Shockingly to those of us who were convinced that this was just a expression of Islamic misogyny,* a number of Christian commentators have jumped out of the closet to join Sheikh Hilali in his blame the victim festival of hatred.
First we have Pastor David Hodgens, of the Warrnambool and District Baptist Church:
“I confess to being very uncomfortable with the tone and reported content of the sheikh’s comments . . . however, one of the things that seems to have been lost in the ensuing discussion is whether or not the point he seemed to be trying to make . . . ought to be examined. Is there a link between provocative dress and sexual assault?”
Ms Fits raises the obvious question here: where are the cries of indignation and calls for him to renounce his Australian citizenship?
Then we have Michael Leunig. Never much of a fan of women’s rights, Leunig really shines in his Saturday opinion piece in which he specifically defends Sheikh Hilali:
Sometimes a religious figure, such as a mufti, makes a sermon about human nature, rape and the general sexual madness – a bit like parents do to their children in private: “Look after yourself, take responsibility – there are some dark forces and crazy people out there who will destroy you if you’re not careful.” But the mufti uses ripe, rustic language, earthy metaphors and unpleasant ideas. He is set up and set upon by a national newspaper and told to shut up and resign. The Prime Minister chimes in. The mufti is denounced.
Yeah right, that is all he was doing. I guess I missed the section where he told men to take some responsibility.
Helen takes the time to demolish his ramblings and take on a few of his central messages:
And it just goes downhill from there, as the basic premise (once we’ve waded past the great oceangoing turtle) is that Sheik Hilaly is just speaking commonsense, and using “earthy� language to say it- yeah, thanks Michael, do you have a cat? Shall I just step into its bowl now, or later?…and society, including women, are all complicit in it.
All women are familiar with the commando-like instructions they have received over the years from well meaning friends and family; Don’t go there, don’t go there alone, don’t go there after dark, dress this way, don’t dress that way, do this and this and that if you’re locking / unlocking your car, where to park…
We’re weary of it. It is not our responsibility to bear alone. We can’t make the trains safe, but we can instigate a national conversation with our boys: Girls and women, like you, have the right to mobility. Both men and women can be attacked, but women do not have a special responsibility to spend their lives like some kind of ninja commando in order not to be attacked.
Maybe now we can discuss the actual issue of acute sexism and an ongoing blame the victim mentality in our own culture rather than just shifting the blame to Islam?
[*Please note intended sarcasm rather than attacking me for the wrong thing.]
Update: PERTH’S Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey joins the fray, warning that scantily dressed young women risk attracting unwanted sexual attention and attacking the promotion of condoms as a safe-sex aid.
PP McGuinness, allegedly – can’t find a cite.
I’m always gobsmacked by the way that people who use the phrase ‘dress provocatively’ (and the very fact that they use it at all tells you something about them) seem to think that the word ‘provocative’ applies to some inherent quality in the outfit, rather than to their own ‘provoked’ response to it. The grammatical shifting of responsibility to the woman is quite unabashed. It always reminds me of what I used to say to students who complained about the set reading. ‘It’s not that it’s boring, Chenille; it’s that you are bored.’
I’ll never forget sitting in a Carlton cafe with a (physically very unattractive) academic colleague in his late fifties, a man in the Humanities and one who knew my own views on such things, who watched avidly through the plate glass window as a beautiful young girl (in a not particularly revealing outfit) crossed the street outside. ‘Don’t you think that’s provocative?’ he asked me.
‘No,’ I said. ‘Um, she’s crossing the street. Because she wants to get to the other side.’
‘But she must know I’m looking at her,’ he said. And he was not joking.
Didn’t the brits put something in the water ?
I think it was supposed to calm down young ( and probably not so young ) men during their periods of military service?
Maybe the cafes of Carlton need to add it to all the expressos they serve .
“… his blame the victim festival of hatred.”
Just when I was wondering where all the hyperbolic rhetoric had gone, I turn a corner and there it is. Except you say that you’re being sarcastic, so colour me confused.
Otherwise, I totally agree with shifting the activity of public reason back to the ubiquity of sexism, rather than the condemnation of Muslims. David Hodgens’, as quoted above, seems to be offering an opportunity to do precisely that, as did Roger Herft – Anglican Archbishop of Perth – a week ago. Except more so, because Herft criticised the prevalence of sexism in all faiths, and in mainstream secular culture in this country.
Of course pushing the discussion in that direction is profoundly difficult, because the fundamental issue for those who initially condemned the Sheik is race – or should I say ‘culture’ – not sex or gender. It is the spectre of a dangerous ‘Muslim’ masculinity that is being elaborated here in contrast to the ‘enlightened’ masculinity that is attributed to white Australian men. In that scenario, it is less important what is said than who is saying it – and even in which language it is being said. A feminist critique is ripe for co-option in this scenario. Which is not to say that it shouldn’t be elaborated…
There’s been a lot of cant about this issue. Indeed, the cant seems to coming from all sides. Hands up who hasn’t honestly seen a woman dressed “provocatively” (whatever that means) and thought to yourself, “what a tart” or “she looks like a tramp”. Hands up if you haven’t seen a woman drunk like the bejesus and playing up and not thought, “she’s taking a risk”. Frankly, the Sheik was saying what a lot of people think. Women and men do have their differences. However, I am proud to call myself a feminist and I have no time for fundamentalist thinking whatever side it’s coming from.
By the way, I’m presuming some will recall the writings of feminists or post-feminists feminists or whatever such as Camille Paglia, Rene Dunfield etc
For those living in the vicinity of Brunswick, there is apparently going to be a protest about the Sheik shortly.
Just to clarify, I think it would be a good thing if we could talk about both the proscriptive nature of fundamentalism Islam and the over-sexualisation of Western society without all the hypocrisy.
People wearing Collingwood scarves provoke derision IMHO.
Sorry Adam but now you have confused me. Are you saying that this was an unfair description of what Sheikh Hilali said? Which part was exaggerated? The part about him blaming the victim, or the part about his comments exposing a clear commitment to misogyny (the hatred of women)?
Hands up who hasn’t honestly seen a woman dressed “provocatively� (whatever that means) and thought to yourself, “what a tart� or “she looks like a tramp�.
*raises hand*
As Pav said, it’s in the eye of the beholder.
That repulsive Leunig cartoon really demonstrates the truth of this. He’s drawn a woman dressed in her underwear. Either he’s suggesting that some women wear their undies on the train, in which case he’s obviously lost it completely, or else he’s reformulated whatever garment he had in mind (little dress, shorts, tank top whatever) as exactly equivalent to underpants and bra.
Post updated to include new link courtesy of Mark – PERTH’S Catholic Archbishop Barry Hickey joins the fray, warning that scantily dressed young women risk attracting unwanted sexual attention and attacking the promotion of condoms as a safe-sex aid.
Eek, Pav.
I bet he thought every summer that hot weather made women more “provocative” in showing off their bare flesh just for him. What, they feel cooler in lighter, shorter clothing? what could that have to do with it?
Great post, Cristy and don’t let the politically correct like Adam prod you into equal opportunity criticism of all religions.
Ah, a timely reminder that misogyny is entrenched in all religions. Try counselling a woman oppressed by a religion that tells her that she isn’t equal.
It’s a testament to the advances made by feminism that remarks such as those made by the Sheikh and others illicit such condemnation from the broader community.
It is however ashamed that wingnut columnists forget this fact when they lament the evil feminist hive mind; especially the likes of Albrechtson and Arndt.
Thanks Jason. Although I should add that am all for the equal opportunity criticism of all religions – I was, after-all, arguing that the particular Christians in question had joined him in the ‘festival’ not started a separate nicer one.
I meant ‘AWAY from equal opportunity criticism of all religions.’
Oh, good. Thanks Jason!
By the way, it’s White Ribbon Day on the 25th.
