by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 08 April 2007)
After returning from my sabbatical, I wanted to address a few things that had been on my mind concerning women’s issues. Then there was that pesky little BBC reporter that needed to be taught a thing or two about international niceties.
However, in the meantime, I have sorely overlooked a long overdue acknowledgement of dear Sweet and Sensitive Freddie Kissoon in regards to his query about my absence and a response to his assertion that I had somehow lost my groove – “again.”
I certainly do not want to seem ill-mannered and since one of Freddie’s columns has caused me ire this past week, it seems there would be no better time than the present to address some of his previous tittle-tattles and taunts.
Naturally, I feel it necessary to first refreshed my aging colleague’s mind and assert that it was not I who had lost my groove so many months ago, but Freddie himself who jumped to a conclusion that I had somehow implicated him in a matter concerning a letter to the Editor about the President suing a newspaper and a citizen for printing material he found to his Excellency’s disliking (His Excellency, the President - not Mr. Kissoon).
I was then forced to respond to Sweet and Sensitive Freddie in a forceful manner to point out the powerful energy of my groove and just how weak his groove appeared at that particular time. Freddie and I eventually ironed out our differences, as is clear in his column from January 31 when he said all sorts of very nice things about me, which is a great example of why I call him Sweet and Sensitive Freddie.
However, like any mere human (yes, Freddie, you are a mere human too), it seems my friend can find himself in the same trap as the rest of us when it comes to stereotyping a section of people. Case in point, Freddie’s column from April 2 was as stereotypically nasty as the now infamous column from the BBC sports writer Martin Gough.
In fact, Freddie’s obvious contempt for western journalists and Anglo-Saxons far surpassed Gough’s hasty judgement of Guyana and was ever bit as ugly as the article in the current Caribbean Beat by James Fuller, which was all too quick to point out the blemishes of the Caribbean people without mentioning any of the beauty.
Fuller’s article was brought to my attention by the Guyana media critic, who has – much to my disappointment - been quite slow on his blogging lately. I do hope he is just busy with all of the fun of cricket and not retiring his good sense and keen eye on a permanent basis.
Let us return to Freddie’s sweeping comments about western journalists and Anglo-Saxons. I feel it necessary to point out that Freddie was responding to a Bill Cotton (John Mair) column in Stabroek News in which Mair defended Gough’s distasteful assessment of Guyana.
It is not Freddie’s decision to respond that I find offensive; it is the response itself. To my deep disappointment, Freddie said, “Western journalists and travel writers display a deep Freudian superiority complex when describing the Third World. There is the definite instinct that ‘we are more civilised, developed and modern than them and they are the poor and wretched of the earth’.”
I feel this is a bit unfair, since I am in fact a western journalist and do not share these sentiments at all about any Third World country. But Freddie went on, “It is not that we are dismissed as poor, which is the heart of the problem. The western journalist evaluates our human condition by the state of our economy. We are thus classified as flawed human beings, not because we have character faults but because our economy is not developed.”
Again, this is stereotyping all of western journalism as arrogant fiends, a fact that is simply not true. There are scores of western journalists who care about the lives of others outside of their western nation as much as I do and have the capacity to judge a person by his/her true character.
All of this I would debate with my Sweet and Sensitive Freddie, which I may do in person very soon, but it is one of the last of his points that took me by utter surprise. He said, “One senses that a Freudian, racist mind, too, is at work in western journalism that looks down even on the non-Anglo-Saxon world. American, French, British and German reporters do not see Greeks and Northern Italians, Singaporeans and Japanese in the same way they perceive Irish and Anglo-Saxon, and Teutonic societies.”
Are you saying that all of western journalism is racist and uncompassionate? Are there are no good and decent journalists in the western world, Freddie? Is there not even one western journalist who sees those in the third world as equal to those in the western world?
Freddie, my friend, this statement is something I expect from the shallowest of individuals, not from an educated and freethinking mind. In one statement, you swept every caring and respectable journalist in the western world (like me) into the same dustpan as the arrogant and obdurate (like Fuller). I do not deserve such a judgement and there are many more just like me, dear friend.
I do not for one second negate the fact that there are also numerous western journalists who fit your description. They may even be in the majority. However, there are also many of us who stand far from your assessment.
In short, Freddie, your assessment was completely unfair. Moreover, you trapped yourself with your own net in this argument because you became the very person on which you were attempting to condemn. In questioning Gough’s quick assessment of Guyana, you asked if it was his Freudian mind at work. Likewise, you pondered the equivalent of Mair. I now wonder the same of you, dear friend.
You have stepped on my toes, Freddie, and I just bought these new patent leather peep toes. I do hope this was just one song to which you could not groove. Surely you just got caught up in the nastiness of all the mischaracterising and stereotypical writing that seems to be circulating the Caribbean right now for some reason.
I would hate to think we could never groove again since you think so little of this Anglo-Saxon western journalist. Because I must make myself very clear, I do not groove with shallow-minded people – no matter how brilliant they think they are.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Stella Says…What does a BBC sports writer know of Guyana?
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 01 April 2007)
After reading last Tuesday’s front-page comment by this newspaper about a blog written by BBC Sport Journalist, Martin Gough, as well as the blog itself, I decided to go to the Website in question to do some further reading.
It turns out that Gough was taken aback by the response to his blog and offered an apology for angering the Guyanese. He said in his blog the next day, “If you took offence, I apologise. I am in Guyana for 14 more days, during which time I expect to have far more positive experiences to pass on and I hope it won’t all be taken in the same way.”
