news from nowhere

... you promise to say it's okay that we're holding you.
"Hicks agreed to say that he was never "illegally treated" by anyone while he was in U.S. custody, and he promised not to file lawsuits against anyone in the U.S. government.

He also agreed not to talk to the media about his actions, his capture or his detention for at least the next year. He is forbidden by Australian law to ever profit financially from his ordeal."

The only good thing about this is I get to relish once more the words of US law professor Joseph Margulies (said when the US government tried to stop Guantanamo detainees from telling their lawyers about interrogation techniques used on them in the prison).

The prisoners “can’t even say what our government did to these guys to elicit the statements that are the basis for them being held. Kafka-esque doesn’t do it justice. This is ‘Alice in Wonderland.’”

You know I've been wanting to write about this ridiculous parliament's ridiculous investigation into the 'Spring of Sex' but just haven't been able to bring myself to.

Partly I just don't know where to start, partly I feel really put out by the whole thing, partly I've just been watching it unfold, cradling my aghast jaw in my lap.

But where better to start - Marcel has spoken!
And I am so happy, even though I can't understand all of it lol.

This much was easy though: إسلاميي البحرين بأنهم "طيور ظلام وتجار فتاوى

My problems with Hooters: I'm writing this in response to the exhausting debate on Mahmood's Den.

1) It's sexist

In order to earn their wages, are there any places that require men to fulfill a masculine stereotype and show off their body? I doubt it, because men have not been sexualised and objectified to the same (extreme) degree that women have been.

I mean in a world where more and more people are starting to say that men and women are equals, doesn't anyone find it strange that such job requirements have only been made of women? And does this not suggest some inherent sexism in the work?

I'm sure people will argue that Hooters is sexist because it won't employ men as 'scantily clad' servers. But as the free market dictates, it seems that there isn't a demand for this.

What this suggests to me is that within our patriarchal, sexist societies, there is a demand for women to act as sex objects to sell products. And Hooters is cashing in on it.


2) It objectifies women (turns them into a product) to sell other products to men:

"Because she is the emblem of spending ability and the chief spender, she is also the most effective seller of this world's goods. Every survey ever held has shown that the image of an attractive woman is the most effective advertising gimmick." (Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch)

Or, to paraphrase, shall we use the Hooters employee rule book?
"Customers can go to many place for wings and beer, but it is our Hooters Girls who make our concept unique. Hooters offers its customers the look of the 'All American Cheerleader, Surfer, Girl Next Door." The essence of the Hooters Concept is entertainment through female sex appeal, of which the LOOK is a key part. When you are in the Hooters Girl Uniform you are literally playing a role. Having been cast for that role, you must comply with the Image and Grooming Standards that the role requires."

So, in plain English: Hooters girls must comply to the stereotypes (listed above) by dressing in the Hooters uniform and following nail/hair/make up/ jewellery orders to enable the company to gain a market advantage over other wings and beer places.

Or the Hooters acknowledgment form for waitresses?

"... the Hooters concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking an innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace. I also expressly acknowledge an affirm I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements, or work environment to be offensive, intimidating, hostile or unwelcome."

To me, this reads: In order to spare Hooters the hassle of harassment lawsuits, if you work here you have to agree that you are being used to sell the 'Hooters concept' / wings and beer. And you have to obey our definition of 'female sex appeal' in order to sell the concept/ wings and beer. Also, you must agree not to find sexist or lewd jokes and comments offensive intimidating, hostile or unwelcome.

My question is - where is the protection for the girls in case a customer, hyped up on the beer and flirtation with pretty waitresses, goes too far? And she feels violated? Is there any redress for her? Or does that fall under the job duties?

Basically, Hooters have created and are marketing a product - the "Hooters Girl" in order to sell their more ordinary products - beer and wings.

Problem? "Objectification also refers to behavior in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a fellow human being with feelings and consciousness of his or her own."

Sexual objectification is dehumanisation. And we women are human beings!
It's such a stupid sentence to write, is it so outrageous to think?

The best this dehumanisation gives us good old fashioned sexism (where the male gender is considered superior to the female), the worst gives us violence against women.
But they are connected.

And sexism is dehumanising for men too. Although it is perhaps not as damaging because it confines men into the position of domination in the equation male = strong, superior and female = weak, inferior. But that's a separate issue.