I’ll be wearing one, and I hope all men will join me!
I don’t know about attributing this sort of garbage to the influence of religion. It seems at least equally likely to me that misogynist types find a convenient framework in religion for their opinions and attitudes.
I grew up in Warrnambool and I can’t say this latest outburst surprises me much.
o come on laura – its all about religion in this case – religion has always impeded human development and potential and it is th emen in dresses who believe in a god who are at it again.
I completely agree. I think that it is an issue that transcends religion and culture. Both are simply used as justifications and scapegoats.
Yes, excellent post Christy.
I’m a little concerned about what will happen when certain commentators turn up with their talking points, but let’s get this out there…
If YOU can’t handle women displaying their charms, YOU’VE got a problem.
Darlene – if you rephrased your first “hands up” question as:
“Hands up who hasn’t honestly seen a woman dressed “provocativelyâ€? (whatever that means) and thought to yourself, “PHWOAR, she’s hot!” or “I’d imagine she is comfortable with her body and likes to have sex, and would that it were with me”
then I’d fess up.
More controversial alternatives:
“I really hope she isn’t just defining herself by her sexuality”
“That outfit really doesn’t do her any favours”
“Jeans with high heels? Nuh uh, girlfriend”
None of which pertain REMOTELY to her responsibility for my actions if I were to rape her. So yes, it may be *prudent* not to dress in revealing clothes, but that is a problem with our society which needs to be addressed. If only so that more sexy women will feel comfortable displaying themselves to my admiring yet benign gaze.
Oops, I said the ‘R’ word. Moderators?
But, erm, women’s groups did express their indignation, and Hodgens’ comments, and the reaction, were reported in The Age. So it wasn’t exactly swept under the carpet.
There hasn’t been as much fuss as with Hilali, but then again there is a difference between the national head of a religion and a country-town pastor. I’ll bet, if you looked hard enough, you’d find all sorts of low-rank clerics holding views that would be enormously controversial if expressed publicly by an Archbishop.
Also, while Hodgens’ comments were garbage, and deserved to be denounced, Hilali went much further. Remember, he was the one suggesting that victims of sexual assault should be punished, whereas perpetrators deserved no more than a stern talking-to.
In other words, there are degrees of wrongness, and Hilali was more wrong than anyone else I’ve heard on this issue.
Condemning Hilali, and calling on Muslims to ditch him, should be a bipartisan issue which left and right should agree on.
Just I was writing about the difference between a hick pastor and an Archbishop, the post gets updated with details of a dumb comment by an Archbishop!
So disregard my second para above. And screw all religions!
Yes, Hilali was wronger, but the criticism of him was tied up with nationalism in a way this Hodgens fool has escaped. Nobody says he should be deported back to wherever his sect of the Baptists originated, I don’t see anyone asking him if he’s an Australian first or a Christian first (etc).
I’m happy to call on the Baptists to sack him from his Pastor job – you listening, Baptists?
Same goes for any other community leaders who can’t bring themselves to admit that rapists are responsible for rape.
Yeah this is my usual response to the denigration of muslims on account of their real or imagined sexism: where in the world are women not oppressed to some degree or another?
Response is usually embarassed silence etc.
I’m all for men and women dressing “provocatively” but it’s no excuse for rape. There isn’t one.
Bromide in their tea, BIHK. And it wasn’t just the Brits, and it wasn’t just the women — my Ma, who was a WAAF in Sydney in 1945, used to tell the story of a bold young woman in her unit who once took a sip of her tea and then stood up and bellowed down the length of the mess hall: ‘BLOODY BROMIDE!’ I always wondered how she recognised the taste.
Re ‘What a tramp’: *raises hand with Laura*. I confess that I have often thought ‘Eeeww, bogan city’ or ‘That poor child must be freezing.’ But ‘tart’ and ‘tramp’ and ’slut’ are words that men use about women. When women use them about women, what I think is ‘Hmmm, Stockholm syndrome.’
Darlene, I would separate the issues of ‘provocative’ clothing on the one hand and public drunkenness on the other. Anyone of any sex who lurches shitfaced and unprotected about the public streets really is likely to be a nuisance as well as endangered. It’s a gender issue only in that (a) women will be vulnerable to different kinds of danger, and (b) drunks are most unlikely to be attacked by women.
I meant, of course, that it wasn’t just the men who got bromide in their tea.
Excellent post Cristy, as is Helen’s.
Yeah, but unless he’s a foreign citizen, or at least a dual-citizenship holder like Hilali, you can’t deport him anywhere.
If recent migrants make obnoxious comments, then nationalism will surface, and the vox populi will be saying “send ‘im back”. That’s just a fact of life.
There’s been controversy over the Sheikh’s immigrant status ever since the days of Paul Keating. He holds a permanent Visa, doesn’t he?
My guess is this Hodgen’s chap would be born as an Australian citizen, so the situation there is legally different, and its more than a little disingenuous of Fitsy to make the comparison. By all means, though, let’s condemn them both. (What ever happened to that condemnation thread?)
Bromide in military food/drink is apparently an urban legend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaphrodisiac
Pavlov’s Mum’s WAAF colleague was probably just reacting to really cheap and nasty tea!
Why assume he’s not a migrant?
To hear the Sixty Minutes types you would think it’s only Un-Australian men who hold these kinds of opinions.
Yes, I think the point is that misogyny isn’t something we can shove in a box called ‘foreign’ and pretend it’s ‘their’ problem and not ours.
Why don’t people pick up on the way the people like Sheik Hilali is deingrating and abusing men in his comments. He is implying, after all, that all men are sooo depraved and thus must so lack any sort of control that men will inevitably do what is in their nature to do – to eat the ‘uncovered meat’, just like the cat would. I gotta say that as a man I find that really offensive, just as offensive as his analogy of scantily dressed women deserving all they get ‘cos they are nothing better than uncovered meat is to all women. Let’s face it, all relations between the genders should be governed by mutual consent, regardless of what either party happens to be clad in at any particular time… And everything else is just excuses, really…
Anyway.
Cheers…
As I’ve said elsewhere, the problem lies with the whole program of medievalism in our major religions, which makes religion seemingly impotent in the face of consumerism and sex. Snap out of the Middle Ages boys and help people where they’re at.
Incidentally, why did the previous post of mine come up as “waiting moderation’? I thought moderation was where you get placed if you make offensive and abusive comments. To my knowledge I have done neither. So why?
Just curious, is all.
Cheers….
The gist of my previous post was along the lines of wondering why Sheik Hilali ain’t been condemned for what he implies about the nature of men – that all men are unable to resist ‘provacatively clad women’, and that we are just following our nature… I personally find that just as offensive as anything that the Sheik said about women. Let’s face it, the Sheik’s ideas about gender and the relations between the sexes read as though they are stuck somewhere in the middle ages. Which, come to thinbk of it, Islam is, if you date the year since the time of the prophet…
Cheers…
Incidentally, why did the previous post of mine come up as “waiting moderation’? I thought moderation was where you get placed if you make offensive and abusive comments. To my knowledge I have done neither. So why?
Just curious, is all.
Cheers….
same
Maybe Hodgen’s is a migrant, but we don’t get any evidence of this in Fitsy’s post. The Sheikh’s migrant status has been known for a long time.
Cristy,
I may be taking the Pastor’s comments out of context, but surely there is a quantum difference between his question and the Mufti’s statement. Hodgens is asking a question – to which the answer, from my research, is that there is no link. Hilali said there was a link.
Surely asking a question is not wrong or are we to forbid the asking of questions about a subject that we have already made our minds up on?
Just to make my own position clear – I do not believe there is a link between any form of sexual assault and a mode of dress and, even if there was it should not be regarded as an excuse or mitigating circumstance in the trial of any accused persons.