In truth, it seems to me that Gough’s hurtful remarks were done more from sheer ignorance than pure arrogance – although the latter played a significant role as well. This is typical of Western attitude – and I should know. I see this attitude far too often.
For example, he probably did not know that the statement about his “rudimentary hotel” would have people seething because the nation at large was proud to offer him a comfy place to stay – even if it was not up to his lofty standards.
A year ago, Guyana would have not had the capability to house even the teams, much less the media. Obviously, Gough did not realise how much hard work Guyana has put into making sure it was ready for the CWC or how much financial strain it has been under with such an undertaking.
So allow me to take the precious time necessary to explain a few things to Mr. Gough, so that he will not make this same mistake in another country. You see, Martin (May I call you Martin? Thanks ever so much.), Guyana may not have very much - yet, but it is quite proud of what it does have.
This nation has been in constant struggle, each and every single day, since their independence. If it is not one thing that pulls them down, then it is another. They have had a healthy share of despots for leaders, Martin. The entrenched poverty sends many of their best minds to the shores of other countries.
The racial division, initiated by the nation’s previous despotic leaders from your very own country, also divides the people politically and drives a tangible fear into their hearts around every election time.
Yet despite all of these – and many more – barriers, the Guyanese still remain strong and forge ahead, hoping one day to find a way to make their nation great. This is why they have sacrificed and invested so much to bring the CWC here in the first place, and why they were so insulted at your haughty statements.
This whole nation has been waiting with bated breath to finally have the world say something kind about the land they love so much. They have always believe that if the world could see how beautiful Guyana truly is, then everyone else would love it just as much.
Then you came along and the first words they hear about their beloved Guyana is from a sports commentator who is so spoilt that he does not have the sensibilities to connect with the nation before doling out off-handed remarks or the common sense to research a country to which he was assigned for his insight into a mere game.
Your blog says you have now taken the time to go to Kaieteur Falls, a trip most Guyanese have not even been privileged. That should have adjusted your view of Guyana a bit. A boat ride down the Essequibo River would do the same. Moreover, the local cuisine is to die for.
Allow me to share the sentiments of a fellow Brit with you about Guyana. In 1860, this is what Anthony Trollope said concerning Guyana:
Martin, almost a century later, Guyana was free from Britain, but not from the innate problems left behind by its colonial masters. While you have been living in a virtual political and social bubble across the ocean, the Guyanese have been trying to build a goodly nation. A nation you had the audacity to deeply hurt with your careless words.
On your blog, you seemed taken aback by the reaction of the locals to your quick evaluation of their nation. That is because you did not understand them or how much weight your words carried at this crucial point. They have a lot resting on the CWC.
Maybe you will understand them a little better now and appreciate that “rudimentary hotel” for the true miracle it is to the people of Guyana. If not, then it would behove of the BBC to find a sport commentator with the ability to truly appreciate the finer things in life, which have nothing at all to do with hotel rooms.
By the way, you have a typo in your now infamous blog.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 01 April 2007)
After reading last Tuesday’s front-page comment by this newspaper about a blog written by BBC Sport Journalist, Martin Gough, as well as the blog itself, I decided to go to the Website in question to do some further reading.
It turns out that Gough was taken aback by the response to his blog and offered an apology for angering the Guyanese. He said in his blog the next day, “If you took offence, I apologise. I am in Guyana for 14 more days, during which time I expect to have far more positive experiences to pass on and I hope it won’t all be taken in the same way.”
In truth, it seems to me that Gough’s hurtful remarks were done more from sheer ignorance than pure arrogance – although the latter played a significant role as well. This is typical of Western attitude – and I should know. I see this attitude far too often.
For example, he probably did not know that the statement about his “rudimentary hotel” would have people seething because the nation at large was proud to offer him a comfy place to stay – even if it was not up to his lofty standards.
A year ago, Guyana would have not had the capability to house even the teams, much less the media. Obviously, Gough did not realise how much hard work Guyana has put into making sure it was ready for the CWC or how much financial strain it has been under with such an undertaking.
So allow me to take the precious time necessary to explain a few things to Mr. Gough, so that he will not make this same mistake in another country. You see, Martin (May I call you Martin? Thanks ever so much.), Guyana may not have very much - yet, but it is quite proud of what it does have.
This nation has been in constant struggle, each and every single day, since their independence. If it is not one thing that pulls them down, then it is another. They have had a healthy share of despots for leaders, Martin. The entrenched poverty sends many of their best minds to the shores of other countries.
The racial division, initiated by the nation’s previous despotic leaders from your very own country, also divides the people politically and drives a tangible fear into their hearts around every election time.
Yet despite all of these – and many more – barriers, the Guyanese still remain strong and forge ahead, hoping one day to find a way to make their nation great. This is why they have sacrificed and invested so much to bring the CWC here in the first place, and why they were so insulted at your haughty statements.
This whole nation has been waiting with bated breath to finally have the world say something kind about the land they love so much. They have always believe that if the world could see how beautiful Guyana truly is, then everyone else would love it just as much.
Then you came along and the first words they hear about their beloved Guyana is from a sports commentator who is so spoilt that he does not have the sensibilities to connect with the nation before doling out off-handed remarks or the common sense to research a country to which he was assigned for his insight into a mere game.
Your blog says you have now taken the time to go to Kaieteur Falls, a trip most Guyanese have not even been privileged. That should have adjusted your view of Guyana a bit. A boat ride down the Essequibo River would do the same. Moreover, the local cuisine is to die for.
Allow me to share the sentiments of a fellow Brit with you about Guyana. In 1860, this is what Anthony Trollope said concerning Guyana:
When I settle out of England, and take to the colonies for good and all, British Guiana shall be the land of my adoption. If I call it Demerara perhaps I shall be better understood. At home there are prejudices against it I know. They say it is a low, swampy, muddy strip of alluvial soil, infested with rattlesnakes, gall nippers, and musquitoes [sic] as big as turkey-cocks; that yellow fever rages there perennially; that the heat is unendurable; that society there is as stagnant as its waters; that men always die as soon as they reach it; and when they live are such wretched creatures that life is a misfortune… There was never a land so ill spoken of - and never one that deserved it so little. All the above calumnies I contradict; and as I lived there for a fortnight – would it could have been a month! – I expect to be believed.
…For Demerara is the Elysium of the tropics – The West Indian happy valley of Rasselas – the one true and actual Utopia of the Caribbean Seas – The Transatlantic Eden.
The men in Demerara are never angry, and the women are never cross. Life flows along on a perpetual stream of love, smiles, champagne, and small talk. Everybody has enough of everything. The only persons who do not thrive are the doctors…
Martin, almost a century later, Guyana was free from Britain, but not from the innate problems left behind by its colonial masters. While you have been living in a virtual political and social bubble across the ocean, the Guyanese have been trying to build a goodly nation. A nation you had the audacity to deeply hurt with your careless words.
On your blog, you seemed taken aback by the reaction of the locals to your quick evaluation of their nation. That is because you did not understand them or how much weight your words carried at this crucial point. They have a lot resting on the CWC.
Maybe you will understand them a little better now and appreciate that “rudimentary hotel” for the true miracle it is to the people of Guyana. If not, then it would behove of the BBC to find a sport commentator with the ability to truly appreciate the finer things in life, which have nothing at all to do with hotel rooms.
By the way, you have a typo in your now infamous blog.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Stella Says…Is it unrealistic to expect purity until marriage?
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 25 March 2007)
There is a new phenomenon in the US that is very disturbing. In fact, this new development even has the Arabic news station Al Jazeera scratching its head since the US is suppose to be a leader in gender equality. I am talking about the latest trend called Purity Balls.
A Purity Ball has all the ingredients of any nicely prepared formal ball. There are flowing gowns and black tuxes, practiced dancing to lively music and white candles sparkling throughout the ballroom. This is all very lovely.
Those attending a Purity Ball are young women with their fathers as their dates, and as they swirl about on the dance floor, it is no doubt a sight that would warm even the coldest of hearts. At first glance, it would appear that this event is simply an opportunity for dads to have some quality time with their little girls and perhaps get to know them a little better.
However, it is what happens toward the end of the event that causes me to lose that warm fuzzy feeling. At a predetermined time, each one of the girls reads to her father from a printed card that was placed on the table in front of her seat, at which time she promises her father that she will remain pure by abstaining from sex until she is married. The ages of these girls range from as young as 11 all the way into their twenties.
I have no problem with teaching abstinence to our children as a way to avert them from the pressures and dangers of a sexually active life until they are ready to assume the responsibilities that accompany such a weighty decision.
However, practically speaking, we all know that young men and women will explore those feelings and urges developing at an alarming rate during puberty. It is a natural and biologically driven desire that pushes teens to want to see what their quickly developing bodies can do.
Case in point, 88 percent of those who pledge abstinence at these Purity Balls wind up breaking their pledge and having sex before marriage, according to a study by Peter Bearman, the Chair of Columbia University's Department of Sociology, and Hannah Bruckner of Yale.
I too have quite a few issues with these Purity Balls. Firstly, why are there no such balls for the boys? It is so hypocritical and highly unrealistic to expect the young women to remain chaste if the young men are not expected to do the same. This is a perfect example of the double standard set by society for women.
Secondly, this pledge of purity further perpetuates an unhealthy relationship between parents and children concerning sex. When a young woman takes this oath of purity, but changes her mind and decides to have sex, she will feel completely reticent about speaking to her parents about her decision.
Thirdly, while young men are seldom taught sexual restraint during their formative years, young women are taught to feel guilty for their sexual explorations. A broken promise to their father adds additional guilt to a natural experience. Meanwhile, neither the girls nor the guys are being taught how to act responsibly with their sexuality.
Lastly, it seems to me that these Purity Balls, where the girl pledges her purity to her father until she is married and belongs to another man, are simply a contemporary nod to the old patriarchal system that encourages the ideology that men are somehow the ones who decide what is best for a woman.
This sends the wrong message to our daughters when we are trying to teach them to be independent, freethinkers who thrive in today’s world and who can get along fine with or without a man by her side. Every woman should be the master of her own body and the decision about whether to have sex or not should be hers alone – hopefully after her parents have educated her on the weight of such a decision and responsible sexual conduct.
Let’s talk about reality for a minute and leave aside our archaic notions of pre-marital sexual activity. In reality, every single day thousands of teenage girls (and boys) are having sex in Guyana, the US and every other country in the world. To expect an oath of abstinence until marriage from a young woman is as unreasonable as expecting it from a young man.
However, it is not the sexually active young man who gets tagged with unflattering labels. This is another social double standard. With whom do right-thinking parents think these young men are having sex? They are having sex with the young women, of course. The sooner we realise that our teens are having sex, and lots of it, the soon we can start acting like conscientious parents.
As such, would it not be more practical to teach these youngsters about responsible sexual conduct instead of placing unreasonable expectations on them that create feelings of failure and guilt about an action that is biologically natural?
