RESPECT WOMEN AND END ALL SEXIST COMMENTS
by Loh Cheng Kooi
Barely has the dust of the “bocor incident” settled in the House of Parliament when we are jolted with yet another gender insensitive statement. It is outrageous that the Works Minister, Datuk Seri S Samy Vellu finds it necessary to draw a parallel between the dilapidated state of the 43 year old Parliament House which is in need of maintenance and renovation to the looks of a woman of 50 years. This is not the first time the Minister has made such statements. In October 2005, he was quoted to have compared “toilets to new brides”.
The Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) finds it is inexcusable that one of the longest serving Cabinet Ministers in the country chose a sexist comment to make his point on the need for renovation works on the Parliament House. His remarks reinforce the gender stereotype that a woman’s worth lies with her extrinsic attributes (looks) and not with her intrinsic qualities as a human being. His statement and comparison are demeaning and an affront to women of all ages as they reduce women to objects of beauty, depreciating in value over time.
The Works Minister’s comment taken together with the recent ‘bocor’ remark, also makes a mockery of the role and function of the Gender Cabinet Committee on Gender Equality and the government’s ratification of the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) as well as the Federal Constitution which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.
JAG calls upon the Prime Minister as Chairperson of the Gender Cabinet Committee to take this matter seriously and put an immediate stop to sexist comments from Cabinet and Parliament in general. JAG further urges the Prime Minister to ensure that all elected representatives undergo training on gender sensitivity on a regular basis.
For far too long, elected representatives have repeatedly made derogatory remarks against women, ranging from comments on their bodily functions to statements on their physical attributes, and have gotten away with such sexist language. Why are women constantly made easy targets and objects of ridicule, equated with a problem or used as a comparison whenever something goes wrong? These comments show a complete lack of gender sensitivity and reflect a deeply ingrained culture of patriarchy as well as a total lack of respect for women.
One can only wonder what it would take for our elected representatives to understand that gender insensitive and discriminatory remarks about women violate women’s dignity and basic rights. Perhaps all it needs is for the public to send a clear message at the next elections. Gender insensitive leaders should just be voted out.
Loh Cheng Kooi
Women’s Centre for Change Penang
On behalf of Joint Action Group for Gender Equality
22 May 2007
Yes a most ungentlemanly remark by a senior minister.
It really shows a person’s contempt for the fairer sex.
http://malaysiawatch2.blogspot.com/2007/05/should-abused-malaysian-women-strike-in.html
Samy Samy, i know u can say anything under the sun as u are untouchable even TunM dare not touch u when he was in power as u r the taiko of the indian party, without u, BN would lose many seats due to the indians votes. But i hope u will stop using woman to make comparison, that is not appropriate and need people like me to remind u, especiallu u are a senior minister and i am just a normal citizen of Malaysia. I hope your wife will not get angry with u over this as she is definitely more than 50 years old unless u have someone else who is younger!! dont playX2 with woman power, even TunM kept praising all the women just before every major election when he was in power!
http://iloveumalaysia.blogspot.com/
What else do you expect from SV?
QV?
Samy Vellu should comapre and draw a parallel between the dilapidated state of the 43 year old Parliament House which is in need of maintenance and renovation to the looks of he himself, the bulging belly, overweight barrel-shaped body of an aged man well over 50 years, well over the political shelf life.
Sexist comments reflects on the level of maturity of the person uttering it. It also shows that their minds are preoccupied with women only. The have the task to admnister the nation but only can think of making comparison to women. They forget that they too have wives, mothers and daughters. The debates in Parliament lacks the intellectual maturity required of respectable elected representatives. Its like a nasi lemak seller talking to a thosai maker and being listened to by the Char keow teow man….In the midst of all this they belittle the makcik, amma and nonya. Please grow up, be responsible and don’t waste the “Rakyat’s” hard earned money aimlessly.
Samy Vellu should compare the parliament building with his head.