It’s partly automated. Certain words or phrases cause the filter to pull out your comment for manual approval. Some words like v i a g r a, for instance, or certain strong swear-words, etc, flag your comment for the Collective’s attention. Sometimes it’s a bit too sensitive, and your comment will be approved in time; we’re sorry for the inconvenience.
For those who are getting hung up in moderation, my apologies. Because of some really offensive comments in the past, the ‘r’ word automatically puts a post into moderation, as do certain other words of that ilk.
Also, our spaminator seems to be choosing to occasionally put comments into the spambucket almost at random (perhaps if you just post several comments close together). We try and fish them out, but when one is checking the spambucket full of hundreds of offers of granny p0rn etc it’s a bit hard to stop the eyes glazing over, so occasionally we might fail to rescue a spaminated comment.
We do the best we can, but no guarantees.
This is the blurb from US cultural warrior Dinesh D’Souza’s new book:
Islamic anti-Americanism is not merely a reaction to U.S. foreign policy but is also rooted in a revulsion against what Muslims perceive to be the atheism and moral depravity of American popular culture. Muslims and other traditional people around the world allege that secular American values are being imposed on their societies and that these values undermine religious belief, weaken the traditional family, and corrupt the innocence of children. But it is not “America� that is doing this to them, it is the American cultural left. What traditional societies consider repulsive and immoral, the cultural left considers progressive and liberating. Taking issue with those on the right who speak of a “clash of civilizations,� D’Souza argues that the war on terror is really a war for the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims—and traditional peoples everywhere. The only way to win the struggle with radical Islam is to convince traditional Muslims that America is on their side. We are accustomed to thinking of the war on terror and the culture war as two distinct and separate struggles. D’Souza shows that they are really one and the same. Conservatives must recognize that the left is now allied with the Islamic radicals in a combined effort to defeat Bush’s war on terror. A whole new strategy is therefore needed to fight both wars. “In order to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad,� D’Souza writes, “we must defeat the enemy at home.�
Let me get this straight: D’Souza starts by saying that the Islamists are really only against all the secular progressive aspects of the West that the Left promotes.
After as much leftie-blaming in all directions as he can spew, he ends by saying that all this proves that the Left is actually allied with Islamist radicals?
He’s trying to pull a swift sleight of hand there.
ok thanks for the heads up tigtog.
Dinesh D’Souza says anything that he percieves will make him a buck I’d say. He’s lost the plot and should be put firmly in the stalking horse category.
Hmm,
getting into this one late, but I was sitting around chewing the fat with some provocatively dressed male Muslims on Saturday afternoon chatting about the mad mufti’s measured remarks… (i’m waving my arms as if to signal a plane onto runway three to denote sarcasm)
I think the mufti has some right to say certain things and not be selectively quoted by the national media. Look, I don’t defend his comments. They were sexist.
But at my most recent speaking gig at a chapel service at a Uniting Church school, I inadvertedly made a joke about Catholics and small boys. “It’s not one of those stories – It’s not a Catholic Story” I had ad libbed after I wandered into double entendre by mentioning, in telling a story, that on a camp I had stayed in a cabin with some boys. The kids laughed, and I moved on with the story.
I would have been really surprised if someone came up afterwards and tried to make a case that I am somehow defending pedophiles or attacking Catholics. It was just a light hearted comment in context of a much bigger speech.
I think it would be good if Australian imams had a better understanding of the Australian language and culture, but let’s not fall into the category of people who stalk our enemies, waiting for a insensitive or poorly considered comment, just so we can crucify them.
So back to my Muslim mates. We said about Hilaly, “people have been talking about his comments, and some are saying this and that, but I say you have got to meet the cat…” Ba boom…
I then went on to say that Bronwyn Bishop has been criticizing Muslim women for wearing head coverings. I said that in respect of Ms Bishop, “there is one woman who should consider covering up. Talk of meat and cats. That meat has been left out and it has gone off.”
Crucify that.
Cristy wrote:
“Sorry Adam but now you have confused me. Are you saying that this was an unfair description of what Sheikh Hilali said? Which part was exaggerated? The part about him blaming the victim, or the part about his comments exposing a clear commitment to misogyny (the hatred of women)?”
I think that the image of a “festival of hatred” is somewhat over the top. You risk conflating very different things. After all, the Sheik did not explicitly encourage hatred of, or violence against, women. He utilised a sexist moral economy in which women’s bodies are imagined as the appropriate sites for the application of moral agency, where men’s are not. I have no doubt that his comments were made with the best of intentions. They were nevertheless sexist, and implied a certain misogynistic conception.
and Jason wrote:
“Great post, Cristy and don’t let the politically correct like Adam prod you into equal opportunity criticism of all religions.”
In what way have my comments been politically correct?
D’Souza simply makes explicit what has been implicit in many wars, but which is quite salient in the case of the GWOT. That is, international wars are often civil wars by other means.
The Right has been indefatigable in trying to wedge the progressive left in an attempt to destroy their legitimacy.
This rhetoric about women’s responsibility for men’s behaviour is old and hoary. And it is common to many religious traditions. Patriarchy went on the back foot in the West after the 1960s. The GWOT, however, has legitimised a new tribalism, and tribes must have chiefs, witchdoctors and fetishes. Women’s sexuality is one of the oldest and most potent fetishes of the West.
When public rhetoric becomes suffused with religious tropes and motifs, it doesn’t take much effort for would-be patriarchs to reach up to the shelf and dust off those old fetishes that were so effective at keeping everyone in their place.
D’Souza’s line about winning the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims by putting progressives to the sword is a call to arms to mad patriarchs everywhere.
Sorry Adam, but I completely disagree with you. The Sheik did explicitly encourage the hatred of, and condone violence against, women. Stating that rape is the fault of women and that it is rape victims who ought to be imprisoned displays a deep hatred of women. Unfortunately, the Sheik is not remotely alone in this hatred.
BTW, you ought to look up the definition of misogyny.
For those of you who were moderated, my apologies. But, please don’t get paranoid about it. I just had to fish my own comment out of moderation.
Re D’Souza, the American cultural and religious right, or parts of it in any case, have been saying this stuff since the night of September 11 2001, when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson agreed with each other on national television that it was all due to abortion, gay rights, feminism etc.
I never left the fridge.
Been better since I found some beer in here.
Just sayin…
The day I read that some Archbishop has come out saying that because some men find it difficult not to rape women, all men should wear chastity belts in public, is the day I start taking them a bit more seriously.
Until then, it is all about them sexualising women. They wouldn’t be demanding we cover up if they weren’t the ones who saw women as nothing but sex objects.
It’s nice here in the fridge, though.
Marxist-in-good-standing Stan Goff has made very similar observations about women. And in Sydney too. So I look forward to the leadership of the Palestine Solidarity group – both of whom are womyn btw – condemning the Sheik, also condemning the Xtians, naturally, but most of all condemning comrade Goff.
But I won’t hold my breath.
Bloody cold but.
Pass me a stubby please Kim.
Did anyone bring any chocolate?
I hate to be the one speaking in defense of comments by maddies, but here goes:
I think there are two issues at play here.
1. I think Hilaly has played into a feminist debate that he has not the qualifications nor the cultural heritage to hold his own in. He was not born in Australia, and his cultural heritage is born out of a less permissive and a primarily patriarchal society.
So whilst his comments offend the sensibilities of western feminists, the comments were not directed at western feminists, nor society at large. The comments were being made to a specific audience, and whilst the metaphor was appallingly chosen, perhaps it has some cultural relevance. Poorly chosen words, but they have some currency among a migrant culture where parents are concerned about the society in which their children are growing up and into which they are integrating. (I remember watching a film ‘East is East’ in which the same theme is explored beautifully).
2. Religious leaders should be allowed to make comments and issue challenges regarding morals. Perhaps it is appropriate for ministers, priests and sheiks to challenge parishioners about the nature of society. In my case, I generally question the merits of capitalism and the growth driven economy.