Would it not be socially proper to create an atmosphere at home that is open for teens to talk to their parents about their sexuality instead of leaving their children to explore such an important part of their life as a trial and error experience?
We can be such prudes sometimes with our own sexuality that we shy away from the important task of educating our teens about sex. In the meantime, they are learning about it on the street – the worst place ever. The street does not teach our girls about sexually contracted diseases, what steps to take to prevent pregnancy or how to fend off an unwanted sexual advance.
We do not need a new trend that unrealistically insists on purity until marriage, we need to live in reality and teach our daughters – and our sons – about responsible sexual conduct. If we keep our heads in the clouds and believe teens will remain pure until they are married, we do them and society a terrible injustice.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 25 March 2007)
There is a new phenomenon in the US that is very disturbing. In fact, this new development even has the Arabic news station Al Jazeera scratching its head since the US is suppose to be a leader in gender equality. I am talking about the latest trend called Purity Balls.
A Purity Ball has all the ingredients of any nicely prepared formal ball. There are flowing gowns and black tuxes, practiced dancing to lively music and white candles sparkling throughout the ballroom. This is all very lovely.
Those attending a Purity Ball are young women with their fathers as their dates, and as they swirl about on the dance floor, it is no doubt a sight that would warm even the coldest of hearts. At first glance, it would appear that this event is simply an opportunity for dads to have some quality time with their little girls and perhaps get to know them a little better.
However, it is what happens toward the end of the event that causes me to lose that warm fuzzy feeling. At a predetermined time, each one of the girls reads to her father from a printed card that was placed on the table in front of her seat, at which time she promises her father that she will remain pure by abstaining from sex until she is married. The ages of these girls range from as young as 11 all the way into their twenties.
I have no problem with teaching abstinence to our children as a way to avert them from the pressures and dangers of a sexually active life until they are ready to assume the responsibilities that accompany such a weighty decision.
However, practically speaking, we all know that young men and women will explore those feelings and urges developing at an alarming rate during puberty. It is a natural and biologically driven desire that pushes teens to want to see what their quickly developing bodies can do.
Case in point, 88 percent of those who pledge abstinence at these Purity Balls wind up breaking their pledge and having sex before marriage, according to a study by Peter Bearman, the Chair of Columbia University's Department of Sociology, and Hannah Bruckner of Yale.
I too have quite a few issues with these Purity Balls. Firstly, why are there no such balls for the boys? It is so hypocritical and highly unrealistic to expect the young women to remain chaste if the young men are not expected to do the same. This is a perfect example of the double standard set by society for women.
Secondly, this pledge of purity further perpetuates an unhealthy relationship between parents and children concerning sex. When a young woman takes this oath of purity, but changes her mind and decides to have sex, she will feel completely reticent about speaking to her parents about her decision.
Thirdly, while young men are seldom taught sexual restraint during their formative years, young women are taught to feel guilty for their sexual explorations. A broken promise to their father adds additional guilt to a natural experience. Meanwhile, neither the girls nor the guys are being taught how to act responsibly with their sexuality.
Lastly, it seems to me that these Purity Balls, where the girl pledges her purity to her father until she is married and belongs to another man, are simply a contemporary nod to the old patriarchal system that encourages the ideology that men are somehow the ones who decide what is best for a woman.
This sends the wrong message to our daughters when we are trying to teach them to be independent, freethinkers who thrive in today’s world and who can get along fine with or without a man by her side. Every woman should be the master of her own body and the decision about whether to have sex or not should be hers alone – hopefully after her parents have educated her on the weight of such a decision and responsible sexual conduct.
Let’s talk about reality for a minute and leave aside our archaic notions of pre-marital sexual activity. In reality, every single day thousands of teenage girls (and boys) are having sex in Guyana, the US and every other country in the world. To expect an oath of abstinence until marriage from a young woman is as unreasonable as expecting it from a young man.
However, it is not the sexually active young man who gets tagged with unflattering labels. This is another social double standard. With whom do right-thinking parents think these young men are having sex? They are having sex with the young women, of course. The sooner we realise that our teens are having sex, and lots of it, the soon we can start acting like conscientious parents.
As such, would it not be more practical to teach these youngsters about responsible sexual conduct instead of placing unreasonable expectations on them that create feelings of failure and guilt about an action that is biologically natural?
Would it not be socially proper to create an atmosphere at home that is open for teens to talk to their parents about their sexuality instead of leaving their children to explore such an important part of their life as a trial and error experience?
We can be such prudes sometimes with our own sexuality that we shy away from the important task of educating our teens about sex. In the meantime, they are learning about it on the street – the worst place ever. The street does not teach our girls about sexually contracted diseases, what steps to take to prevent pregnancy or how to fend off an unwanted sexual advance.
We do not need a new trend that unrealistically insists on purity until marriage, we need to live in reality and teach our daughters – and our sons – about responsible sexual conduct. If we keep our heads in the clouds and believe teens will remain pure until they are married, we do them and society a terrible injustice.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Stella Says…The mistress role hurts the women’s movement
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 18 March 2007)
When I talk about issues that effect women, 99 percent of the time my focus is rightly on how the current patriarchal system has twisted reality to the point that both men and women often mistakenly believe that females are less valuable to society than males.
However, in today’s column I want to touch on an issue that is very harmful to women worldwide and that - although it is still a by-product of patriarchal rule - is perpetuated by women. I am speaking of women who willingly chose to enter into a relationship with a married man even when she knows he has a wife and family.