After much weathering over 50 years of his life, his head begins to botak. Thus Samy Vellu has lost his charm and look like an ugly old man!
That is the reason why this ugly looking Samy Vellu decide to do hair transplant so that he can look more “handsome.
Sadly, this process makes him look even uglier. The hair grew out of position. and half botak. He now looks like ‘ET”.
Parliament is a joke, the cabinet is a joke, the PM is a joke and we are all losers at the end! Our leaders are impotent and seriously need viagra! When are they ever going to wake up and change for the better. God help us all.
u wont notice that he is embarrassed by AAB asking him to shutup as his skin is very the thick!
test
There is a difference between making a taunt of a women’s natural biological menstrual cycle and comparing the dilapidated state of the 43 year old Parliament House requiring maintenance and renovation to the looks of a woman of 50 years.
To be sure, both are similar in being gender insensitive and politically incorrect for Ministers or MPs alike to make.
There is however a difference in that reference to menstrual cycle is treated by ordinary men and women in a patriarchal society like ours as not just gender sensitive but offensive in a crude way, whereas, in the case of Samy Vellu’s analogy, it is well…… just gender insensitive.
The Joint Action Group for Gender Equality (JAG) is riled. It says that it is reinforcing “gender stereotype that a woman’s worth lies with her extrinsic attributes (looks) and not with her intrinsic qualities as a human beingâ€Â. It is only expected as to what JAG would say.
JAG is entitled to promote a women intrinsic qualities as a human. That is not only fair but it is in accord with the truth than a person whether men or women should be adjudged on the basis of merits of character and not creed, race, or for that matter the physical depredations of natural aging process.
But there are certain things that have to be faced up to as a matter of biological and sociological reality:
Whilst no one wants to denigrate the intrinsic worth of a woman as a human being, it is a sociological and biological fact that in the mating process between men and women, the comparative physical youth of a woman (plus physical attractiveness) is higher regarded by the men who themselves, in diametrical contrast, are higher regarded for their maturity, financial and social status that generally improve with age, up to a point. Evoluntionary biologists will attribute it to child bearing which youth favours.
The data (statistical or anecdotal) is for all to see and acknowledge : the majority of men marry women either same or younger than them (seldom older) and vice versa; women themselves spend an inordinate amount of their available financial resources on beauty products and commercial people and advertisers leverage on this fact.
Of course, a woman will protest against this inequality or lack of fairness. But ask her : other things being equal will she be attracted to a man younger than her?
If there were any inequity and unfairness on women, it is inflicted by her biological destiny and function to be the one of the two genders separated by sex, charged with the responsibility of conceiving, bearing and delivering children in respect of which youth is a plus factor and after 40 a minus factor in terms of increasing chances of down syndrome.
Hence youth is appreciated, and age depreciated for this reason in the case of a woman notwithstanding injustice to her intrinsic value as a person increased by age in terms of wisdom experience and maturity.
But the cruel fact is that if there were any injustice, it is the injustice inflicted by biology that comes with the burden of child bearing – something that men, throughout the ages especially in patriarchal society have been leveraging against women and sometimes, as Samy Vellu has done, cracked a joke at their expense. (By leveraging, a I mean men have, in polygamous societies taken younger wives and in monogamous societies recycle older ones for younger wives or mistresses [provided they have the resources of money, emotional spread and time).
Women can chastise the Minister for being insensitive to their biological predicament; they can chastise him of not knowing how to behave as a political leader and role model and for making politically incorrect and gender insensitive jokes reinforcing this gender stereotype of a woman’s social or matrimonial value being linked to youth and beauty and with advancing age needs ‘maintenance and repairs’) but they cannot deny the biological facts and reality!
JAG will serve the higher cause of women to grant them the allowance that they grasp and don’t reject realities and, at least some will have the grace of not being so terribly offended by Samy’s statement whilst others some actually see humour in his wise cracks! To be able to see humour is the first step to grace and freedom from this biological shackle that Nature imposes on women to bear (from which the gender stereotyping originates).
However politically incorrect or gender insensitive one may view Samy’s jokes, they cannot be placed and viewed in same platform as the crude remarks made by MP Mohd Said Yusof (Jasin) and Bung Mokhtar Radin (Kinabatangan).
“…//….Samy Vellu should comapre and draw a parallel between the dilapidated state of the 43 year old Parliament House which is in need of maintenance and renovation to the looks of he himself, the bulging belly, overweight barrel-shaped body of an aged man well over 50 years, well over the political shelf life….//…per Shortie Kiasu
He may well be over his political shelf life but let me tell you, my friend, his social shelf life in relation to younger women, if he opens up and makes himself accessible, is certainly not over, even without all the maintenance and repair (though that is not to say he does not do it) but had he been a woman, with a bulging belly, overweight barrel-shaped body, would the same apply? I don’t think so. Which he will say vindicates the point of his joke!
That pariah really has to step down. Yes i agree with you all that instead of comparing the dilapidated building with women, he should compare it with himself. Maybe we have to buy him a mirror so that he see the reflection of himself.
It is all about how a male with intelligent should behaves. In this case, Samy could not have been a man. The closest species man will ever find will be women, man is never perfect and that’s why you have the other half to remind you that. Man will be very lonely without women, and it is going to be very sad. Women is extraordinary with the sacrifices they can make if they love you, like your mother. Women is everything to a man only man don’t realize that, vice versa too.
But when a dilapidated building reminds a man of a old women? Why is the dilapidated parliament building reminds Samy of a old women? How can something that is not a living thing compares to old women? I don’t see any connection here, how many of you guys get some kind of reaction towards dilapidated buildings which ever reminds you of a female? This is a horrendous comparison, this is outright insult to women. This is worst than the two sexist MPs.
Jeffrey,
You speak as though no women is involved in this topic of discussion and as though you are speaking on behalf of women.Analyzing how women’s ‘nature’, behaviour, and even deciding on how women should accept the facts of life. I think, we should just focus on how Samy Velu should NOT use women as an example.
As for how women’s role is in society,leave it to us to decide on how we should behave,deal with issues or form opinions.I’m sure we know better.
OK ladies
Please forgive the old man as he forgot to take his Gingko Bilaba and other supplements.
Furthermore he did not expect to get shelled from faraway Tokyo. After all Dr M says the MIC is indispensable to BN survival.
And don’t forget even our Dr Chua says most Malaysians are gullible paying thousand to quakes to try and improve your assets.
Is Samy at 71 still a young chickoo? Everyone says he has false hair and he’s not looking any younger either. So why is he denigrating others especially women? Is he lacking something?
The way he talks and behaves reflects how he grew up, the rough and tumble way, perhaps with alot of chips on his shoulders. This accounts alot for his aggressiveness and at time unrefined language. Is it too late for him to change? A man who is in control, can.
If anybody is looking for a dose of sexism, watch the movie “Borat”. The main character who goes by the same name as the movie is so outrageously sexist. The movie grossed more than USDSL100.00 and I believe he won an award for his portrayal of a male chauvinist pig.
What does that tell us?
Whatever the message is, I think many MPs in the national circus that we call our Parliament may want to consider acting as a career. If you can make money by being sexist, why not??
million sorry
“Focus on how Samy Velu should not use woman as an example?†– Song
The issues here are whether if he did, thinking it’s a wise crack, is it right or wrong, (and whether that right or wrong is premised on standpoint of political correctness or ethics) and if it were wrong, the degree of how wrong (as compared to the bochor remarks of the two errant MPs) and what level of outrage or fuss we’re going to make out of it, and whether what Samy said may be mitigated by any element of humour or any justification as to FACTS, and whether this is another comparable case that we’re also going to escalate to ASEAN parliamentarians and GlobalPOWER (Partnership of Women Elected/Appointed Representatives) 2007 – all of which, or the objective determination of which, the facts of life and whether they are faced up to or denied (which you say “leave it to us to decide on how we should behave, deal with issues or form opinions. I’m sure we know better?â€Â) bear immediate relevance and connection in weighing of the equation. In a larger context, whilst we don’t want our women to be victimized or marginalized on gender basis, I assume it does not serve the interest of everyone to have women groups encourage women to be overly sensitive or crybabies, to see only pain and insult but never any humour, in every perceived politically incorrect statement or joke made by men heedless of whether it originates from any foundation of facts, whether sociologically or biologically justified and to large extent contributed by women themselves. You don’t help women nor the harmonious relations between the sexes by encouraging denial and supporting excessive over sensitivity on the part of women – though you and I may see differently on where to draw the line for the balance.
“…the Federal Constitution which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.†Loh Chang Kooi
The Federal Constitution prohibits discrimination along race and religion. That has not stopped discrimination along race and religion. Why would it stop at gender discrimination?
The issue of gender discrimination, by the way, is more relevant in the context of the workplace.
The Federal Constitution prohibits discrimination along race and religion only to the extent not otherwise provided or allowed for in other provisions of the same constitution. Race and religion are covered in these other provisions. The same cannot be said of sex. Don’t think there are any other provisions abridging or qualifying the general injunction under article 8(2) against discrimination on grounds of sex. I don’t think it is confined to work place alone.
I am mellowing daily. How about you Samy? Like they say, the chip on your shoulder should go first b4 you can change. Nobody is going to change you.
Why do you liken buidlings to women?
A women above 50 is mature, caring,wise and some God fearing. Why do you need to degrade them? Are you getting younger?
When was the last time you go naked and look at a full length mirrow?
Jeffrey QC,
“Sexism” is a social attitude and not about equal rights – whereas “gender discrimination” is (about equal rights between men and women). And as such it is more relevant when discussed in the context of the workplace.
Jeffrey,
Gender discrimination is covered under Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution of 1957:
“All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law”.
Once the NEP got enforced, even the Federal Constitution got left by the wayside and so after so many years of neglect by the authorities of good governance, open tenders and accountability, it is small wonder that we see such arrogant behaviour by many leaders; starting from the top and all the way down to the minions.
And corruption has been the common bond, pillaging all and sundry. So our high officials are so used to impunity, making rude remarks about anyone is par for the course.
Even the Health Minister claims that most Malaysians are gullible, paying thousands for beauty treatments and other quack cures.
There is some truth there – most Malaysians keep voting in a government that just blunders from day to day.
To Undergrad2,
Just to clarify:
What you quoted in article 8(1) is correct : it extends equal protection of law to persons in the same class and permits separate treatment where persons by nature, attainment, circumstances rationally dictate otherwise.
However article 8(2) is not on equal protection of law but on constitutional right from being irrelevantly discriminated on grounds of race and religion unless otherwise expressly provided for in other parts of Federal Constitution. 8(2) is supplemental to 8(1).
In 2001, amendment was made (by Mahathir) to article 8(2) which now reads (with amendment in capital) –
“Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, place of birth or GENDER in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employmentâ€Â.
The 2001 amendment to 8(2) is to cater specially for women gender rights and to bring the constitution in line with Malaysia’s ractification of CEDAW in 1995.
CEDAW is acronym for the United Nations’ Convention On The Elimination Of All Forms Of Discrimination Against Women. CEDAW, itself adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, is an international bill of rights for women, consisting of a preamble and 30 articles and provides the basis for realizing equality between women and men through ensuring women’s equal access to, and equal opportunities in, political and public life as well as education, health and employment. It also defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination.
CEDAW defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”
Article 8(2) has to be looked at and interpreted within this context of what CEDAW defines is discrimination.
.
The campaign to stop sexual harassment is but a smaller aspect of the broader framework of CEDAW’s principles and action plan.