But perhaps it is also appropriate to question our postmodern permissiveness. Some kids in my youth group talk about being sexually active at age 13. Perhaps I have a role in suggesting to these young people that sex is not the means of transcendence and self actualization that is promised in popular culture, and that possibly waiting until slightly later in one’s teenage years before rushing into the sack might be a wise option. Does this make me a cultural crusader? No.
Leaders should be allowed to speak to their communities, and to raise specific issues and challenge their communities on these issues, without the comments being dragged out into the public sphere to be criticized ad infinitum. These comments are poorly chosen, but any comments out of context can be made to look pretty ugly.
I completely disagree with you Nahum.
No one is objecting to anyone speaking to their community about concepts of monogamy or waiting until maturity or even marriage until they have sex. It is the misogyny that is revealed by the metaphors that Hilaly chose and by his specific statements that BLAME WOMEN FOR RAPE that is the problem.
The comments made in defence of his statements that essentially say that, while the specific words were not necessarily appropriate, the messsage is important, also display this same tendency to blame women and reinforce the completely inaccurate and dangerous perceived link between the behaviour of women and rape.
Permissiveness has nothing to do with this – unless you are arguing against ‘permitting’ women to dress in any way that they choose to. That would make you a sexist & controlling crusader.
Cristy wrote:
“The Sheik did explicitly encourage the hatred of, and condone violence against, women. Stating that rape is the fault of women and that it is rape victims who ought to be imprisoned displays a deep hatred of women.”
Perhaps this is my mistake, but in all of the reported speech I never once read anything explicitly encouraging hatred or rape. My argument is that misogyny is implicit in the moral economy of this kind of argument, as well as the imagery used. Let’s be very careful about what is being said and why it is problematic, otherwise we risk arguing equivalence between different degrees of sexist action. I think reductive polemic is the most immediate tool to come to hand with regards to such an emotive issue, but it may not be the most useful. It will be with patient and unfailing commitment to articulating and re-articulating our arguments and positions that we will prevail.
I’ll take the opportunity to mention once more that this is not really about sex or gender: for those who brought these comments to public attention, this is an issue about ‘culture’, albeit a racialised conception of the cultural. We are observing the public construction of a caricature of Muslim masculinity. Hilaly’s comments were very cleverly disseminated, although rarely disputed in any articulate fashion, in the mainstream media.
It amazes me how so many defenders of Hilaly completely gloss over those statements, and just say “he was telling women to be modest” and “women who dress revealingly get raped more” (yes, I realise that’s not uncontroversial, and only inoffensive by comparison) — Leunig, the Australian Democrats’ secretary and so on. It’s as though they haven’t read what was said. Is it some strange form of denial?
Yes.
But it’s one of the definitions of hegemony that those with power are incapable of seeing that there’s a problem for those without; people within, or complicit with, the dominant culture (patriarchy in this instance) genuinely can’t see what all the fuss is about.
In Rumsfeld’s terms, it’s an “unkown known”, in other words, the ideological frame that you don’t even reflect on but makes things seem like commonsense.
Sadly, Cristy, another link to report.
“Father Dave” at Online Opinion thinks Sheikh Hilali “had a point”:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5150
Well, girls, look on the bright side: Father Dave has bumped us a step up the culinary ladder. We’re still food objects for the consumption of the uncontrolled ravenous subjects, but at least we’re no longer cat’s meat.
On the other hand, if we’re the hors-d’oeuvres, I do wonder what Father Dave had in mind as the main course, hmm?
Father Dave shouldn’t use words like hors-d’oeuvres if he doesn’t know how to spell them, either. This is what comes of all that there Socialist postmodernism.
A very Anglican twist from the good Father.
Note also the conflation between “walking around topless” and “dressing provocatively”.
I’d hate to think what sort of spiritual thoughts the Reverend gentleman has when young women (perhaps wearing TEH LOW CUT TOPS!) kneel down to receive communion from him…
It’s the same logic. If you walk around swinging your arms, you have to take responsibility if you hit someone. If you wander around in public, loudly shouting and swearing, you’re going to have to expect that people will get annoyed with you. And if you are a girl who is determined to walk around topless, you’ve got to expect men to get excited. It’s natural. It’s genetic. It’s the way we’re built.
So women simply wearing the clothes they want to wear is just like wildly swinging your arms about or being loudly verbally offensive? Women’s dress is actually a public nuisance?
Is this being “realistic” about the way men view women? Telling us that what we’re doing and wearing can never be just a private matter, it’s always a public performance on which we’re continually judged.
Is there a cheese platter anywhere in this fridge?
I think Dr Cat has sent out to the local Rectory for some hors-d’eouvres, tigtog.
Father Dave is, of course, factually wrong (as well as being a misogynist himself). The Sheik spoke of rape “being 90 percent the girl’s fault and only 10 percent the man’s”, which doesn’t square with Father Dave’s “I’m not saying that this gives male voyeurs an excuse to assault anybody …”
OTOH I must agree that young men DO suffer from a ferocious sex drive. When I was young I always wished that more young women understood this better and cared enough to relieve my suffering …
All we’ll get from the local Rectory is horses’ doovers, Kim, as has been amply demonstrated by Father Dave’s little rant.
When I was a kid and then a teenager I was taught, by parents and/or others, that
(1) Boys can’t control themselves, so it is the responsibility of the girl to call a halt to any sexual activity.
(2) Self-control is a sine qua non of maturity.
(4) Men are superior to women.
I was also taught that
(5) Getting pregnant before marriage is the worst possible thing that could happen to you.
(6) Men don’t like girls with brains and won’t marry them.
(7) You must do well in your exams.
Looking at this stuff, some of which is undeniably true, I’m astonished that most of the women who post and comment here at LP haven’t imploded from the brain snap by now.
I was also taught that (3) comes between (2) and (4), but you’d never know.
I was taught much the same things, PC.
As most r*pe victims know their assailants, and a good proportion of those assailants are family members, the “cat food” thesis of dark alley lust is only marginal usefulness in explaining male behaviour.
I guess it might be said that a moppet wandering around the house in her shortie jim jams in front of dad/step dad/uncle/big brother is at least as “guilty” of taking the top off her own personal portion of Snappy Tom as the revealingly clad gal at the night club.
But there is something darker and more disturbing than a sudden outbreak of blue-balls here.
It’s about power and about marking of domain. And when patriarchy fixates on the minor location of r*pe (the dark alley) and ignores in its rhetoric the major location (dad’s shed) you know that other agendas are being pushed.
And that agenda is patriarchy itself.
Mark’s long quotation from “father” dave there omitted this interesting paragraph:
LOL.
OK. So he almost bumped his head against a woman’s breasts. Bad woman! She shouldn’t have been standing behing him, provocatively holding her breasts at the exact level where his head would be when he bent down (to do his paternal schtick.) She was trying to eat Father Dave with her cleavage!
Somehow I think he’d have been just as frightened of her boobs if she hadn’t been wearing a bra at all. And he’d have known – because Father Dave has X-RAY EYES and he can tell the difference between women wearing a push-up bra (you know, under their clothes) and women whose boobs are big without padding.
I think the less that is “left to the imagination” of this dude the better.
What a nut-job.
Imagination is the common factor between all of these tools. They all have overactive imaginations and don’t seem aware that what’s in their heads differs from reality.
People fantasise about each other. It’s gross, but I can accept a man looks at a woman in the street and imagines how she looks in her undies. If he understands he’s fantasising and keeps it to himself, OK. But when he then proceeds to describe her as wearing nothing but undies (see also the Leunig cartoon where he drew a woman in her underwear) then he needs psychological assistance.
Getting a mite cool in here. Perhaps we could warm things up by considering a new post at Catallaxy. I tried to think of something to say there, but I kept shaking my head and the words did not form.