The mistress role is one of the most degrading relationships in which a woman can choose to become involved, yet every day millions of women do it willingly and in the process hurt the cause of women severely.
The mistress role is the perfect example of a woman being used for sex - and very little more. Those sold into slavery for sex have no choice in their situation at all and prostitutes are often just trying to make some sort of money to live. Contrarily, a mistress allows herself to be used for sex even when she knows she will gain nothing in return but hurt and heartache.
In the meantime, while she is allowing some man to use her for sex, the cheating husband has a wife at home who most times knows full well about the affair and must decide on whether to confront her husband and kick his sorry ass out or keep her mouth shut because she cannot bear the idea of trying to raise their children on her own.
There are many reasons why a woman might decide to allow herself to become a mistress, but low self-esteem is at the crux of every reason because she likes it when he makes it seem that he has chosen her over his wife, even when this is not truly the case. This makes her feel as if she is better than another woman.
Additionally, the mistress might hope for money or gifts in return for her silence. She might want power if the man even has any power to offer. Or there might just be a real connection between the two people, or a sex appeal, or she might even love the man.
Quite frankly, not one of these reasons I have listed, or any others that someone else might think up, are good enough to break a family apart. None of these reasons provide any would-be mistress with the justification to move in on another woman’s husband or to respond to that husband’s advances toward her.
I am not going to cite religious verses about sex outside of marriage because they are just control methods from the patriarchal system to make women feel guilty for having sex. However, speaking purely from a social standpoint, marital trysts cause too many women to face single parenthood, which hurts the children and contributes to poverty (single mothers make up the majority of the poor in the world)
When a man and a woman get married and have children, they have made a vow to each other that should be honoured. If either person does not feel he or she can adhere to that vow, then the problem is easily solved – just do not get married in the first place.
A single person, male or female, can have responsible sex with whom ever they please without hurting anyone else. A marital affair hurts so many people and has a negative impact on society at large.
Worst of all, the mistress has positioned herself in a very degrading role and has betrayed her own gender – specifically, a fellow sister who is trying to do right by society and raise her children in a family setting with a mother and a father. Every single mistress needs to ponder the fact that she too may one day be a married mother who wants the father around to raise her children.
Of course, there is always the mistress who naively believes her lover will leave his wife and family for her one day. Sweetheart, you are being used in so many ways already, please do not let your heart overrule your common sense, too.
Even if he does leave his wife, is that the type of man with whom you want to have children? Do you really want to be with someone who balks at his responsibilities as a father and husband and takes up with the next young, pretty face to come along? I can assure you, he will do it to you too when you start expecting him to act like a father and a husband.
I believe every cheating husband has one thing in common, he would rather find a fresh new face that is naïve about relationships and use that girl for sex and intimacy before trying to work through a tough marriage relationship (which is probably tough because the man never knew how to develop and foster a truly caring relationship in the first place).
Women have enough to deal with in society – inequality, sexual harassment in the workplace, physical and mental abuse and social marginalisation – thanks to thousands of years of male rule. The last thing we need is a woman hurting another woman.
Women need to stand together to make the world a better place for ourselves and our daughters. If we cannot trust the men to do right by us, we should at least be able to expect women to do right by each other.
When women finally start coming together instead of hurting each other and pushing each other away, that is when we will be able to change the present course of history and form a whole new way of life for all women worldwide.
Keep this column in mind, Ms. Mistress, next time he comes knocking on your door. You are not creating a future for yourself when you are rolling around in that bed. You are actually destroying your future and the futures of so many other women and children.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 18 March 2007)
When I talk about issues that effect women, 99 percent of the time my focus is rightly on how the current patriarchal system has twisted reality to the point that both men and women often mistakenly believe that females are less valuable to society than males.
However, in today’s column I want to touch on an issue that is very harmful to women worldwide and that - although it is still a by-product of patriarchal rule - is perpetuated by women. I am speaking of women who willingly chose to enter into a relationship with a married man even when she knows he has a wife and family.
The mistress role is one of the most degrading relationships in which a woman can choose to become involved, yet every day millions of women do it willingly and in the process hurt the cause of women severely.
The mistress role is the perfect example of a woman being used for sex - and very little more. Those sold into slavery for sex have no choice in their situation at all and prostitutes are often just trying to make some sort of money to live. Contrarily, a mistress allows herself to be used for sex even when she knows she will gain nothing in return but hurt and heartache.
In the meantime, while she is allowing some man to use her for sex, the cheating husband has a wife at home who most times knows full well about the affair and must decide on whether to confront her husband and kick his sorry ass out or keep her mouth shut because she cannot bear the idea of trying to raise their children on her own.
There are many reasons why a woman might decide to allow herself to become a mistress, but low self-esteem is at the crux of every reason because she likes it when he makes it seem that he has chosen her over his wife, even when this is not truly the case. This makes her feel as if she is better than another woman.
Additionally, the mistress might hope for money or gifts in return for her silence. She might want power if the man even has any power to offer. Or there might just be a real connection between the two people, or a sex appeal, or she might even love the man.
Quite frankly, not one of these reasons I have listed, or any others that someone else might think up, are good enough to break a family apart. None of these reasons provide any would-be mistress with the justification to move in on another woman’s husband or to respond to that husband’s advances toward her.
I am not going to cite religious verses about sex outside of marriage because they are just control methods from the patriarchal system to make women feel guilty for having sex. However, speaking purely from a social standpoint, marital trysts cause too many women to face single parenthood, which hurts the children and contributes to poverty (single mothers make up the majority of the poor in the world)
When a man and a woman get married and have children, they have made a vow to each other that should be honoured. If either person does not feel he or she can adhere to that vow, then the problem is easily solved – just do not get married in the first place.
