Tweet
enjoy :P<DIV id=printReady>
Taking liberties with Madam PM
published: Sunday | February 18, 2007 <DIV class=KonaBody XvEED="true">
Dawn Ritch, Columnist
A very silly George Murray has written a letter to the editor, it seems from the Court of Versailles during the reign of the Sun King.
He writes that "a gentleman or lady ... (is judged by) how he or she speaks or behaves when being interviewed by the media in public; what he or she says, how it is said etc."
With a name like 'Murray' this great snob probably wouldn't recognise Parisian French even if he heard it, as distinct from creole.
The poor man took issue with my column on the 'PM's Glorious Credit Card'. I pointed out that she's always beautifully dressed, and obviously had a generous husband because no government could afford to dress Mrs. Simpson Miller.
Straw man
He, therefore, went on to set up a straw man of my argument, namely: "The clothes, dear Dawn, which one wears, do not make a man or a woman a gentleman or lady." This, at least, seems to suggest that he understands that there is a distinction between the two.
The only problem is I never said that clothes maketh a lady. I merely suggested that when a lady is very well dressed at all times, it seems a shame to tear her clothes off just to make a point. That is a point not worth making.
This reflects on the cartoonist who does it, rather than the lady herself. It illustrates that he does not know the difference between 'dressed' and 'undressed'.
Even if the cartoonist would like to undress someone, it is misogynistic to undress only the lady and her husband. He has been caricatured elsewhere standing in his underpants and an undershirt at the gate of the supposed matrimonial home. All this is while P. J. Patterson is portrayed dressed in the robes of a prophet, Edward Seaga is a fully-clothed don, and Bruce Golding is always in a business suit. Is this to suggest that Mrs. Simpson Miller is not worth the value of clothing, any clothing at all, except a ****-rider and a brassiere?
Since the public furore over that cartoon, at least Mrs. Simpson Miller has been wearing a skirt suit. But even then it's wrong, because most of the time she's the only leader other than Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel, who is in trouser suits most of the time. These are ladies, but they have to climb platforms and stand in the breeze, and none of them is Marilyn Munroe. Not one of them is going to stand on a grate and show her panties to the whole wide world. They are public figures, but not all of the same kind.
I'm no prude, but cartoonists must have other satirical weapons to fight lady politicians rather than simply stripping their clothes off, and that of their husbands, unless of course the husband is Bill Clinton. But Errald Miller has no such reputation.
It shows a want of imagination and class prejudice. It suggests that black people are incapable of being ladies and gentlemen unless they have middle-class accents. No Jamaicans living in Jamaica could seriously hope to defend empirically such a suggestion. Such an idiot would be exposed as not only intellectually lazy, but a racist bigot.
Disrespect
Above all, it is disrespect for the fairer sex. Not a soul would treat a male prime minister that way. Recently, Dr. Omar Davies, Minister of Finance was seen on public television slapping the Prime Minister on her back, not once, but twice. They were seated in Gordon House and apparently something amused him, so he hit her twice on her back. Both times he winded her. Omar Davies never did that to P.J. Patterson. Why should he take such an ugly liberty with Mrs. Simpson Miller? If the Finance Minister can behave in such an odious fashion, someone urgently needs to have etiquette classes with the entire Cabinet.
The
Taking liberties with Madam PM
published: Sunday | February 18, 2007 <DIV class=KonaBody XvEED="true">
Dawn Ritch, Columnist
A very silly George Murray has written a letter to the editor, it seems from the Court of Versailles during the reign of the Sun King.
He writes that "a gentleman or lady ... (is judged by) how he or she speaks or behaves when being interviewed by the media in public; what he or she says, how it is said etc."
With a name like 'Murray' this great snob probably wouldn't recognise Parisian French even if he heard it, as distinct from creole.
The poor man took issue with my column on the 'PM's Glorious Credit Card'. I pointed out that she's always beautifully dressed, and obviously had a generous husband because no government could afford to dress Mrs. Simpson Miller.
Straw man
He, therefore, went on to set up a straw man of my argument, namely: "The clothes, dear Dawn, which one wears, do not make a man or a woman a gentleman or lady." This, at least, seems to suggest that he understands that there is a distinction between the two.
The only problem is I never said that clothes maketh a lady. I merely suggested that when a lady is very well dressed at all times, it seems a shame to tear her clothes off just to make a point. That is a point not worth making.
This reflects on the cartoonist who does it, rather than the lady herself. It illustrates that he does not know the difference between 'dressed' and 'undressed'.
Even if the cartoonist would like to undress someone, it is misogynistic to undress only the lady and her husband. He has been caricatured elsewhere standing in his underpants and an undershirt at the gate of the supposed matrimonial home. All this is while P. J. Patterson is portrayed dressed in the robes of a prophet, Edward Seaga is a fully-clothed don, and Bruce Golding is always in a business suit. Is this to suggest that Mrs. Simpson Miller is not worth the value of clothing, any clothing at all, except a ****-rider and a brassiere?
Since the public furore over that cartoon, at least Mrs. Simpson Miller has been wearing a skirt suit. But even then it's wrong, because most of the time she's the only leader other than Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel, who is in trouser suits most of the time. These are ladies, but they have to climb platforms and stand in the breeze, and none of them is Marilyn Munroe. Not one of them is going to stand on a grate and show her panties to the whole wide world. They are public figures, but not all of the same kind.
I'm no prude, but cartoonists must have other satirical weapons to fight lady politicians rather than simply stripping their clothes off, and that of their husbands, unless of course the husband is Bill Clinton. But Errald Miller has no such reputation.
It shows a want of imagination and class prejudice. It suggests that black people are incapable of being ladies and gentlemen unless they have middle-class accents. No Jamaicans living in Jamaica could seriously hope to defend empirically such a suggestion. Such an idiot would be exposed as not only intellectually lazy, but a racist bigot.
Disrespect
Above all, it is disrespect for the fairer sex. Not a soul would treat a male prime minister that way. Recently, Dr. Omar Davies, Minister of Finance was seen on public television slapping the Prime Minister on her back, not once, but twice. They were seated in Gordon House and apparently something amused him, so he hit her twice on her back. Both times he winded her. Omar Davies never did that to P.J. Patterson. Why should he take such an ugly liberty with Mrs. Simpson Miller? If the Finance Minister can behave in such an odious fashion, someone urgently needs to have etiquette classes with the entire Cabinet.
The