I wonder if any girls go to their parties?
Zoe, I can’t be the only one who’s noticed that Catallaxy’s “Ozblogistan” is pretty much a one-gender state.
No, but I’ve noticed they get upset when people say so.
Hey, they link to Darlene and she’s a girl, right? So theoretically they are aware of the existence of girls, at least on some level.
Y’know, you don’t see many attractive younger blokes complaining about women dressing provocatively.
Most of the whinging seems to be coming from grumpy old farts who couldn’t get a root without paying for it. I mean they’ve only got themselves to blame if their olging is unreciprocated.
Perhaps if they made a bit of an effort – hair transplants, liposuction, red vein removal, brushed up on their chat, deportment classes, bought some aftershave, stylish threads and a 120 foot yacht – they’d stop feeling so left out.
Perhaps there were some, watching the good Father as he bent over, who might have seen the act of bending over as ‘provocative’, and would argue that if he got, well, you know, a bit of unwelcome attention, then he just brought it on himself and serves him right.
(If any of the LP peoples would like to post this image I would be most grateful. All lovely and worksafe. Ta)
I was thinking of something a bit more invasive, but that will do very nicely.
Back to Leunig’s cartoon and men restricting women’s clothing and other choices, here’s a reworking of the conservative religious view by Austin Cline at about.com:
How many girls has Father Dave seen walking around topless? One would suspect he is really referring to a whole range of other quite acceptable behaviours but is just trying to make his (crap) argument a little more water-tight by getting all excited over women’s naked breasts.
Adam:
Yes, it is your mistake. Misogyny is based on the hatred of women and so making a speech based on the logic of misogyny encourages the hatred of women.
I am not sure how you feel able to draw a line in the sand between condoning the kind of attitudes that justify rape and something worse, but I think that you are risking minimising the seriousness of this issue. Actually, scrap that, I think that you have gone out of your way to attempt to minimise how serious this really is and how negatively it does impact on the lives of women. I am not sure what your agenda for doing this is, but it is really quite offensive.
If I were still an Anglican, I believe Fr Dave ministers at my local (Dulwich Hill.) Counting my blessing I dodged that bullet once again.
Another choice article from Father Dave: Boys must be boys.
I love it when women are grouped together with children. We are after-all in the same need of a man’s protection and guidance.
Once again women are somehow responsible for the behaviour of men.
Why? Because clearly women are inferior?
I would have thought …
Oh, never mind.
The big omission in all discussions about Hilaly etc, IMO, has been the non-discussion of rape and sexual assault in countries where women do wear religiously prescribed garments.
In Saudi Arabia, where legally enshrined discrimination against women is a global disgrace, the rape and abuse of guest workers is well documented, as excerpts from a 2000 Amnesty International Report below makes clear, while the lack of any adequate responses by the fundamentalist Saudi authorities is typical of many Muslim governments when dealing with rape and sexual assault of women:
“Diah binti Didih from Indonesia was 16 — a child under the definition of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — when she went to work in Saudi Arabia as a domestic worker. She told Amnesty International that she was immediately raped by her employer. She was also ill-treated, and her wages were not paid. ”The husband raped me repeatedly. He asked me for sex immediately after I started working for the family. He used to beat me around the head and shoulders if I tried to resist him. He would also often hit me for no reason whatsoever. He would generally rape me at the times when his wife was at work. ”Apart from the repeated rape, which was about twice a week, and the unprovoked beatings, he would verbally abuse me all the time. He would call me a ”pig” and a ”dog”.
“Nativadad Lympiado (”Nati”), a 32-year-old domestic worker from the Philippines, stated that she was raped by her employer, who also regularly beat her. She sought the protection of the authorities (the mutawa’een and the police) and each time was denied protection and redress. ”The oldest son collected me from the airport [upon arrival in Saudi Arabia in May 1996] and raped me, somewhere in the desert, on the way home, in the car. I was completely devastated but nevertheless needed to earn money… Throughout the 13 months I worked in Saudi Arabia the four oldest boys in the family made advances to me. I was not raped again until May 1997, when I was raped by the oldest son for the second time.â€?
“Ramona, a Canadian nurse who worked in a hospital in Saudi Arabia described how assaults of domestic workers were dealt with by the authorities ”My professional experience in Saudi Arabia… left me with concerns about the treatment of domestic workers — who were generally from Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the Philippines. Firstly, a woman complaining of rape would not generally have a gynaecological examination for about 24 hours, by which time there would be no evidence of semen. I was never aware of any prosecutions of employers. There were Saudi social workers at both of the hospitals that I worked at. They would try and help the women who were the subject of assaults. But there seemed to be no referral to the police. ”Often, women would come in to the hospital with reports that they had been in a car accident. However, the injuries were not consistent with a car accident — they were more consistent with beatings. I remember one particular case… in 1991. A young Sri Lankan woman came in suffering from bilateral retinal detachment. She was very quiet and withdrawn. She was aged about 20. We started to bathe her and saw that her body was covered with cigarette burns, and cane/whip marks. There were circumferential marks around her neck — which looked as though they had been caused by metal wire. The woman in question told us that she had been raped by her employer and his sons. The injuries had been inflicted by the employer’s wife, after she found out about the rape. ”I do not remember any occasion when police officers were brought to the hospital to interview women who had been assaulted.”
In Muslim countries under-reporting of rape accounts for the apparent low incidence of the crime, which was similarly the case in Western countries until very recently. It’s only been in the past decade(!!) that women in Australia are only starting to feel more confident about reporting rape to police. So imagine being a woman in Pakistan where the “Hudoodâ€? Ordinance means that a woman alleging rape is required to provide four adult male witnesses of “the act of penetration”, and if the accused man is Muslim, the witnesses must be Muslims themselves.â€? (possibly this has been recently repealed?) In Malaysia, it’s estimated that only 10% of rapes are reported and only some 1% are tried and even then, only a small number of convictions result.
The problem, as we all know, is not Western clothing, our own rape victims are made up of women of all ages including elderly women, who are attacked in their homes etc., the problem is men from whatever country or culture who rape. The other problem is people like Hilaly and others, who utilise this age-old aberrant pathological behaviour to legitimise on-going discrimination against women, for their own religious/state/cultural purposes.
And bugger me, if I’m going to drop my “mutton dressed as lamb” look – middle aged bottle blonde Greek/Jewish babes with their big boobs bobbling, and lashing of cheap costume jewellery – shrieking “darling”…..are some my favourite style heroes.
“Here, men take off their shirts, flex their muscles, and get physical with each other in a very primitive way.”
Oooh settle down boys! That’s enough repressed homoeroticism for one day!
Is it getting hot in here or what? *Fans self*
Also, I’m pretty sure all that Israeli stuff is complete and utter bollocks.
“I think that you have gone out of your way to attempt to minimise how serious this really is and how negatively it does impact on the lives of women.”
Yes, I have, and I’ve argued my agenda elsewhere, but I’ll make it really clear for you. I think that in the case of Sheik Hilaly’s comments the most important thing to recognise is not that he is a misogynist, but why his misogyny is being discussed at this moment by federal MPs and media commentators. If you can’t see that this is a cultural political issue then you are complicit with the scapegoating of Muslims for what is a generalised condition of patriarchy. In other words, you can’t blame Muslims for what is going on everywhere in Australian society because if you do then you’re feminist critique is being co-opted by forces that do not care one bit for it on any other day.
My secondary point is that I don’t see many people arguing the point about this: all I see is a lot of very simplistic rhetoric where it is always already assumed that Hilaly is wrong. How are we allowing this to continue unless we agree that Muslim=rapist? So in this instance it is important to minimise the perceived extremity of Hilaly’s position.
Father Dave is the lost Python, no?
“Gather round lads while I tell you about Graeme Perkins, the first quantity surveyor who worked in Wantirna. Before him, all was wilderness. After him, everything was carefully weighed and measured.