A single person, male or female, can have responsible sex with whom ever they please without hurting anyone else. A marital affair hurts so many people and has a negative impact on society at large.
Worst of all, the mistress has positioned herself in a very degrading role and has betrayed her own gender – specifically, a fellow sister who is trying to do right by society and raise her children in a family setting with a mother and a father. Every single mistress needs to ponder the fact that she too may one day be a married mother who wants the father around to raise her children.
Of course, there is always the mistress who naively believes her lover will leave his wife and family for her one day. Sweetheart, you are being used in so many ways already, please do not let your heart overrule your common sense, too.
Even if he does leave his wife, is that the type of man with whom you want to have children? Do you really want to be with someone who balks at his responsibilities as a father and husband and takes up with the next young, pretty face to come along? I can assure you, he will do it to you too when you start expecting him to act like a father and a husband.
I believe every cheating husband has one thing in common, he would rather find a fresh new face that is naïve about relationships and use that girl for sex and intimacy before trying to work through a tough marriage relationship (which is probably tough because the man never knew how to develop and foster a truly caring relationship in the first place).
Women have enough to deal with in society – inequality, sexual harassment in the workplace, physical and mental abuse and social marginalisation – thanks to thousands of years of male rule. The last thing we need is a woman hurting another woman.
Women need to stand together to make the world a better place for ourselves and our daughters. If we cannot trust the men to do right by us, we should at least be able to expect women to do right by each other.
When women finally start coming together instead of hurting each other and pushing each other away, that is when we will be able to change the present course of history and form a whole new way of life for all women worldwide.
Keep this column in mind, Ms. Mistress, next time he comes knocking on your door. You are not creating a future for yourself when you are rolling around in that bed. You are actually destroying your future and the futures of so many other women and children.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Stella Says…I have a few questions for Poised and Proper Priya
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 11 March 2007)
During my sabbatical, I received an email to which I will now attempt to reply. However, I will admit from the start that I do not have all of the necessary resources to fully provide the type of response this email deserves, but I will do my best.
The email was from a Guyanese woman who asked many questions of me in just four short paragraphs. She wanted to know if I could tell her what Guyana’s Constitution had to say about the rights women. In particular, she wanted to know about the rights of the married Muslim woman.
I am going to share a large portion of that email with you because it is so powerful. However, I will not give this ladies name because I fear for her safety – as she obviously does as well. You will soon understand why.
She said, “I ask myself everyday how the people can life like this. Why the government of Guyana no do anything for all the Guyanese woman everyday suffering abuse for her husband etc. I ask my self everyday PPP control Guyana for more and 5 years and until now them can no do anything.”
This precious woman wanted to know why the police seem to lose evidence when it is time to present it to the lawyer after a woman is raped or a family member is murdered.
She continued, “I have another cuestion why in this XXi century the parents can choice husband for her daughter.” And toward the end of the email, the woman said, “Really I have plenty cuestion in my head and until now I no get answer.”
This poor woman’s email broke my heart. She is obviously very smart. She knows it is wrong for a husband to beat his wife. She knows she should expect more from her government and her law enforcement officials.
She knows that every woman should be able to choose her own husband. She has so many questions and so few answers. I would bet my last dollar that there are many women in Guyana who share this woman’s frustration.
First of all, my friend, let me say that from what I know of Guyana’s Constitution, it does not afford any less rights to the women of the nation than it does the men. However, precious sister, your problems are to be found elsewhere. The source of your problems can be found in the laws (or the lack thereof), the enforcement of those laws and in the social and religious traditions that are so ingrained into society.
You were right to pin the guilt of the plight of Guyanese women on the government. Complacency and bureaucracy is the rule of the day with the PPP when it comes to protecting the women.
You were also very wise to blame the law enforcement officials for their part, too. No matter how many laws the government does actually instituted for the protection of women, it matters not if the police treat an abuse or rape victim with contempt.
Moreover, patriarchal religions and social traditions further propagate the subjection and objectification of women. This is why a man feels he has the right to choose his daughter’s husband, because he sees her as his property until he decides to give her to another man, at which time she becomes that man’s property.
The women of Guyana have so much working against them. They have a government that cares too little about their plight, a law enforcement system that treats them as badly as their abusive husbands and a system of social and religious traditions that shackle these women to an unbearable life.
This is my clumsy answer to your questions, dear friend. It is simply an academic response from someone who has studied this topic and answered these questions over and over. However, if you are looking for a real answer to your questions, then I would like to suggest that you pose these questions to someone who can help you to find some tangible resolutions – the Poised and Proper Priya Manickchand.
In her position as the Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Poised and Proper Priya wields the power to help you and the rest of Guyana’s women. In fact, I will do one better. I will get the ball rolling – to help cut out all of that damn red tape the PPP seems to love – and present these questions to her for you.
Priya, dear, how are you doing? I wonder if you could be a peach and help me with a situation I have. You see, I have a friend who has asked me some questions that I think you are far better equipped to answer. My friend (and probably several thousand more Guyanese women) would like to know why a Guyanese husband can abuse his wife everyday and get away with it.
She wants to know why the police seem to lose evidence from rape and murder cases. She would also like to know why a father can still chose his daughter’s husband. My friend feels that the PPP has been in power long enough to have this situation under control and just wants some help to form a better life.
