Right from the time that little boys say ‘show me yours, I’ll show you mine’ to ‘mine is bigger than yours’ (fingers, fathers, take your pick) to entire cultures and civilisations that are based on the male obsession with size, male insecurity has been the driving force of much of civilisational markers. The bigger is better credo cancerously grows and infects everything from religion to culture and secular science. In a marriage, the man should be older, bigger (taller, heavier), and stronger than the woman, have more formal schooling, earn more, have a bigger house (though brought with the dowry the woman brings), and preferably from a wealthier family - all to say mine is bigger than yours. Otherwise the fragile male ego cannot cope. Hypogyny is taboo because it reverses this ‘order’. True to form, men then turn this insecurity into ‘divine order of things’, nature, valour and, in a shameless transference, blame women for ‘penis envy’.
Donald Trump had to explicitly deny, and forcefully confront his then rival presidential candidate Edward Cruz’s allegation that he, Donald Trump, had ‘little fingers’ (much like Hector in ‘America’s Sweethearts’). In reality, it is the deep-seated male insecurity that results in the obsession with size, and by extension of the fear of being cuckolded by a better endowed man. All societies therefore have elaborate rituals and practices to ensure that the ‘women don’t stray’ - or at least not with other men from the ‘peer group’ or lower classes or castes or races (Apparently it was all right for women to be given up for the pleasure of the more powerful men. The dominant castes and races certainly justified it. The lower classes acquiesced, if only for their survival).
Notions of purity and pollution - the horror of a man in getting ‘his blood polluted’ by a lower class, caste, or race - has resulted in a visceral abhorrence of hypogyny in all phallocratic societies, which patriarchal societies invariably become due to their toxic masculinity. The consequent militarisation makes widow burning a preferred option to, god forbid, widow remarriage. Lifelong widowhood is the only other barely tolerable option. Marriage outside the socially sanctioned boundaries are considered an affront to the strength (read ‘masculinity’) of the phallocracy, against ‘natural law’ and against god.
The tangled web needed to justify this brings together a whole load of contradictory theories, each tripping on the other, and pedalling Orwellian falsehoods that paint the strong as weak, the pure as impure, debase the spiritual and valorise the profane. The language of masculine strength ~ does he have balls to do it ~ hides the fact that biologically the testicles are one of the weakest parts of the human anatomy. The vagina is infinitely stronger (and why not, the Y chromosome is only 75% of the X). The right to sire was literally bestowed upon some ‘worthy’ serfs by the ‘lords’ who otherwise claimed this right for themselves. The insecure man - though ‘lord of the abode’ obsesses over size and literally worships the penis ~ and a black one at that ~ simultaneously fearing the better endowed, revering size, propitiating the black, fearful that bigger being better means that, given a choice all women will prefer the better endowed and abandon him. This fear translates into scripture and literature demonising the black, so that the women will self-isolate out of fear. The language of honour, the rituals of purity (caste is community plus impurity), and the scriptural mumbo jumbo of divine order - man over women, white over black, light over dark, ‘pure’ over ‘impure’, and even thinking over unthinking camouflaged as rational over emotional, and many more are deployed. Many ‘religious’ fulminations that prohibit this kind of 'pollution' have found their way into secular law. All just to shore up the fragile male ego and mask the sense of inadequacy through an increasingly crumbling edifice of misrepresentation and mislabeling. To paraphrase Kamala Bhasin, men with this form of tunnel vision - sadly a norm among all phallocratic societies and institutions - locate ‘honor’ in the vagina.
The tangled web becomes an all pervading obsession that transforms into ‘cultural’ practices, and the duty of the men (father, brother, or uncle) to kill the women (wife, daughter, sister) if she ‘transgresses’ i.e if she upends the bigger is better, male over female, construct. A duty - far more than just a right - to kill. If they do not (meaning if they accept the choice of love) in another inversion, this acceptance of sublime love is considered a ‘shame’ on the entire clan, caste, or race. This agency of the woman (who is somehow ‘less’ than the man, remember ~ earns less, is shorter, less qualified etc…?) reminds the men of their inadequacy as ‘protector’ and also showing them up as inadequate providers - for if they could provide the love, would the eyes, let alone heart, have strayed?
Caught in this web of contradiction and confusion, phallocracy goes berserk with phallic rage and requires (not just sanctions, but requires) that the men kill their till recently loved one. Since men determine words and their meaning, this abhorrent practice is called ‘honour’ killing. But as the above shows, it is but a murder to preserve the rather juvenile ‘mine is bigger than yours’, by little minds and little fingers. So the next time you see the term ‘honour killing’ remember that there is nothing honourable about it. In short (no pun intended), crimes of men with little fingers, they are phallic rage and inadequacy induced caste killings, a.k.a. PRICKs.