3) It reinforces already existing mythological stereotypes about women:

"The stereotype is the Eternal Feminine. She is the sexual object sought by all men, and by all women... Her value is solely attested by the demand she excites in others ... There are stringent limits to the variations on the stereotype, for nothing much interfere with her function as a sex object." (Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch)

So, Hooters have worked out how to turn the enduring stereotype of women into a literal, living and breathing product. So what is this 'female sex appeal' that they keep talking about?

From Hooters, are we to understand that our 'genetic sex appeal' can be found in showing breasts, showing legs, wearing tan coloured tights, leaving our hair down, and wearing make up to 'accentuate features'?

Are we to learn from this that our 'genetic sex appeal' cannot include any expressions of individuality, no 'bizarre haircuts', tattoos, brightly coloured nail polish, tattoos, anything beyond the limits of a Hooters girl look?

What about the girls that don't look like this? The ones with 'bizarre haircuts', or the ones who don't like wearing make, the ones who don't leave their hair down? Does this mean that they are somehow lacking in the 'genetic sex appeal'??

Or the girls who don't always want to look like this? Don't want to conform to some mass produced idea of sexuality? What if they can't be bothered to be the carefully constructed Hooters girl?

What the hell does 'wholesome yet sexy' mean anyways? And why does some advertising gimmick get to set limits on the sexuality of half of the world's population?

Why can't sexuality or sex appeal be something individual, something personal and real - rather than some idea created in a boardroom and conformed to by those who are employed to market it?

Of course the Hooters stereotype is the not the root of the problem, sexism and stereotyping is everywhere. Like the song says, beauty magazines will only make you feel fat.
But Hooters certainly does its part to perpetuate it.

4) It runs an authoritarian workplace:


See when I criticize capitalism, or say I find it degrading, people immediately assume I'm talking about profiteering. But what about the anti-democratic organisation in capitalist businesses?

While its true that many countries in the West, and the US have established a small degree of democracy in their political systems, to me it is clearly limited. And I think it's lazy and arrogant for people to sit back and say 'we worked it out, we're free' instead of continuing to develop and spread democracy within their countries. Run universities democratically, run corporations democratically, run the media democratically? Instill a good and (democratically) available to all education system. (Note to America: maybe this is where you should concentrate on 'promoting freedom and democracy').

For me, a big problem with capitalism is its anti-democratic organisation. For example, in Hooters, where the big boss man can stop the worker girl from earning her wages if she 'violates' the Hooter Girl dress code. Why?

"The essence of Hooters is the Hooters Girl. Because it is essential to our success that the Hooters Girl image is always properly maintained, failure to comply with these Image and Grooming Standards may result in discipline up to and including termination. Your general manager has the final authority on all matters involving dress, accessory, and grooming requirements for the staff."

For a company from a country that claims to be all about freedom and fairness, they sure don't seem to think much of valuing the individual or personal freedoms.

In short, do I think Hooters opening in Dubai will contribute to a) a clash between 'Islamic' and 'Western' cultures (whatever these distinctions entail) or b) the corrosion of local culture?

Well, only in as much as franchises promote a homogenized mono-culture.
But I think there are many more, and more compelling reasons to have a problem with the place.

I would never advocate banning Hooters as a means to challenge the problems it perpetuates. But challenging what Hooters stands for and whether or not it is acceptable, for me is part of the wider struggle for womens' rights, human rights, and dignity, and against sexism and economic exploitation.

"The coalition of six Palestinian organisations described Reinhart as "not only a great indefatigable activist against the policy of the Zionist government of Apartheid Israel towards us, Palestinians, but also a fighter for human rights denouncing injustices committed everywhere, whether in Palestine or Iraq."

Tanya Reinhart, a brave and important Israeli activist and scholar working for the Palestinian cause died this week.

Did you know that "A HOSPITAL blunder led to patients being exposed to a potentially infectious disease yesterday"???

And what, you may ask, was this frightening 'disease'?

"A patient with chickenpox was mistakenly sent into a room full of other patients at Salmaniya Medical Complex."

But before you die (of laughter) - don't worry, "it is understood that the man had a mild case of the disease and that it was unlikely others were infected."

And in future if you're wondering why the issues of bed shortages / overcrowdedness of public health centres / overworked and underpaid doctors and nurses are not being addressed, now you know that Health Ministry officials are otherwise busy:

"Health Ministry officials confirmed yesterday that an investigation had been launched into the incident."