Of course, I could ask a million more questions of you on this topic, dear Priya, but I think my friend’s questions are the perfect start. She mentioned in her email, “I want help all this woman. I wish you can do something for all this people, principal muslim woman.”
I know full well what is required of me from my friend – and this column is just the beginning of the fulfilment of my responsibility on this matter. Do you know what is required of you Priya? What will you do to fulfil your responsibility to this woman? You can start by answering her questions. Be assured that we will both be anxiously awaiting your response.
Let me say one more thing to my dear friend. Dear woman, you need to put that fiery spirit and that obvious intelligence to work and start gathering your women friends together to start a grassroots effort to change the status of women in Guyana.
Surely, you do not think the men are going to lift a finger to help women in this regard. If that were going to happen, it would have happened hundreds of years ago.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 11 March 2007)
During my sabbatical, I received an email to which I will now attempt to reply. However, I will admit from the start that I do not have all of the necessary resources to fully provide the type of response this email deserves, but I will do my best.
The email was from a Guyanese woman who asked many questions of me in just four short paragraphs. She wanted to know if I could tell her what Guyana’s Constitution had to say about the rights women. In particular, she wanted to know about the rights of the married Muslim woman.
I am going to share a large portion of that email with you because it is so powerful. However, I will not give this ladies name because I fear for her safety – as she obviously does as well. You will soon understand why.
She said, “I ask myself everyday how the people can life like this. Why the government of Guyana no do anything for all the Guyanese woman everyday suffering abuse for her husband etc. I ask my self everyday PPP control Guyana for more and 5 years and until now them can no do anything.”
This precious woman wanted to know why the police seem to lose evidence when it is time to present it to the lawyer after a woman is raped or a family member is murdered.
She continued, “I have another cuestion why in this XXi century the parents can choice husband for her daughter.” And toward the end of the email, the woman said, “Really I have plenty cuestion in my head and until now I no get answer.”
This poor woman’s email broke my heart. She is obviously very smart. She knows it is wrong for a husband to beat his wife. She knows she should expect more from her government and her law enforcement officials.
She knows that every woman should be able to choose her own husband. She has so many questions and so few answers. I would bet my last dollar that there are many women in Guyana who share this woman’s frustration.
First of all, my friend, let me say that from what I know of Guyana’s Constitution, it does not afford any less rights to the women of the nation than it does the men. However, precious sister, your problems are to be found elsewhere. The source of your problems can be found in the laws (or the lack thereof), the enforcement of those laws and in the social and religious traditions that are so ingrained into society.
You were right to pin the guilt of the plight of Guyanese women on the government. Complacency and bureaucracy is the rule of the day with the PPP when it comes to protecting the women.
You were also very wise to blame the law enforcement officials for their part, too. No matter how many laws the government does actually instituted for the protection of women, it matters not if the police treat an abuse or rape victim with contempt.
Moreover, patriarchal religions and social traditions further propagate the subjection and objectification of women. This is why a man feels he has the right to choose his daughter’s husband, because he sees her as his property until he decides to give her to another man, at which time she becomes that man’s property.
The women of Guyana have so much working against them. They have a government that cares too little about their plight, a law enforcement system that treats them as badly as their abusive husbands and a system of social and religious traditions that shackle these women to an unbearable life.
This is my clumsy answer to your questions, dear friend. It is simply an academic response from someone who has studied this topic and answered these questions over and over. However, if you are looking for a real answer to your questions, then I would like to suggest that you pose these questions to someone who can help you to find some tangible resolutions – the Poised and Proper Priya Manickchand.
In her position as the Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Poised and Proper Priya wields the power to help you and the rest of Guyana’s women. In fact, I will do one better. I will get the ball rolling – to help cut out all of that damn red tape the PPP seems to love – and present these questions to her for you.
Priya, dear, how are you doing? I wonder if you could be a peach and help me with a situation I have. You see, I have a friend who has asked me some questions that I think you are far better equipped to answer. My friend (and probably several thousand more Guyanese women) would like to know why a Guyanese husband can abuse his wife everyday and get away with it.
She wants to know why the police seem to lose evidence from rape and murder cases. She would also like to know why a father can still chose his daughter’s husband. My friend feels that the PPP has been in power long enough to have this situation under control and just wants some help to form a better life.
Of course, I could ask a million more questions of you on this topic, dear Priya, but I think my friend’s questions are the perfect start. She mentioned in her email, “I want help all this woman. I wish you can do something for all this people, principal muslim woman.”
I know full well what is required of me from my friend – and this column is just the beginning of the fulfilment of my responsibility on this matter. Do you know what is required of you Priya? What will you do to fulfil your responsibility to this woman? You can start by answering her questions. Be assured that we will both be anxiously awaiting your response.
Let me say one more thing to my dear friend. Dear woman, you need to put that fiery spirit and that obvious intelligence to work and start gathering your women friends together to start a grassroots effort to change the status of women in Guyana.
Surely, you do not think the men are going to lift a finger to help women in this regard. If that were going to happen, it would have happened hundreds of years ago.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Stella Says…Here is the real definition of a godly woman
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 04 March 2007)
Since I grew up in a very conservative Christian home, I know how Christianity would define a godly woman. She would submit to her husband, she would meekly obey her husband and she would take care of the kids and the house without complaint. That is what this sub-culture demands.
I am a spiritual woman who struggled with wrapping my mind around the injustices meted out to women based on our holy books. It is bad enough that little girls must hear how evil they are because Eve supposedly ate an apple long ago in a far away place, but it is even worse when normal biological occurrences, like painful labor during birth, is attributed to the “curse” of being a woman.
