The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Pacific contradictions - telling Fiji what to do > Comments

Pacific contradictions - telling Fiji what to do : Comments

By Jocelynne Scutt, published 13/2/2007

Where is the voice of the women in Fiji? Aren't they entitled to a say in how to end the conflict?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Vinaka Ms Scutt,

An excellent, well informed, and thoughtful piece.

Another valuable input into discussions about Australia's relations with our Pacific neighbours.

Deserves a much wider readership too.
Posted by Maleko, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 9:41:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vinaka malenko

many thanks. and good wishes to all the wonderful women of fiji!
Posted by jocelynne, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 11:28:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The obvious answer to the question posed by the author is that no, we do not have the right to tell them what to do. But then western feminists have no right to foist their opinions on them either. Just imagine, a younger Ms Greer setting out to 'sort them' - a cow set loose in the china shop of their cultural heritage.

Arguably the west has contributed enough to their woes already without (further) mugging their cultural traditions along some of the lines taken by feminists in the west.

I think there was an article recently on OLO where feminism in developing nations was discussed.

The Eminent Persons Group is trying to restore democracy. There has been plenty of time up to now for the author and others to debate the whys and wherefores of its membership and role. As a suggestion, what about at this stage we all support the group in what is a difficult enough task already and leave the secondary agendas for later.
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 13 February 2007 5:57:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst I fully agree that the EPG should have included women, I have some other concerns. The new cabinet contains at least one woman who is known to have been involved in the Speight Coup. She lost her job as a result (at least that employer knew what was going on and was not afraid to act). There were also two other prominent women closely involved with Speight. They have never been investigated to my knowledge. I find it offensive, as a woman of Fiji to be in a position of observing people known to be corrupt themselves, to be 'cleaning out corruption'

Vuloaloa
Posted by VULOALOA, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 6:26:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think that positive discrimination or quotas help women generally but such approaches could be seen publically as giving a leg up to the wily (but less competent) and promoting favouritism.

By way of example, there are lawyers and indigenous people alike who allege that the rush to get women into senior legal positions in Queensland could have resulted in less than competent candidates being appointed, a circumstance which could have contributed to recent legal debacles in that State.

But apart from that, it is a question of prioities and why risk destabilising the EPG or diminishing its credibility at this crucial time?
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 9:34:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The noting of the absence of women in the EPG tells us more about WESTERN CULTURAL IMPERIALISM than Fiji Culture.

How DARE we intrude into their balanced culture with little upstart ideas of our own, and for which we are yet to see the full extent of social and cultural damage we have done to ourselves.

The absence of females does NOT mean the absence of female influence !

Has anyone gone to the trouble of analysing the cultural dynamics of Fiji Tribal society to the point where they can with confidence exclude the influence of the women through the men ?

There is an African tribe where the men are always the chiefs, but under the surface the women pull the strings. Why ? Simple, because in tribal societies, the men must be seen to be strong and in charge.. survival and image dictate this. Image in the sense of a strong posture against enemies.

Its weird how so many females in the west have suddenly believed the 'exception' of a physically strong female compared to an ordinary bloke and then applied this across the board to ALL females. Its not only wierd it's outright deceptive and irresponsible.

Cultural Balance can be upset by small things. A steel axe, a Tv set, a trip to the big smoke, change of religion, education.

Imagine a set of balance scales evenly balanced.. with 1 Kg on either side. HOw many grams does it take to tip it to one side ? err.. probably less than 1.

The West must WAKE UP to the fact that it's pre-occupation with 'Human Rights' are totally incompatable with so many balanced cultures. HR would be like a Bull on steroids in that proverbial cultural china shop.

Each step of cultural change must be accompanied by cultural equivalents for the things displaced by the change..or chaos will ensue.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 15 February 2007 8:34:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately it is a fact of life in the so-called "developed countries" that we seem to think we have a right to tell other countries what to do.

Iraq is just one example. The US believed that its own interests would be served if Iraq became a democracy, and backed up this belief with troops.

Christian missionaries had the same idea when they spread themselves around the world in the nineteenth century, introducing an alien culture to gullible and hungry natives. The fact that most places they visited with their well-meaning but misguided "education" are now economic and political basket cases is the bitter aftermath of their interference.

And scarcely a day goes by without some champion moaning about China's trading practices, and whining to government that "something should be done" about that country's citizens' willingness to work for less money than our own featherbedded folk.

What, exactly, gives us the right to lecture other nations on the way they run their affairs? Or worse, actually run a campaign of harrassment and intimidation, as seems to be advocated in this article?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 15 February 2007 6:23:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy