Thursday, May 6, 2010

Take that Aspiring Women Leaders!

The nerve!! When the Bill on Decentralisation was sent to the Parliament there was a clause that said both men and women should have a minimum 30% representation in the local councils. This gave WOMEN leeway to acrobatically twist and turn their way into our sacred local councils. Again, the nerve!!! Luckily this monstrosity of a clause was removed by our very able Parliamentarians of the opposition coalition persons. Well done we say!

People are not aware of the disaster that has been averted, for undoubtedly disaster has been averted. Thankfully, you people have the ever knowledgeable and all illuminating XResistance team to enlighten you. Yes we know, thank God for us! Pat on the back for us!


Let us go back a little bit in time and imagine if there was such a frightful clause in the Parliamentary elections bill! Oh the horror! The Parliament would've been infiltrated by halfwits and incapables. The legislating would've been unimaginably slow, people would address each other by titles to their faces and by profanity to their backs. Parliamentarians will be overly emotional, sulky and threaten to walk out at every other meeting. Heck, they might even change the colour of the Constitution to shocking pink!!! Unfortunately even now we have not rid ourselves of the pesky women in our Parliament. We are watching you Women Parliamentarians, and we are tolerating you as an undesirable element we cannot change, like those ads we had to put up with during the telecasts of Kiyunki Saas Bi Kabhi Bahu Thi. (Did you have Tulsi wanting to run for local councils?? We think not!!)


So, really, take that Aspiring Women Leaders! Dont give us this 50% of the population should have an opportunity to have a say on decisions that affect their lives crap. Tough! So what if you are structurally and financially disadvantaged to get an even field to contest in elections. Boo frikkin hoo! Do we care that community norms and practices and radical religious yellings make it difficult for women to be active in the public domain? Not a bit. And don't give us examples of those women who were given an opportunity to get their foot in the door (like some women who were among those appointed Parliamentarians we used to have) who are now active leaders in their field. They don't count. Plus we don't like acknowledging evidence contrary to our beliefs.

And anyway, the most important thing about the decentralisation bill was not ensuring the participation of the people in decision making, or strengthening the participatory and consultative principles of democracy, or increasing accountability to the people and transparency in governance or even giving special opportunities for disadvantaged groups to have their say. No indeedy! It was about whether the government should be allowed to group administration into Provinces or not, because God forbid that even one letter in our set-in-stone brought-down-from-a-mountain Commandments.. excuse us, Constitution should be disregarded! And that matter has been finally settled. Phew!

So take a bow Parliament! (Or whats was left of it after the walkout). You can take a rest now, you have earned it!

15 comments:

  1. can you post a short translation for the mentally weak?

    ReplyDelete
  2. not even 30% for the 50%? its a jungle out there. i say we leave all animals to fend for themselves, as well as the handicapped, the women and the children.may the person/thing with the biggest voice, strenght or cruelty win.

    ReplyDelete
  3. haveeru devoted several articles to the province issue and one sentence to this clause. shows who are writing these "impartial" and "neutral" news articles.
    god forbid if women's voices are heard. "its unnatural for women to go out and be in politics", as one politician said during the quota debate in parliament during the constitutional amendment period. why would you want to invite things against nature?
    and when we cant even properly give representation in our domestic politics, what is the use of doing all this superficial stuff like appointing the first female SAARC SG?

    ReplyDelete
  4. you seem to have a big chip on your shoulder. not strong enough to face women? you belong to the stone ages.

    ReplyDelete
  5. LOL. This sounds like its written by an insecure 3rd grade homo.
    seriously, you people need to grow up.
    these kind of responses to gender challenges were seen in the early 1950s. as a response to first wave feminism. ever heard of the 21st century?

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Anon 2:41
    Thank you thank you!

    @Anon 5:36 sorry we do not cater for the mentally weak, we cater for the mentally comatose only!

    But the crux of it is this. Parliament had a chance to make sure women would be part of the Island, Atoll and City Councils, that will in future make all the major decisions regarding their constituencies, but as usual they squandered this away as their political egos were more important.

    @Anon 5:41 I think we're already there!

    @Anon 9:00 (seriously people haven't you heard of nicks!)
    the priorities of the media are just a reflection of the priorities of the society. If no one raised an eyebrow when the quota thing got quashed why wud the media.

    @Anon 11:45 and Anon 1:26
    sigh. sarcasm? satire? reading between the lines? ring any bells? I bet you didn't do so well in the Comprehension part of your English exams.

    ReplyDelete
  7. hahaha! you're asking people who passed 15 years in the Maldivian education system memorizing things and copying them word for word in the exam papers if they know satire?

    satire: "A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit" (dictionary.com)

    ReplyDelete
  8. so full of folly, that dimwits like you will continue with sarcasm in-between-the-lines as a tool to laugh off our rights...

    ReplyDelete
  9. anonymous: 1:26p.m - Ditto!
    Holy crap - this is the approach you xresistance-whoever-you-are think works best?
    Go fly a kite and watch Kasauti-whatever :)

    ReplyDelete
  10. @anonymous 1.26
    Did you know that calling people derogatory bigoted names were quite common in the early 1950s as well? I am amazed to see a 21st century person like yourself resorting to such things.

    I dont really know which article some people seem to be reading. They do not seem to really understand what the post is trying to say. To them I would like to suggest they read one of the earlier posts on this blog titled Interpretation Explained : )

    ReplyDelete
  11. sad how people have misinterpreted you guys when actually you are with them on this decentralisation issue

    i have really enjoyed reading it. the way you have satirised the amended bill and the parliament was hilarious.

    i have got an idea for you guys next post.sarcasm explained for dimwits.

    one more point the fifth para i think many would have misinterpreted.

    keep it going guys.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OMG, Am i getting this whole thing wrong (and that is based on majority of the comments here)???? I thought that it was so obviously sarcastic that even the 'dimwits' would get it. but obviously i underestimated the majority of your audience!

    Personally, i thought it was very well presented. keep them comin i say! maybe next time you could resort to hatred and threats instead or wit though, then maybe these readers will get your point of view better :)

    On second thoughts, don't bother. they'll never get it!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why thank you Basfoiy, Fali, erm scary Kasim and Anon 10:21 for your understanding and vote of confidence!

    And as for the others, we believe that what you are looking for is an intellectual, scholarly, empirical, cultured and analytical commentary on the issue, so what we would suggest is that you have a look at... erm... err... you can visit... hmmm... umm... well....



    still thinking....


    hmmm... maybe we might have to get back to you on this..

    ReplyDelete
  14. go to any shop in male and talk to the shopgirls or go to any govrnmennt office and talk to the counter people( especially the younger generation) and you'll get an idea just how dumb the general population is. the percentage of kids who actually pass exams is only 30% or less. and you want people to understand satire when we dont understand whats shouted in front of our faces? hahaha

    ReplyDelete