, but I couldn't resist.
by chris at June 28, 2004 12:38 PM
If it had been me, and if he had revealed this information about young women too soon, I would not have wanted to continue talking to him. It's amazing that beliefs like this persist. And my first instinct is to avoid anyone that harbors such beliefs... but if I know them first... it's harder. I want to empathize, want to come to terms with the juxtaposed facts of my liking the person, and the person holding a belief I hate.
by Linz at June 28, 2004 1:50 PM
This reminds me of a sociology class I took two years ago. In it we were discussing relationships and the institution of marriage. When it came to talking about adultery the general concensus in the class was that if in an affair one person is married and the other one isn't, then only the person that is married is commiting a sin (their words, not mine). The unmarried/unattached person was regarded as only having a fling and therefore was not going to be punished for his/her actions. Needless to say I was very disconcerted by this line of reasoning.
by Lucy at June 28, 2004 4:20 PM
Lucy, I agreed with that line of reasoning up until my (now ex-)wife cheated on me. I certainly thought her actions were worse than the guy she fooled around with. After all she made the marriage commitment right? When it was my (now ex-) wife though I resented the guy, who knew she was married, but carried on with her anyway.
Glad I never ran into him again (I did before and during, but not after I found out), as I would have been tempted to run over him a few times...
by chuckwoolery at June 28, 2004 4:25 PM
I can understand the reasoning as far as responsability goes. The person who is already commited to someone else should either put a stop to the situation or come clean with their partner before anything happens. What disconcerted me was that they were talking sin and punishment by God. They were basically saying that the person who was in a relationship was going to suffer some form of punishment in the afterlife while the un-attached person was not.
by Lucy at June 29, 2004 9:55 AM
Adultry is adultry. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is how I think the commandment goes. I think both parties are equally as sleazy. The married person for breaking their vow and the unattached person for knowing someone is married and still going through with it. I know that I will never break my vows to Amy. I meant that shit forever when I said them. I never, knowingly, was ever with a married woman. I found out once after the fact and broke it off right there. It seems like most people have no honor and integrity anymore. When I was at Ft. Bragg, it used to make me sick that as soon as a unit deployed most of the married woman would be out at the clubs trolling. Disgusting.
by Ezy at June 29, 2004 12:15 PM