In 1999 the then Minister of Human Resources launched the Code of Practice on the Prevention and Eradication of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Yes, sexual harassment relates to and is part of the workplace.
But article 8(2) is broader, way beyond work sexual harassment. It is about not being discriminated in promotion, in access to education, public facilities, social, business etc – the whole works so that gender alone shall no longer be a reason for exclusion of a female or equally a male unless there is a rational differentia.
‘Rational differentia’ is to me a rational a reason for differentiating other than discrimination. As to what is rational differentia one has to refer back to article 8(1) which, as I have earlier said, extends equal protection of law to persons in the same class and permits separate treatment where persons by nature, attainment, circumstances rationally dictate otherwise.
I think the wife will gv him 1 tight slap for that remark.
And how did he make love to the wife? Or maybe no more? Oh i get it. He just turn the lights off. No eye see. And mind you, it will be pitch DARK.
ignorant ppl of malaysia, unless you take affirmative action and exercise your voting rights wisely, the majority will keep voting these BN bigots, clowns & extremists back into govt – you deserve the govt you voted for… or did nothing about!
“Sexism†is a social attitude and not about equal rights – whereas “gender discrimination†is (about equal rights between men and women) – Undergrad2
I think you may be stumbling on to something here….Take the case of Samy Vellu’s drawing a parallel between the dilapidated state of the 43 year old Parliament House which is in need of maintenance and renovation to the looks of a woman of 50 years..
You can view the analogy as a gender insensitive and sexist remark. It may be viewed offensively sexist because the insult is of a nature that centres on the fact that the person receiving it is a woman and is intended to be demeaning to the person as a woman.
No matter how inappropriate or politically incorrect one views it (especially for a minister to make), did he infringe any law? Does he infringe discrimination of gender provision under article 8(2)? I don’t think so.
Supposing Samy (hypothetically) is not only insulting 50 year old women but he also insults men, calling them “sissy†or “effeminate�
How could he be gender discriminatory when he gives equal opportunity to both sexes being insulted albeit in different ways?
On the other hand, by way of contrast, an employer who makes no sexist remarks – and in fact has nothing but only sweet praises for women – could be gender discriminatory and deny a female employer of merits her promotion by virtue of she being a woman.
He infringed Article 8(2) and she can sue him. Worse still he uses his employer position to flirt or proposition her. Now that is not gender discriminatory but it is sexual harassment in work place, and again she can sue him.
What if a woman MP or Minister or public figure says to a man that “you think from the small head and not the big one?†Is this a sexist remark against the man, the men in Malaysia and all men – is this infringing of article 8(2) – and shall we get the ASEAN MPs also to pass a resolution against her?
Shortie kiasu says in his posting May 24th, 2007 at 4:59 pm that “Samy Vellu should compare and draw a parallel between the dilapidated state of the 43 year old Parliament House which is in need of maintenance and renovation to the looks of he himself, “the bulging belly, overweight barrel-shaped body of an aged man well over 50 yearsâ€Â.
If shortie kiasu were a woman making such a remark of a man (Samy Velu) shall we lobby to hold shortie kiasu culpable of making offensive sexist remarks contrary to the gender equality constitutional provision of Article 8(2)?
‘Samy Vellu’s drawing a parallel between the dilapidated state of the 43 year old Parliament House …. to the looks of a woman of 50 years..”
“…. did he infringe any law? Does he infringe discrimination of gender provision under article 8(2)? I don’t think so.” Jeffrey QC
Asked and answered.
The man violated not the Federal Constitution but social norms. It is not a crime under the country’s Penal Code to be sexist.
So why the uproar??
“What if a woman MP or Minister or public figure says to a man that “you think from the small head and not the big one?†Is this a sexist remark against the man, the men in Malaysia and all men – is this infringing of article 8(2) – and shall we get the ASEAN MPs also to pass a resolution against her?”