“Now lads, put on your gloves and protector and go out there and whack someone for Graeme Perkins.”
After that, a quick trip down to the local tattoo parlour for the favourite “GP — Extreem Kwantities” with wreathes of writhing tape meaures.
where is my first comment? ta cristy
That says it all, Katz. The man is a comic genius.
As if I wanted anyone belting me around the head when I was seventeen.
I saw enough of idiots having that done to them at the Jimmy Sharman tent at the local Agricultural Show.
Opps, looks like someone forgot the first rule of Fight Club.
This is gonna set Project Mayhem back a few months.
So in this instance it is important to minimise the perceived extremity of Hilaly’s position
I wish you were joking Adam. There is nothing perceived about the extremity of Hilali’s speach. You need to recognise that there is alomost no comparison between Hilaly and Christy’s subjects above. Also, it does sadden me that a formerly amusing cartoonist like Leunig has apparently “lost it”.
Mr Gall, you’d do well to actually read the writing you want to criticise before making such an arse of yourself next time.
Oh, and since I have previously been described as obscene and sleazy on this site, I have nothing to lose in trying to further enlighten you in this matter.
We need to distinguish two distinct aspects of the role of young scantily dressed rape victims. Firstly there is the fault aspect. Let me say categorically that rape is never the fault of the victim – no matter how she behaves. Clear?
Now try to understand the next aspect – which is about risk management. Everyone needs to understand that some behaviour can increase their level of risk. If I hang about nightclubs in a disorderly state, I increase the risk that I will be assaulted. If a young girl gets drunk with a football team, she increases her risk of being assaulted. Note that she will still not be at fault in this case, but her actions will have materially increase her risk. Clear?
Now, to draw this together, Hilaly’s comments clearly put women into the first category – not only because of his suggestion that women were the tools of Satan. He and his supporters are now trying to spin his comments as if they were of the second “risk management” category.
We need to see this as the BS that it is.
They weren’t.
PeterTB writes:
“There is nothing perceived about the extremity of Hilali’s speach.”
On the contrary, Hilali’s version of patriarchal reasoning is quite common in this country. If anything, the evidence in the post, as well as emerging in the commentary, bares this argument out.
Anna Winter writes:
“Mr Gall, you’d do well to actually read the writing you want to criticise before making such an arse of yourself next time.”
In what fashion have I “made an arse of myself”? I must have missed the bit where anybody has actually posed a response to my argument. I entered this discussion querying Cristy’s use of a certain kind of imagery, and arguing that feminist criticism of Muslim masculinity can and will be co-opted in service of a conservative cultural politics. Can someone actually explain to me what is wrong with highlighting this?
What is wrong, china, is your demand that a feminist critique of Hilaly privilege anti-”conservative cultural politics” over feminist politics.
That’s the bit where you made an arse of yourself.
Any other questions?
China?
I think it’s a reasonable demand given that this issue has been championed specifically by federal MPs, not to mention the Prime Minister, and commentators like Paul Sheehan as a way of casting Muslims in a negative light. I actually think feminist politics is incredibly important, but this is a very specific instance in which cultural politics is the most significant issue. Don’t think for one second that criticism of patriarchy will be forthcoming when Muslims aren’t involved.
Well, I don’t think your “demands” should dictate what feminists write. Your point that there may be a cultural/anti-Muslim element to the criticism of Hilali is fair enough, as far as it goes.
Others may have the view that misogyny and patriarchy are more pervasive problems – and that this pervasiveness is in fact part of the explanation why these issues aren’t so prominent “when Muslims aren’t involved”.
What Ms Zoe said.
Also, you may have noticed that this thread isn’t limited to Teh Muslims. If you think they’re less capable of withstanding criticism than every other arsehole we’ve mentioned here, then perhaps it’s you that’s being a bit of a racist.
The HIVEMIND sees all misogynists as equals.
I’m sorry Zoe, but demand was your word, and I used it without thinking about it. My only request for a feminist criticism is that it be very clear about what has been said, rather than deploying the kind of simplistic version of events that is present in mainstream commentary, because that commentary has other aims than the critique of patriarchal thought.
I think patriarchy is, as far as it goes, a generally more important and systemic thing than the vilification of Muslims. But in this case I think it is not enough to recognise an “element” of cultural politics, because in this case feminism has been used as evidence of white Australian superiority. I don’t think feminists want their arguments appropriated in that way, and I had hoped that being made aware of that risk would be useful to somebody. Clearly patriarchy is being imagined here as the transcendentally significant issue. If that is an article of faith, then I can accept that, and I welcome the concessions you have been willing to make to my argument.
Anna,
Your counter-charge that I am “being a bit of a racist” is somewhat misplaced. I am criticising white representations – I am white and I benefit from those representations. I am not arguing for a Muslim position, or suggesting that Muslims need protection. I am suggesting that whites need to be more aware of the potential effects of their arguments. I have no doubt that I am capable of racism but I think you are being disingenuous in making that suggestion.
It wasn’t a serious suggestion Adam, although my original point was. Read this post, and the comments, and then tell me this had anything to do with Muslim-bashing at all.
If you think that we cannot criticise even the most appalling and terrifying comments just because they are uttered by a Muslim and may well give ammunition to non-feminists then god help us all.
If you are not going to do everyone here the courtesy of reading before criticising, then don’t be shocked when others show no desire to engage respectfully with you.
Yo Adam, you gonna tangle with the chicks here, it’s not enough to sound off like you have a big brass pair. You better really have ‘em.
Ohh-kay, back on topic. I’m all in favour of women, when they feel like it, displaying their assets to best advantage – whether they be physical or mental. Life would be pretty fornicating dull otherwise.
And don’t pretty much all self-appointed (aren’t they all anyway?) religious leaders from monotheistic hierarchical paternalistic sky god cults always crap about resisting temptation? They should be grateful their makers are putting so many opportunities in their way to prove how upstanding and rock hard is their belief.
To paraphrase an old saying – whenever these kinda belief systems come up against sex, it’s a comedy for those that think and a hypocrisy for those that believe. The downfall of Pastor Ted is just the latest in an neverending chain of religious leaders undone by the artificial wall erected between eros, agape and the transcendental. Where’s a 21st century Aimee Semple McPherson? Now there’s a market gap.
Shorter me: A stiff dick knows no god, but it should at least know some manners.
I read the post, Anna, but I was held up by the bit about a “festival of hatred”. I said as much and posted my initial thoughts, including my substantial agreement with what Cristy was saying, at 2:53 pm on the 13th November 2006. You can find that above. Since then I have divided further and further with Cristy’s position as the argument has become more polarised.
I don’t think that reading this controversy as an instance of misogyny is sufficient, although I agree that the implications of the Sheik’s speech are misogynistic. I don’t think a feminist critique is a bad idea, but I do think it needs to be more explicit rather than taking on wholesale the reductive style of the mainstream debate.
I am not shocked that I would meet this response, although I am curious about how the discussion has played out, and I am a little bit put out by this refrain about reading before commenting. I thought I was complicating the issue, moving outwards from what Cristy wrote to think about other things as well, but it turns out I was pushing everyone back to empty accusations of ignorance.
Yes, I know, “chicks” is sexist. I’ll rephrase that.
“…you gonna tangle with the broads here…”
Nice save Nabokov. I don’t know about having a brass pair of anything, but I’m quite comfortable debating feminists of all stripes. If I couldn’t hack it I shouldn’t have chosen to do what I do. Now reading feminist theory – that can really throw you around if you’re an intellectually comfortable middle class male. I remember the first time I read a primer on radical feminism; and then later reading Gayatri Spivak was another experience.
Apologies to Anna or anybody else reading – I hope this doesn’t come across as a couple of blokes talking about ‘those wacky feminists’.
