Jonah and a whales throat

I am reminded of a story told by Buddhist meditation teacher Tara Brach:

A young girl listened as her teacher explained that while a whale is big its throat is too small to swallow a man.

"But Jonah was swallowed by a whale!" exclaimed the distraught girl.

"Well, a whales throat is too small. A whale could not have swallowed him."

"Well, I'm gunna ask him when I get to heaven."

"How do you know Jonah didn't go to hell?" asked the frustrated teacher.

"Well then, you can ask him!"

Me a feminist?

Recently media has highlighted the campaign of (Western?) women loudly proclaiming “I am not a feminist.”

I am a little amused.

Isn’t the right to stay at home, to not burn your bra, and to be a mother, the right of the femininity of choice?

As Joan Scott reminds us in The question of Gender:

“In the age of democratic revolutions, ‘women’ came into being as political outsiders through the discourse of sexual difference.
Feminism was a protest  against women’s political exclusion; its goal was to eliminate ‘sexual difference’ in politics, but it had to make its claims on behalf of ‘women’ (who were discursively produced through ‘sexual difference’). To the extent that it acted for ‘women’, feminism produced the ‘sexual difference’ it sought to eliminate. This paradox-the need both to accept and refuse ‘sexual difference’-was the constitutive condition of feminism as a political movement through its long history.”

In other words ,feminism acted in terms not of its own choosing, but in response to the discrimination of the time.

Women have come along way. Now, at least more woman can choose how they exercise their power, their bodies and their sexuality.

Some may comfortably choose the traditional role, especially if they feel their partners treats them as equal partners. Especially if they glorify in the roll they adore.

However, I wonder if  we can go back and learn from some more feminine tribal experience. The Kibbutzes of earlier modern Israel often saw children raised by a sig le mother figure, and in some tribal cultures men are often away, leaving children to a group of women, each supporting each other.

The feminine collective should be encouraged. A place where women can be feminine without response too the gaze, attentions of, or politics of men. Here they can refresh themselves of their feminine energies, recreated and refreshed, when once again they re-engage – hopefully as equals – with men.  

The Eros of Nationalism

 

While I disagree with him, I have profound respect for Philip Ruddock. He ran former Prime Minister Howard's  border protection policy, but he had visited refugee camps before his work with that government, voted against discriminatory policies of his own party and respectfully debates and allowed himself to be interviewed by those he knew opposed his views.

However, the present turn back the boats policy is performed in secret. If history is to judge this policy kindly then it must be open for all to see. In a democracy we should have the  facts before us to decide whether we agree. But debate has been censored.

In watching a the recent debate IQ2 Debate: History's Judgement will be to Vindicate our Treatment of 'Boat People', televised on the ABC, I began to wonder.  

The government is elected to make decisions including tough decisions. I accept that in International law  all nation states have a right to defend our borders. However, if the Australian Government honestly believes  policy is to be praised as humane then it should be able to stand up to public scrutiny. Unlike Mr Ruddock, the present Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison can hide behind military secrecy.

Secondly, I have walked the slums, and spoken to the children whose lives are of the type many refugees are trying to escape.

I found it morally repugnant that Foreign Minister Julie Bishop could blatantly compare the refugee camps of Manus Island, when, the same day, it was reported she saw them from a distance but did not enter these homes.

Sadly this was not reported enough.

I believe that all decision makers of government policy must spend time  – and I do not mean flying visits, with Ministerial or NGO comforts – living with the people or environment of the people whose decisions will be effected. Try for atleast a week. (Imagine an Environment Minister who never entered a forest, but made decisions about the ecology while only ever enjoying an air conditioned office in his concrete jungle?).
My experiences in India convince me that most businesses and NGO’s entering that country are  shown a rent a crowds that support officials with views of minds already decided.  

Get among the “stake holders”, as the “Poli-speak” would call them, and see whose lives you will effect. 

I honestly believe we must make decisions on the basis of our whole person. That is, we must decide, not just with our disembodied heads, but also with our heart.

I believe a nation can be patriotic without being jingoistic. Unfortunately, patriotism is a lot like erotic love: short term and intense. The  ancient Greek writer Thucydides described the erotic decision to go to war against Sicily.
But Sex can other unite or hurt and disillusion.  Lust can rush a man or woman to a choice they later regret, just as nationalism can thrust a nation toward passion or hatred.It seems to me that linking the punishment of already marginalised  and afflicted with patriotic fervour risks being found out as a dissatisfying and disillusioning experience.

But why choose between Patriotism and universal reason? Could it be that politicians triggering fear against the unknown other simply because we fear the uncertain?

Our Immigration heritage, is often flagged with patriotic joy, much as New York has been for the USA’s immigrant history. The same nationalism rushed both Australia and the US into a war based on misinformation.  

So it is I now come back to our debate on boat people arriving in Australia.

I ask if you are a politician debating the issue of “boat people” then please spend a week in a slum, or a detention centre first. Know what peoples lives are like first.

Then, if after that you as a whole person can still defend Australia’s position, then I salute you and respect your for your integrity,  even if I  grudgingly disagree.

 You see, part of the argument has implied the belief that new Australian should uphold a minimum set of Australian values. I believe most do. However, when I went to school e were taught an Australian value I still wish we would uphold:

“You don’t kick a dog when it’s down”.

Sending the Navy against unarmed refugees seems more akin to thuggery.

Back to the Tribalism again?

The savage who loves himself, his wife, and his child with quiet joy and glows with limited activity for his tribe as for his own life is, it seems to me, a more genuine being than that cultured shade who is enchanted by the shadow of his whole species.... In his poor hut, the former finds room for every stranger, receives him as a brother with impartial good humor and never asks whence he came. The inundated heart of the idle cosmopolitan is a home for no one....- Johann Gottfried von Herder

We all like to enjoy relaxed and friendly unpretensious time of a national holiday but sadly some hooligans turn these days into racist harassment of minorities. 

You could say that patriotism is Janus faced phenomenon,. At times it calls for freedom and then its dark face of patriotism verges on fanaticism. Warriors all to often claim they fight for freedom. But freedom for who?

Patriotism can also be expressed as an exclusive pride not just reactionary hype. To my mind, a person who stands up for what is tight – in the hope of redirecting attention to a peoples noble intentions is more patriotic denouncer of any justified critique.A democracy of equality, community and pluralism. The risk is that as markets tighten a renewed dogmatic adherence to ideology will arise under a pseudo claim of pragmatism. 

I have said for nearly 15years we were approaching a historic cycle a kin to the 1930’s with its risk of nationalist fervour, abused misuse of history to marginalise decent and the demand for new resources.

The idea of the nation state as we know it is relatively new, developed around the French revolution . But since Wordl War II we can no longer assume a nation has some a collective to agreed view point  or historical ideology.

Most myths are full of holes even though we don’t want to collectively admit it.

Gordon Brown and Sarkozy tried to push their version of history. Now Vladimir Putin demands the return Crimea to Russia. John Howard had his photo under a wattle tree as he tried to unify the idea of national identity and shared Australian Values (whatever they are?).

One value  may be a respect for diversity. 

However, this value in itself implies a cohesive genuiness to that shared ideal that as David Goodhart reminds us could turn on the champions of this open hearted value.

Hmm questions to ponder ...

Adam in Eden's Gilded Cage

“The Gilded Cage”, St George Hare, 1857-1933

Adam lay naked in his gilded cage

while Joseph is caste naked in his underworld

& from his rib, Sarah and Rebecca,

were concubined  

Wives made sisters for the harem 

by husbands inept.

If God rescued women from Egypt & Philistia

why didn’t he save Dinah from rape?

What does it say of God

that rLot  offered his daughters to be raped?

& Kingship is slavery

of concubines  to David and Solomon?