"The GCC has the capability to respond to any attack from neighbouring Iran, Defence Minister Shaikh Khalifa bin Ahmed Al Khalifa said yesterday.

"Gulf countries are able to defend themselves against Iran... we have the military strength and capability," he told Al Hayat newspaper.

Is there something I missed? Are we now expected to believe that like Saddam Hussein was allegedly readying himself for a large scale nuclear assault (and we know how that story panned out), Iran too is doing the same?

Of course, as per usual, we're following the leader:

"We now have Iran. It’s alleged to have a nuclear weapons program.
And yet the International Atomic Energy Agency, the inspectors who have had full access to the sites in Iran, have come out and said, “Well, we can’t say that there isn’t a secret program that we don’t know about.
What we can say, as a direct result of our investigations, there is no data whatsoever to sustain the Bush administration's claims that there is a nuclear weapons program.”
And yet, the Bush administration once again is putting the onus on Iran, saying, “It’s not up to the inspectors to find the nuclear weapons program. It’s up to the Iranians to prove that one doesn’t exist.”
Why do we go down this path? Because you can’t prove a negative."

(Scott Ritter, former UN arms inspector)

"A Bahraini man, according to a statement given to the BCHR by his brother, was offered a large sum of money by Public Security officials in exchange for information on, and access to, the home of Women's Petition Committee head Ghada Jamsheer.

"The Bahraini man from Muharraq, who previously worked in Ms Jamsheer's home to install a satellite receiver (dish), said that he was summoned to the Public Security building near the Interior Ministry Fort.

"He claims that a public security official with a Jordanian accent asked him to provide them with access to Ms Jamsheer's house, and to show a public security force member the location of her bedroom.

"The Bahraini man also alleged that the official indicated a small strip of transparent ribbon would be placed on Ms Jamsheer's bedroom wall.

"Security officials were already in possession of a number of photographs of Ms Jamsheer and her house from the outside, according to the man.

"He claims to have been offered a large amount of cash in BD 20 notes, which he refused."

sleep tight!

"Such mafia-style actions are entirely inappropriate to a government which sits on the UN Human Rights Council."

Is this what it was like in the 90s? I keep hearing about "clashes" (GDN euphemism for protesting civilians being attacked by armed special security forces) in villages, arbitrary arrests, protests... The latest it seems was on sleepy Saturday:

"Bahraini Special Security Forces attacked, this afternoon, a peaceful sit-in attended by dozens of residents and families from Karbabad, in a protest of the continued imprisonment of their sons arrested more than three weeks, after some protesters blocked an outlet street on 22 of last February."

You know it seems the real Never Ending Story is being written here in Bahrain - it goes like this: 1)protest - 2)riot (GDN euphemism for protest which 'ends in violence' after armed special security forces attack civilians) - 3)arbitrary arrests - 1)protests against the arrests - 2)more riots (see above) - 3) more arbitrary arrests - 1) even more protests... in some variations a courtroom scene is included, but not these days it seems.

In fact, we can test this formula on the latest news:

1) Protest: "some protesters blocked an outlet street on 22 of last February"
2) 'Riot': I presume it happened, because then we had the
3) Arbitrary arrests: "the continued imprisonment of their sons arrested more than three weeks"

and again

1) Protest: "this afternoon, a peaceful sit-in attended by dozens of residents and families from Karbabad, in a protest of , after arrested more than three weeks (see above)"

2) 'Riot': "Bahraini Special Security Forces attacked,"

3) Arbitrary Arrests: "They also arrested four youths from the village, including a minor who was released after a period of detention. However, Seyed Ali Sayed Akbar (20 years), Jaafar Sadiq Kadhim (21 years), Mahmood Ali Mahdi (22 years) are still in custody, as they were detained at different locations in the village; one of them was coming from a soccer training session sport- in one of well known sports club, the other was leaving a restaurant, while the last was queuing nearby a bakery."

In the words of the inimitable Tom Waits: I want to know the same thing we all want to know - how's it going to end?

Now I know corporate news stations are selling the news - but something I've started to notice in particular with American reportage is the all the sloganeering (you'll have to read on to find out what this means... i think i made it up) they use.

One short step away from singing about waffles being waffley versatile we have these 'catchphrases' for news events/ people. The newest one I've come across is KSM, but of course before him it was OBL.

And of course, the introduction of the phrase 9-11 into our vocabulary. I mean fair enough, but then shouldn't we also have recognition of the phrase 3-19?

5-15?

8-6?