If you’re man enough to use the words “shorter Nabakov” while making a dick joke, then you can pretty much get away with anything you like, Nabs.
I think we all read the word in the Sinatra-style it was intended.
His speech is misogynist.
Nice to see that you don’t think that a feminist critique is a “bad idea”.
I don’t think Cristy could have been more explicit.
‘One of those wacky feminists’ (BTW, I have posted under my own name for the duration),
I didn’t say that it wasn’t misogynistic – I just don’t think it’s enough to assert that in this context. I think Cristy was perfectly explicit about some things, and not cognisant of others.
Clearly whatever I post at this point is going to encounter derision. I’m still not convinced of my ‘crimes’ but the weight of opinion suggests that they are many.
“I think we all read the word in the Sinatra-style it was intended.”
Oh good…phew…yeah right.
I actually meant to type “the thicker Nabakov.” Damn these clumsy laptops.
Then what the hell are you getting at Adam? If you’d care to read some of LP’s archive you’ll find many of us are very vocal and active against prejudice against Muslims, so your charge that we’re feeding racist fire seems utterly ridiculous.
Conversely, your attempt to suggest that YOU are a better judge of misogyny than Cristy smacks of, oh, I don’t know, arrogance?
Adam,
this is the first time you’ve joined in here, right? I ask because your remark about having posted under your own name shows you aren’t familiar with the commenting culture here. Everyone else in this thread knows the name of the person who posted that comment, and, I will add, a good deal more about her tha most of us know about you. (Why didn’t you link to your USyd blog, by the way?)
Not that whether it’s your first time out or not makes any difference to the validity or otherwise of your arguments. But if you had been around here a bit (and it’s generally considered a good plan to hang back and see how a group operates before jumping in boots and all) you might have realised that this is not a place where Muslims are singled out for paranoid xenophobic nationalist condemnation, and that we make a point of hanging shit on any and every manifestation of patriarchal slime that trickles under the seals on the refrigerator door.
I think that’s probably why people keep telling you to read what they’ve written (that and the fact that this thread is actually about Christian woman-hating.)
Before I get down I’ll just note that namedropping Spivak et al is probably not going to subdue the masses into respectful silence.
I don’t think this thread is gonna get any productive until we all agree to comment nude. I’ve already removed my cravat and one sock. Your move now.
Cross-posted with Kate. (translation for those unfamiliar with lingo: I was typing while Kate posted her comment. Since we’re saying the same thing, essentially, I would not have posted if I’d seen hers first.)
“…namedropping Spivak et al is probably not going to subdue the masses into respectful silence.”
Or in this case, baffled silence. Wot the fuck is a Spivak when it’s at home?
Opps, there goes the other sock. Now I really should take off my boots as well.
And if you are a girl who is determined to walk around topless, you’ve got to expect men to get excited.
Wow, way to reductio the argument to such an absurdum the point is completely, completely lost…
And by the way – the only topless girls I’ve seen off-beach were paid to be so by men. What was it you said about ‘determined to’?
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak translated Derrida into English then went on to basically invent a sub-discipline of post-structuralism known as Subaltern Studies. Imagine deconstruction with postcolonial marxist feminism layered over the top. Or, if you prefer, imagine a clown car with an endless stream of Gerard Henderson’s worst nightmares pouring forth from the back seat.
Nabs, are you wearing the tight white trousers again?
Tell me you are
“Or, if you prefer, imagine a clown car with an endless stream of Gerard Henderson’s worst nightmares pouring forth from the back seat.”
Gold!
Funnily enough (or not) Helen, Father Dave has a photograph on his website of his own wife breastfeeding. She’s asking for it I tell ya.
Shan’t link.
But I will share this nice photograph of Fr. Dave and unnamed friend. Dave is the one with the Hitler mo.
Subaltern Studies? I’m an old-fashioned bloke at heart and to me that phrase is redolent of pig-sticking, dodging your tailor’s bills, getting your head blown off at Third Ypres and being able to remove your tight white (cricket actually Zoe) trousers while still keeping your chukka boots on.
Your move ladies.
Meh.
I think you should all just calm down, cause you’re all pretty much in furious agreement.
No doubt the sheik was seriouly misogynist (and imo misandrist to boot – perhaps that evens out, equal offence to all generally available sexes).
Cristy’s quotes from Pastor Dave (mmm Pasta) are equally ludicrous, though the sheik’s language wins the ripe and smelly award. No doubt there’s an infinite number of quotes that could be dug up saying something along those lines, from the religious and not, religion doesn’t have a monopoly on misogyny.
It seems to me that Adam’s point is much the same as Cristy’s. The only reason the sheik’s comments met widespread approbation is because he’s Muslim, in a climate where it’s fashionable to (rhetorically at least) bash Muslims. The people peddling this sort of nonsense, whatever their religion colour or creed, should be called on it.
And, of course, the only person responsible for any rape is the rapist.
Rescue my poor comment from moderation!
And while you’re at it, rescue Nabs from his boots.
So this was you that Mel photographed at Honkytonks, Nabakov?
I just want to say I believe Father Dave has done some good work with homeless people in the Inner West of Sydney, for which I commend him. That doesn’t make his comments less misogynstic, rather, it makes me even sadder that a person who spends their time trying to help dispossessed people is at once completely blinded to the alienating effect of their own words.
Um, I should point here, most subalterns (Second Lieutenant in yankspeak) I’ve met are quite capable of having their head blown off and then still trying to remove their trousers to get a leg over. It’s a spinal cord thing.
“So this was you that Mel photographed at Honkytonks, Nabakov?”
Certainly not Laura. I’m talking no wrinkles and no Tradesman’s Valley of Paradise. Also good cricket trousers wash out easily unlike white jeans.
Let us all pause now to give grateful thanks to the patron saint of tight white unstained trousers, St Burt the Bacharach.
One boot off now.
Mmmmm tight white pants. Mind you, if Father Dave wears all his gear as tight as the shirt in that photo, then bending over would have been even more fraught with peril than I thought.
Re group intimacy, etc: I’ve taken my glasses off. But it isn’t helping.
Gayatri Spivak came to Melb U once and condescended to address the assembled worshippers. Ferocious, vain and hawt — but oddly lucid, for a post-Derridean.
She bummed a cigarette off me in 99 outside the lecture theatre at the Adelaide Art Gallery, PC. That’s my kinda post-structuralist…
“Mind you, if Father Dave wears all his gear as tight as the shirt in that photo…”
Well, straining shirt belly buttons, incipient jowls and a motheaten ‘tache is not a good look. I reckon he’s really let himself go, the poor dear. Not quite the fine figure of a man he’s now trying to project onto others.
But yes, he should be praised for actively working to bring street kids off the street and mussulmen into dialogue.
Though I’d like to see him go up against the old East End knuckleman and WW2 kraut-strangling Royal Marine Commando that first taught me about the basics of the noble art of biffo (”kick ‘em in the balls and run like hell”) at his club.
As Father Dave would hold his arm out for the opening glove tap, Harry would have simultaenously nutted him, kicked him in the goolies, opened a screwtop beer with his eyesocket and then lectured the crowd about sportsmanship.
I’ve now removed all three boots.
I trust this gesture of goodwill is now being reciprocrated on the other side of the screen.
I always nudeblog, Nabs.
You know that, pussycat.
Ps – Don’t tell Father Dave.
Message for Father Dave and his intrepid band of boy fighters:
Hi Laura,
I’m a long time reader and appreciator of your blog, and am honoured to have received a response from you! Namedropping Spivak comes in the category of telling people about myself – or at least my experiences of feminism – and I was merely suggesting to Nabokov that any possible argument conducted in blog comments could not be half as tough as reading her work.
