RASHMII BELL
THE same week I read The Embarrassed Colonialist, in which Sean Dorney identifies Papua New Guinean women as a strength of the nation, prime minister Peter O’Neill stood before a crowd and responded to ever-increasing political controversy and dissatisfaction with his leadership.
He refuted public criticism of him with the words, “Mi stilim meri blo ol na ol laik karabusim mi or” (did I steal their wife to make them want to arrest me?).
That was met with deserved but sparse outcries of misogyny. And some people who riposted with humorous rhetoric, musing whether the ‘theft’ of the prime minister’s wife might be in order.
Indeed no argument in PNG seems to endure full navigation without the often convenient and fallback assertions of custom, traditional practice, language, the ‘Melanesian way’ and what not being employed.
And so emerged those who, with club in hand and regressive attitude in head, were ready to drag back any soul who dared to condemn the prime minister to those dark caves dotting PNG’s terrain.
It seems it was foolish to take that short statement literally when apparently it was delivered with the well-meaning intention of tok piksa blo ol tumbuna (traditional metaphor).
A male commentator on social media page, Caught in the Act – Papua New Guinea, went so as far as to gift the people with an explanation that ‘meri’ was a metaphor for our nation and this is what Mr O’Neill ‘really’ meant.
So there you have it. When short of descriptors for Papua New Guinea one might interchange ‘motherland’ with ‘homeland’ and yes, even the term ‘meri’. And that’s that, settled.
Were I so blessed it, I’d treasure and take great pride in having an exemplary level of wit as demonstrated by Jane Caro and the legion of other Australian feminists in the infamous #destroythejoint online-turned-social movement.
This is a viral conversation that gained international attention for its protests against sexist comments made by broadcaster Alan Jones.
On 31 August, 2012, when discussing then Australian prime minister Julia Gillard’s announcement that Australia would donate $300 million to train women in the Pacific region in leadership, Jones commented:
“She [Gillard] said that we know societies only reach their full potential if women are politically participating. Women are destroying the joint – Christine Nixon in Melbourne, Clover Moore here. Honestly…there isn’t a chaff bag enough for them.”
It may have been my crowning lifetime achievement had I, upon reading Mr O’Neill’s statement, been so swift as to think on my feet.
I might have transplanted the ever-popular phrase ‘Peter O’Steal’ to Twittersphere language (#peterosteal), heralding all to come forth with their personal inventories of goods and chattels (meri) itemised and valued for the prime minister’s perusal and taking!
Funny, but not funny.
When it comes to critical human rights issues, to which Papua New Guineans are subjected daily, there is no room for ambivalence. In matters of gender equality, Papua New Guinean women must demand more from our men and from each other.
It is appalling that PNG’s elected leader resorts to language that perpetuates male privilege. And it’s despicable that there exists a mood that validates the incessant degradation of 50% of our nation’s population.
But, perhaps worse, it’s shameful that Papua New Guinean women remain silent. Particularly those who have received endorsement as women’s ‘advocates’ but who consistently falter as the mouthpiece for the people they represent.
I oscillate between fear and the need to be ‘popular’ as the explanation why our women advocates (including the three sitting female politicians) fail to rise and respond appropriately to such unfortunate incidents.
It is a view of mine that was perhaps defined best by former Australian Senator Christine Milne when she stated that “being at the top does not automatically make you a role model for advancing women’s rights”.
Senator Milne, amongst other commentators, observed that some women in positions of power and influence whilst gaining status succumb to an unwritten law not to ‘rock the boat’.
In taking this approach, they create barriers and deny similar access to other women. This stagnates the progression of women’s rights, thus widening the twisting hall of gender inequality.
Senator Milne’s observation may be true, but I’m inclined to consider an alternative: that comprehension is lacking. Perhaps PNG’s women’s advocates don’t understand the magnitude of what it is they are fighting for.
Do they fully comprehend the terms ‘empowerment’, ‘equal rights’, ‘equal access’ and ‘emancipation’? Or these words merely content fillers for websites? Buzz words fit to be emblazoned on protest placards? Prompt points for radio and television interviews?
The way I see it, advocacy for women means the application of these words to issues beyond the much mentioned (yet so necessarily discussed) issue of violence.
Violence must be understood as one of many social issues in PNG and needs to be seen as interconnected and dependent on the progression of other issues. Otherwise women are never likely to be seen and treated as equals with our menfolk.
Advocacy also means declaring that Papua New Guinean women deserve a seat in the local classroom as much as a seat in parliament. We must be paid the same wages for doing the same job as our male counterparts.
And if we are required to stay home to raise children, we are as deserving of the same structural support as our fathers, husbands, brothers, uncles and nephews are afforded in the paid-workforce.
There must be iron-will insistence that the laws enacted on paper to upheld are applied and not negated simply because of the social stigma associated with our gender.
Advocacy is publicly condemning the use of derogatory language against women, like that expressed by the prime minister.
Papua New Guinean women are not objects, goods or chattels for anyone’s taking. We are, first and foremost human beings.
The road to gender equality in PNG is characterised by meek and seasonal advocacy when it is in desperate need of consistent public conversation and dialogue that drowns out any denial of women’s significance in our society.
Because we are, as acknowledged by Sean Dorney, a resilient force and a strength of our nation.
As atrocious as prime minister O’Neill’s statement was, it will be even more disturbing if PNG’s women’s advocates continue with their silence.