This is a brilliant analogy. Not about Samy and a woman MP but about the big head and the small head! But do be careful sometimes the bigger head is the smaller one.
The problem with this criticism is that Samy Vellu is an anachronism and like it or not, there is not much we can or willing to do about it. Being sexist is the least of his backwardness. How anyone can be allowed to stick around a job that he can’t seem to do properly after nearly 30 years speaks volume of castration of our political leadership.
Samy Vellu should be asked given a fixed time frame to bring the heads of those who did all the shoddy work or else bring his own head!!
Grace,
Please don’t compare Samy Velu’s with ET,,ET would be insulted. Even Orangutan looks better than SV.
Has anybody told this guy that he looks really idiotic with such fake hair? The hair job done so bad that it looks cracking flyovers that he builds over roads. No tells him that because all the people around him are ball carriers, just agree to whatever he does.
Rest,
Malaysia is not in the 3rd World category anymore, but we have gone into a new world..4th World. This is where common sense is not applied in our daily life.
There is no need to learn from Japan about maintenance mindset, we already know it, we have practiced so well in civil service until the past 30 years, we are going backward. In private sector maintenance mindset is applied very effectively.
Now there is no accountability in government sector, grave mistakes can be made and get away with it, example 2 cases; patients die because ambulance has no fuel and violent films can be shown in school to primary schools.
Only in 4th World, a highly educated minister can compare dilapidated building with ladies. He used the word ‘ugly’. Does women look ugly at 50s. People look different with age, but not ugly.
Sharizat,
U are ain 50s, and SV called you ugly, are you fine with it, going to ask for another apology?
“Jeffrey,
You speak as though no women is involved in this topic of discussion and as though you are speaking on behalf of women.Analyzing how women’s ‘nature’, behaviour, and even deciding on how women should accept the facts of life. I think, we should just focus on how Samy Velu should NOT use women as an example. ” – Song
This Jeffrey guy is all talk. He run his mouth without putting any thoughts to it first. And now, he is speaking as if he is representing all women.
I am sorry to say this but this guy is a coward and a gimp.
“…//….Only in 4th World, a highly educated minister can compare dilapidated building with ladies. He used the word ‘ugly’. Does women look ugly at 50s. People look different with age, but not ugly…//…†– Cinnamon
Let’s see what happens in the First World – the USA (compared to what Smay Vellu has done).
Well there:-
Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had mentioned Long Dong Silver or joked about a pubic hair on a Coke to employee Anita Hill;
US president enjoying fellatio with intern Monica Lewinsky in the hollowed White House and later testified that “he id not have sex†because on biblical authority (Onan) iit is important that for sex to happen there must not only be a spilling of a man’s semen but there must be the prospects of conception!
“The man violated not the Federal Constitution but social norms” – Undergrad2.
Whose social norms? Gender Equality, respect for women in the sense of not making sexist nuanced reference or remarks is a Western Norm (a throwback to times of feminism in the 70s, 80s of Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf?), which of course those of us, western educated, especially woman, embrace. But what about other sections of Malaysian society, we being multi cultural country? What is the proportion in relation to population of country are people subscribing to this modern western norm of Gender equality or respect for women for it to be now considered a social norm applicable to all? Would PAS spiritual advisor agree?
Islamists world over are fighting and resisting Pax Americanna – to run and dominate the world not only by military power buttressed by economic resources but by value system of liberal and human rights including gender equality, women’s rights legitimized through international institutions like the United Nations which the Anglo Saxon partners (US & UK in special relationship) exert disproportionate influence.
Traditionally Asian norms are patriarchal. Aren’t the prescriptions of major religions as stated in sacred religious text patriarchal and interpreted as such, and not in conformity with this so-called western norm of gender equality? So whose social norms has Samy Vellu violated – the majority?
Realworld – Thanks for the posting. At least we still know you are still around monitoring the goings on in this blog. :)
Jeffrey – thanks for your assumption that I am monitoring the goings on in this blog. I can see you are really into making assumptions; like you analyzing how women’s ‘nature’, behaviour, and even deciding on how women should accept the facts of life.
