Why does the press insist on misogynistic euphemisms?
I just finished reading this Guardian article on how Iraqi men are now paying assassins to kill off their wives and daughters for "shaming" the family, when I (once again) asked myself, "Why is the paper using the misogynistic euphemism 'honor killing?'" I can't think of any other crime, whether generic or hate,* in which we the press uses the terms preferred by the perpetrator of such crimes as its universal standard. Words matter and when we insist on calling torture "enhanced interrogation," genocide "ethnic cleansing," or hate crimes "honor killings" (the latter which not only sanitizes the murderous hatred, but makes it virtuous), we normalize and justify the atrocities being committed.
I have tried writing to The Guardian and other papers, including The Times and The Independent, about this and they have given me no response (besides the usual, "Thank you for writing" template). Would anyone else like to try writing them or offering suggestions as what to do?
Here's a Jackson Katz video that touches upon the topic when discussing how school shootings are discussed (e.g., "kids killing kids" rather than boys killing kids):
*Compare the Guardian's coverage of homophobic violence in Eastern Europe, which they (rightly) describe as a "crucible of hate."