By: Natalie Shobana Ambrose
theSun, Malaysia (pg 11)
November 29th, 2012
A defining moment in Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's political
career was when she fiercely took charge of the dispatch box to address Tony
Abbott during question time saying, "I will not be lectured about sexism
and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever".
She continued saying, "The leader of the opposition says that
people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for
high office. Well I hope the leader of the opposition has got a piece of paper
and is writing out his resignation".
She did not mince her words as Abbott moved uncomfortably, looking
visibly shamed as she chastised him. Three cheers for such eloquence and
boldness from a politician of the highest office to speak against sexism.
Yet, there are others who do not share the sentiments of Gillard as a
feminist hero only because her words and works do not seem to match – this list
includes Aboriginal rights and treatment, human rights, racism, views on war
and the like.
It's important for speeches, laws and regulations to tally with reality,
if not we run the risk of losing credibility. In that sense, I do applaud the
move to amend Dewan Rakyat's Standing Order 36(4), to state: "It shall be
out of order for members of the House to use offensive language or make a sexist
remark."
In this case, sexist remarks have been equated to safeguarding the
honour of women to quote the minister in the Prime Minister's Department, which
should extend to both sexes.
Though a praiseworthy move, it is hard to take it seriously when questions
of what constitutes sexism and who ultimately decides to take those found
guilty to task are not clear.
Given the subjective manner of this issue and the absence of gentlemanly
behaviour in politics, it may just become another sentence in a rule book that
looks nice but does not do much. The question of parliamentary immunity also
does not add weight to such an amendment .
There are two levels where there is a disconnect with regard to sexism
in Malaysia. The first involves what is written in the rule books and how it is
translated into policy – domestic and foreign. The second is what is written
and how it relates to daily behaviour.
As a country, how do we weigh issues of sexism against the wise words of
politicians? Clearly we do not lack in examples of the first disconnect. From
dismissing the needs of women's rights groups to be active in Malaysia to
twisting vile comments condoning rape, not to chastise those who utter such
disgraceful attitude but to use it for personal political leverage.
Then we have politicians who have been found guilty multiple times of
sexist comments in the court of public opinion, who confidently remain adamant
that it's acceptable to be sexist if provoked. These are the people who get air
time. Mind you, every day women are provoked by sexist behaviour, can we then
retaliate without consequence, Mr Politician?
This leads to the second disconnect, how sexism is an almost default
behaviour for many men. Comments on body parts, catcalls, hotness ratings, and
valuing aesthetic above aptitude, intelligence and capability, are common place
even in high office positions what more rampant in lower ranking ones.
It doesn't just end in the office, it is something women face on a daily
basis, so much so there is a dedicated website that records daily stories of
sexism by women across the world called Everyday Sexism.
It is one thing to want to increase women participation in the workforce
by 55% within the next three years, or pushing for more female representation
in director positions, all this is secondary to how women are treated and how
men are raised.
Fighting for the principle to respect women may seem noble but on the
flip side it shows how unequal our society truly is.
Inequality is clearly not just a serious issue in Malaysia alone, even
former French justice minister Rachida Dati is defined more by her personal
life than her contribution to office while male counterparts with equally or
more colourful private lives are not as tainted.
Evidently equality and respect for women vary not just between classes
but between borders and even within the ranks of more "advanced"
societies.
Paris-based feminist activist Anne Cécile Mailfert succulently sums up
the argument in a Guardian article on the issue of sexism, "Our fight for
parity is also about questioning our ability to fight sexist diktats, and the
system of male domination, and to construct male-female equality in every
field: to recognise the competence of women to exercise power is central and
transcends the political sphere".
On paper, sexism may now not be tolerated in Parliament, but as a
society, we still have a long way to go in treating women equally in the way we
think, speak and act on a daily basis.
Natalie hopes
more men and women start standing up against everyday sexism.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