Good! Keep it up then.
This decrepit government is more than fifty years old.
It’s populated by people who are too senile to know what they are talking about. Or what they are doing. Most, if not all, are suffering from dementia.
Isn’t it time the electorate chuck them out and replace it with a vibrant, young, idealistic one formed by the DAP?
Spread the word!
wa lao eh. Semi is a disgrace to his mum.
It proves one point, almost 90% of our currently elected MPs are a lot of tin kosong.
Come the next general election, this 90% shall be REDUCED!
Their super-ego should be smashed to smithereens. And we should bring ACA to be directly under Parliament. Bring back local council elections.
On the ground, the people are getting weary. Day in, day out non-stop inept officials and broad daylight corruption and robberies, and even C4 murder.
It’s becoming more and more better from BN now …. Enjoy the shows
I wonder what was the intention of SV, uttering those words just after the “bocor” case.
When I first read about what he said in the paper, I told myself, “This chap is going to get it!”
Very insensitive, not compatible to his status.
Rightly, if he use himself as an analogy will be very appropriate.
Sexists Minister..
http://malaysiancartoons.blogspot.com/2007/05/sexists-minister.html
“Traditionally Asian norms are patriarchal. Aren’t the prescriptions of major religions as stated in sacred religious text patriarchal and interpreted as such, and not in conformity with this so-called western norm of gender equality? So whose social norms has Samy Vellu violated – the majority?†Jeffrey
Certain societies are patriarchal and others matriarchal. Polygamy is allowed in the former just as polyandry is practiced in certain primitive societies. Traditional Chinese society is patriarchal, meaning the male as head of household makes all the decisions, and often takes on multiple life partners (call them ‘wives’ or ‘concubines’ or ‘mistresses’). It is also in the old Judeo-Christian and Muslim tradition to have more than one life partner. The Old Testament of the Bible is abound with stories of prophets having numerous wives – in the hundreds in some cases but then it was at a time when men lived to be hundreds of years old. Sexism is nothing new. Adam, the first man and human being to walk the earth was sexist. God in creating Eve to break the loneliness that Adam has had to face was sexist.
Equality of the sexes is a recent invention. Women got their right to vote only at the beginning of the 20th century. With it values change. It is today no longer politically correct to be sexist though still socially acceptable. When the two country bumpkins in Malaysia’s Parliament (read: circus) stood up and shouted down Opposition members of Parliament, and used the now infamous word ‘bocor’ – clearly an innocent term up till then used to describe anything that leaks (and one does not expect anything like a human being to leak) including the deliberate leaking of official secrets – we pretend to be shocked and outraged that such sexist remark is still being made against women in our society.
The average Malaysian be he Chinese, Indian or Malay has always been sexist in his attitude. But to be sexist is not to condone derogatory remarks made about women generally.
What’s new?
“Sexism is nothing new. Adam, the first man and human being to walk the earth was sexist. God in creating Eve to break the loneliness that Adam has had to face was sexist†– Undergrad2.
But there are other gender unequal nuances relating to the first couple:
· Man, and not woman, was made in image God – and Eve, made from a bone from Adam’s rib, so that – so the joke goes – if women were imputed any contrariety or crookedness of thinking, it must be recollected in her defence that Eve was derived from the one of the crookedest part of the man’s anatomy (the rib)!
· In spite of specific injunction not to have anything to do with the serpent, it was Eve, and not Adam, who, out of sheer women’s insatiable curiosity, made the first infraction of conversing (some interpret as flirting) with the serpent and taking the bite of the forbidden apple – whilst her mate Adam was first asleep, which, as it turned out, was his last repose (in the sense of being kicked out from Garden of Eden with the rest of the descendants, damned).
