“…//….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!

“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?”) 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 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.

“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 years”.

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)?

Realworld – Thanks for the posting. At least we still know you are still around monitoring the goings on in this blog. :)

“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.

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.

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)?