I appreciate that this is not a context where anti-Muslim sentiment has been encouraged at all. I had assumed it was a public forum where intelligent discussion could take place on important issues, but it strikes me that a substantial part of what’s going on is territorial, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing necessarily. In retrospect, I should definitely have read more of the archive, but I figured that a few months reading pieces here and there was sufficient to see the scope of what tends to get discussed on LP. You’ll have to excuse me for not mentioning the other blog given the kind of response my initially mild suggestions have received – I have been told that I have made an arse of myself, that I am politically correct, that I might be a bit of a racist (in jest), and repeatedly to re-read Cristy’s post. What can I say? I still get stuck on the “festival of hatred”. I think it’s a ludicrous image.
As Mal has recognised my initial response to Cristy was hardly an out and out refutation of her post. In fact I began by admitting some confusion, and then I said that I agreed with what she was doing, but that there were risks to it. I’m glad that everybody’s had their fun with that, and I thank those of you who have gotten as far as genuinely explaining to me what I did wrong. I still don’t see a problem in mentioning problematic aspects of what people post. I don’t think I’ve been rude about it, and I don’t think it’s totally out of character for this blog to go where it has in these comments.
On Laura’s suggestion, follow the link and head over to USyd’s Thinking Culture and raise some objections to what I’ve written on some of these issues there. Hell, just reading it will be doing me a huge favour. Note, however, that my opinions aren’t those of the Department in general.
Sorry, I should also mention that Subaltern Studies was not Spivak’s thing at all. She did write two really important essays about it though – “Deconstructing Historiography” and “Can The Subaltern Speak?”. The subaltern studies guys were a bunch of Indian marxist historians who tried to redefine the objects of historiography in the 80s by talking about the activities of disenfranchised peasants. Spivak took the role of commentator and critic in relation to that group.
I defer to your superior knowledge, Adam.
Territorialism is probably a fair cop and I remember being irritated by what I perceived as clubbiness on a number of blogs when I started reading them. I still dislike it in some ways particularly as it sometimes puts new people off side and it makes it unduly easy for pile-ons to occur, when sometimes they aren’t deserved. But inasmuch as this place (& the wider network it’s part of) constitutes a community with norms and conventions and demographics different to other comunities, it allows for different kinds of discursive engagement, and that’s good. Not all things can be said in all languages.
So your criticisms are fair. On the other hand you have to admit, you did sink your teeth into the ‘festival of hatred’ line rather, and misread it. I took Cristy to be describing what does look alarmingly like an ecumenical, pantheistic religious festival – different faiths coming together to celebrate their common ground in men dominating women. And then she went on to elaborate on expressions on this from manly representatives of Catholics, Baptists and whatever New Age trip Leunig is on.
Unfortunately as the posts have continued to appear, I have tended to exagerrate my initial position, to arrive at an argument I hadn’t intended to have. What initially ‘caught’ me was a line of continuity between one kind of extreme, ‘in advance’ rhetoric, and another. But the critical environment here is profoundly different to a mainstream one, and that, I think, is the source of my misreading. And I don’t object to territorialism: an unknown quantity arriving bearing apparently misguided criticism is bound to provoke less than generous responses. It certainly goes on all over the blogosphere.
I think Cristy is doing part of what needs doing, and that is to explicitly cast the public gaze back onto those other patriarchal cultures that find their home in this country. I don’t think that is the answer that the Hilaly controversy demands, but I don’t think it’s a wrong answer either. If anything the tendency here is to a radically secular feminism, although I know that you suggested above that religion is not the source of this patriarchal stuff. Thanks for your generous responses, I’m sure I’ve already sapped too much of your time with this marginal issue.
The only reason the sheik’s comments met widespread approbation is because he’s Muslim
I don’t think so mal. The sheik’s remarks are streets worse than anything else we have seen from any other prominent religious leader – factor of 10 stuff. And he clearly believes what he says, and is wholly unrepentant. Don’t you recall the outrage about a a certain GG who ended up losing his job for making remarks which were comparitively inoffensive? (NB I said comparatively).
Go back and read the full transcript of the sheik’s sermon on the SBS site, and then try to justify your statement.
Back to the OP….
I have been ‘discussing’ this issue on some blogs that are not political in the slightest, and the scary thing is that much of mainstream Australia (and women to boot) are very caught up in this ‘the sluts are asking for it’ mentality. When you point out “How does that explain the rape of the elderly, straight men, children etc.”, well, that is different, isn’t it.
There is a HUGE stream of sexism in Australian culture, much of it perpetuated by women themselves. Why is this so? I don’t think it is a lack of education or opportunity – perhaps it is self interest? Turning against each other in a way? I would be genuinely interesed to know what other people think of this.
Megami, I think there are two main reasons for these views, which I don’t believe are based on sexism, but on ignorance:
1) A misunderstanding of rape. When people hear the word rape, they immediately think of an under-dressed woman in a dark alley late at night in a bad neighbourhood, when this is one of the least likely scenarios. Therefore, the risk management (not responsibility) of a rape victim is criticised. This attitude is not peculiar to rape; I recently got knocked off my motorbike and broke a leg. At least 75% of comments have been ‘well, it wasn’t your fault, but it serves you right riding a bike in traffic’.
2) The difficulty in establishing a crime. Unlike many other crimes there is no a priori evidence for most rapes. Unfortunately, when 2 stories contradict each other in the absence of any discriminating evidence, it becomes an issue of credibility. Although such evidence is no longer admissible in a court of law, many people will look at things such as dress and behaviour to inform their own judgement. Take the Corby case, most people have an opinion one way or another. They either believe her story, or they look at unrelated evidence, such as her fathers previous indiscretions and her brother, and judge that ‘on the balance’ she is most likely guilty as charged.
Adam, thank you for responding so reasonably to all of us when it would have been quite understandable for you to dig yourself in for a fight once you had been pounced on so thoroughly from so many of us. I respect the argument that I think you are trying to make, but believe ultimately that my rhetoric was justified and (as Laura put it) directed at [a festival of] men from a whole range of religious and cultural backgrounds.
I should, however, clarify that I had no intention of making this about religion per se (and should have been clearer about that). I consider myself to be a Christian – albeit a Quaker, which tends to be a little different – and believe that Jesus would have described himself as a feminist had he lived today. Of course, that has not stopped people from using all religions (including Christianity) to justify their own ideologies – including, but certainly not limited to, misogyny.
Well, my reading of it is essentially the same as my thoughts in 1985 on Lindy Chamberlain (who was, as those old enough may remember, condemned far more viciously by women than by men): that the scapegoating mechanism kicks in and one projects all of one’s own internalised but unresolvable darkness and chaos — the partriachal dicta about good/bad mothers, damned whores/God’s police, and any other false dichotomy you care to name — onto some conveniently external and highly visible figure.
Especially if it’s a hawt young half-naked one.
I agree with Pav here, but I also think part of it is some sort of magical thinking, a weakness to which all of us are prone unless we scrupulously and skeptically guard against it. Those who feel at a disadvantage (hypothetically let’s say through being dependent on male approval generally) may often be quick to jump on a bandwagon of condemnation against another of their own group who is perceived to have transgressed some code of expectations, subconsciously hoping that joining the chorus will act as a shield for themselves against criticism of a similiar kind.
Yes — and as a shield against their own criticism of themselves, too, which is part of that scapegoating mechanism — you exorcise your own ‘bad’ tendencies by projecting them onto somebody else.
And in the meantime there’s that social version of the Stockhom syndrome in operation — identifying with the dominant culture in the hope that one will be protected by it.
Everybody (everybody female, at least) loses out with this one because it is not possible to win. The values with which we’re all expected to identify say that we have to be sexy, or we will be despised, but we’re not allowed to be sluts, or we will be despised, and if you’re sexy you must be a slut, and will be despised.
Stockholm. Ahem.
No, I think you’re right Pav, it’s Stockhomme Syndrome
Or, How You Gonna Keep ‘em Down on the Femme.
Strong ropes, Pav.
Strong ropes.