“…//….The average Malaysian be he Chinese, Indian or Malay has always been sexist in his attitude..//..†– even so, with all the gender unequal (patriarchal norms and sexist jokes), it is downright rude and uncouth to rebut a serious point raised by a female Opposition MP by “bochor†references in the august chambers of parliament.
Perhaps it is timely that I quote to you a passage on the issue of sexism in a book about the Bible by Kenneth C. Davis:
“Few biblical or religious questions have divided people more deeply in recent times than the role of women in the Scriptures. The Bible has been used a s cudgel against women for centuries. Biblical stories granting men supremacy over women – from the Garden of Eden through the early Christian church – seemingly conferred ‘divine authority’ on women’s second-class status. Second class status in synagogues and churches cemented second -class status at home. The biblical role laid out for women seemed clear: make babies and make dinner.”
The book by Kenneth Davis is a national bestseller. Go read. It is a very interesting read to those unafraid of challenges to their way of thinking.
I have always known that many references in sacred religious texts – not limited to Bible – express or implied may be or have been interpreted as “sexist” in sense gender equal to women. What amazes me is the refusal of many embracing the western value of gender equality to not acknowledge the inconsistency of these religious references with the aforesaid value of gender equality in order to have, consciously or unconsciously the best of both worlds. Sometimes even the most disciplined of minds which are normally rational, logical and objective in other matters would recoil from acknowledging inconsistencies uncomfortable to them emotionally and endeavour their level best to reconcile by process of forced rationalisation the irreconcilable. Such is the inclination and capacity of humans, even the most intelligent ones, to apply, for expedience their intellect for service of their ends (that which is comfortable and what they like to believe) than to derive at the inevitable conclusion that is the truth but unpleasant to them. It is ever more often the case that the intellect is a means to serve the ends – and the ends justifying whatever means – when ends here means human ends (to be happy, feel security, safety, comfort and certainty) not always including the abstract Truth.
Typo omission in 3rd or 4tgh line from top of posting – “in sense NOT gender equal to women”. Sorry.
WE talk of balanced diet, balanced view, balanced this and balanced that because balance, as a principle, is important and it is so because Life is not so simple and even in the pursuit of values, there are so many competing and often conflicting values that we desire at the same time, for which reason “balance” becomes relevant. The trouble is it is easier said than done. A good example is this issue of sexism, sexist remarks and gender stereotyping and how to “balance” what’s permissible and what’s not. Life is worser, with no humour, no colour, with much over-sensitivity and possibly tension between the genders, if one carries with evangelical zeal to wage the political fight to eliminate every remark, joke or statement that could possibly be interpreted as sexist, never mind the context in which it is made, or that the remark, joke or statement has factual basis or not motivated by malice or disrespect or disdain for another human being.
When one talks about gender equality & respect it means not only respect shown by men to women but vice versa equal respect from female to men. As I earlier illustrated, instead of saying that I am stupid, a woman tells me that I think from the small head and not the big one, am I to make a big hue and cry over it that she has made a sexist remark about me?
I don’t. In fact I prefer her sexist remark that humour me than the neutral one that I am stupid. There are some reasons for this : first, there’s some truth and factual basis that many though not all men think from the small head than the big one when interfacing with attractive females (in certain situtations); again, I feel secure enough not to be insensitive when she hurls a sexist insult at me (sometimes not really actuated by any profound malice) and thirdly I too have to take personal responsibility for my situation (say, biological) and accept certain inadequacies or disadvantages and should try not to take offense, in a petty and sensitive way, at every political incorrect and sexist remark thrown my way by a woman. Would you think me a better person to make a big hue and cry that when a woman says to me that I think from smaller head and not big one, it is an insult not only to me but all men of the world? If its OK for me a man to take such a charitable view, why can’t the woman? If you say that is because I am a man and not a woman and therefore should rise about this sexist remark, then you’re in trouble again because you have a “sexist” remark. See how Life has become difficult when one takes extreme view of things and ideology (like for example ideology of gender equality)?