However, if you ask me, that interpretation of a godly woman is dated and sexist. Therefore, I think it is high time to revise that definition of a godly woman and to make it something that is far more gender equitable.
In the spirit of the new rise of gender equality that is spreading around the world through the UN’s new efforts to help women gain ground in politics, business and education, it can be easily concluded that before any of these other areas experience real change, the first area that must change is religion.
So how would I define a godly woman in the 21st century? First of all, we must explain that, for this article, being “godly” is the act of pleasing our creator. A godly woman is a spiritual person seeking to act in accordance to what her God would require of her.
I do not believe for one second that God would create one person for sole purpose of serving another person. There is no way such an enlightened being’s mind would function like a common human seeking power over others. This being would already have all power. There would be no reason whatsoever to establish one half of creation as superior to the other half – as our current holy books have decreed.
As such, surely the true creator of this world would not require women to degrade and restrict themselves by submitting to such debasing teachings, which are still practiced in the 21st century.
It seems to me that our creator would want both men and women to reach as far as possible intellectually in a joint effort to accomplish the utmost for mankind. Even a mere human such as myself can see the futility in creating something just to stifle that creation’s potential. Surely God is far wiser than I am.
Surely the creator expects both male and female to function at full capacity at all times and to work together without regard to gender by acknowledging the separate strengths of each gender. Indeed, our creator could not expect anything less.
With this in mind, a godly woman would be educated as much as possible, operating at optimum capacity without any social or political restraints to hold her back and would never, never, never submit her will to a man just because he requires it of her.
A godly woman would expect her spouse to equally share household chores if she chose to work outside of the house. She would make sure to help with those chores if she chose to work fulltime outside of the home and the man was the primary caregiver for the children. Likewise, she would require the same in a reversed role.
A godly woman would be quick to speak against sexism and she would never tolerate a man who abused her or her children physically, sexually, emotionally or mentally.
Of course, a godly woman would also gladly help others when it is within her power. She would freely dole out a shrewd mix of compassion and wise counsel.
A godly woman would accomplish as much as she wanted, she would reach as far as she could reach and she would never feel guilty for being successful and intelligent. She owns her own properties, runs her own businesses and manages her own finances if she so chooses.
What is a godly woman? She is the quick-thinking lady who does not shy away from telling fundamentalists that she is her own woman and she refuses to succumb to the dated and sexist teachings.
Surely, this is what our creator really expects of women. In fact, this has to be what our creator expected all along. Anything less would be a sin.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 04 March 2007)
Since I grew up in a very conservative Christian home, I know how Christianity would define a godly woman. She would submit to her husband, she would meekly obey her husband and she would take care of the kids and the house without complaint. That is what this sub-culture demands.
I am a spiritual woman who struggled with wrapping my mind around the injustices meted out to women based on our holy books. It is bad enough that little girls must hear how evil they are because Eve supposedly ate an apple long ago in a far away place, but it is even worse when normal biological occurrences, like painful labor during birth, is attributed to the “curse” of being a woman.
However, if you ask me, that interpretation of a godly woman is dated and sexist. Therefore, I think it is high time to revise that definition of a godly woman and to make it something that is far more gender equitable.
In the spirit of the new rise of gender equality that is spreading around the world through the UN’s new efforts to help women gain ground in politics, business and education, it can be easily concluded that before any of these other areas experience real change, the first area that must change is religion.
So how would I define a godly woman in the 21st century? First of all, we must explain that, for this article, being “godly” is the act of pleasing our creator. A godly woman is a spiritual person seeking to act in accordance to what her God would require of her.
I do not believe for one second that God would create one person for sole purpose of serving another person. There is no way such an enlightened being’s mind would function like a common human seeking power over others. This being would already have all power. There would be no reason whatsoever to establish one half of creation as superior to the other half – as our current holy books have decreed.
As such, surely the true creator of this world would not require women to degrade and restrict themselves by submitting to such debasing teachings, which are still practiced in the 21st century.
It seems to me that our creator would want both men and women to reach as far as possible intellectually in a joint effort to accomplish the utmost for mankind. Even a mere human such as myself can see the futility in creating something just to stifle that creation’s potential. Surely God is far wiser than I am.
Surely the creator expects both male and female to function at full capacity at all times and to work together without regard to gender by acknowledging the separate strengths of each gender. Indeed, our creator could not expect anything less.
With this in mind, a godly woman would be educated as much as possible, operating at optimum capacity without any social or political restraints to hold her back and would never, never, never submit her will to a man just because he requires it of her.
A godly woman would expect her spouse to equally share household chores if she chose to work outside of the house. She would make sure to help with those chores if she chose to work fulltime outside of the home and the man was the primary caregiver for the children. Likewise, she would require the same in a reversed role.
A godly woman would be quick to speak against sexism and she would never tolerate a man who abused her or her children physically, sexually, emotionally or mentally.
Of course, a godly woman would also gladly help others when it is within her power. She would freely dole out a shrewd mix of compassion and wise counsel.
A godly woman would accomplish as much as she wanted, she would reach as far as she could reach and she would never feel guilty for being successful and intelligent. She owns her own properties, runs her own businesses and manages her own finances if she so chooses.
What is a godly woman? She is the quick-thinking lady who does not shy away from telling fundamentalists that she is her own woman and she refuses to succumb to the dated and sexist teachings.
Surely, this is what our creator really expects of women. In fact, this has to be what our creator expected all along. Anything less would be a sin.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)