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 Darlen