On a woman’s attire: Are we really tempting young boys and priests?
Repost This ArticleAs a journalist, there is almost no end to the diversity of people I meet on a day-to-day basis. I was covering an event this morning with a colleague and was accosted by a lady who asked to speak to me in private to which I agreed, thinking that maybe I could ask her for an interview after the event. She introduced herself as a counselor who worked with children and then proceeded to ask me a series of invasive questions – first, what my age was and then, if I was married.
I answered her truthfully and politely wondering where this would lead when she hit me with it: “Darling”, she said sweetly, patting my arm, “I counsel young children on their attire. Now, there are young boys and priests here and when they see you dressed like this, you give them temptation. And that is not good for you”. I was so appalled that, at the time, I couldn’t do anything but nod and take her card as she went on to offer me her counseling services.
I walked numbly out of the room, hardly believing what she had told me. I will not even mention what I was wearing because I think that is quite beside the point. As for the temptation part, well, if I’m a woman and attractive, I will not apologize for it.
I wanted to confront her as soon as I had my thoughts in order but she had left the place, and left me seething. I came back to office and wrote her the following letter.
###
Dear Ms.,
I am the journalist you met this morning, to whom you offered your card and services as a counselor based on my attire. I was not only highly insulted by what you said to me today but also, quite simply, appalled. Out of respect for the place we were in and the event about to begin, I only smiled and nodded but now I feel if I do not reply you, I would be letting down all the women that I interact with on a daily basis; all strong, independent women I am proud to know. Women who would not compromise their own identity for anything.
I am proud to count myself amongst these women and would not change for any reason, much less the ones you gave me today. Which, by the way, insulted not only me but also my parents, my upbringing and my place of work. My parents are well known and respected people and I have had the choicest upbringing and attended the best schools and universities – if my attire does not offend my parents or the professionals with whom I work (my superior is one of the strongest women I know and one of the most well respected female journalists in the country, then that is all I need. I certainly will not change what I wear so that “young boys and priests” will not get tempted when they see me.
I am a woman, proud of my body and the way I look. If these young boys and priests look and me and feel “tempted” then I think you should be giving your business card to them and not me. It is precisely your brand of judgement that, in its most extreme manifestation, renders the rapist innocent and instead blames the victim for bringing unwanted attention to herself. In my opinion this is not the way to address this problem. Men should be able to respect a woman and treat them accordingly no matter what their attire. I think your services would be of much better use if you counsel chauvinist men instead of encouraging impressionable young women to cover up for fear of men looking at them.
No woman should have to stifle herself and her identity to avoid tempting men. The idea is, quite frankly, ridiculously outdated and anti-feminist. And as a born and bred feminist, it stands against everything I believe in.
Incidentally, I met and interviewed priests and nuns at the event and got none of your patronizing judgement from them – merely, friendliness and a healthy respect for me in my professional capacity as a journalist.
I would not even have accepted your card if it had not been that I wanted to make sure I had a way of contacting you to tell you exactly how I feel. And it is this: that you are doing much more harm than good talking to young women the way you do – making women cover up does not solve the problem. Encouraging young men to treat women with respect and without judgement is a much more valuable service – one which I hope you will turn your efforts to in the near future.
I do not mean to be insulting – I merely wish to share my point of view as you so freely gave me yours without any thought to whether you might offend me or not. If I am being judgemental it is because you invited it upon yourself by being judgmental of me.
I am an adult and, above all, a woman. A proud and independent woman. I think you should endeavour to find some pride in your own femininity instead of trying to stifle it in others.
You are living in the ‘Autocratic Theocratic Dictatorial Banana Republic of Sri Lanka…so live accordingly, and dress accordingly! May you have a humanitarian weekend. Jaya Waywaa!
The ruling Taliban (or can we call it Budu-ban in our case?) will certainly want to turn this island into a theocratic Absurdistan. That’s not news and no longer surprising. What is both shocking and depressing is how so many people are cheering the saffronisation of our politics, society and culture without realising the dire consequences. It is women like the so-called counselor mentioned here who are playing a key role – even if only inadvertently – in trying to trap and cage modern women.
What next – cover up the topless Sigiriya apsaras, as well as good many Buddhist temple paintings which show both men and women as they are? Queen Victoria would be delighted.
You should have also asked that woman to roll up that business card really small and shove it up where the sun don’t shine. I wish you had told her off she doesn’t deserve the polite letter you have written.
President Bean & CheeLanka – Hear hear!
Vivi – I really, really wish I had had the presence of mind to tell her this to her face, but I was just so astonished that I literally couldn’t speak. If she does reply me though, I will be sure to pass on your message!!
I am amused to read what this lady is supposed to have said about young boys and priests. I don’t know about priests, but I can assure you that most teenaged boys and post-teen boys that I know are quite capable of treating girls with respect. We also have enough self restraint.
I don’t know from where this elderly lady gets her insights into the adolescent mind, but she certainly does not know or speak for me or my friends. We may oogle an attractive girl but we are NOT some moronic neanderthals driven entirely by our hormones! Give us more credit than that.
PS: Sexual frustration is more a problem among middle aged and older people in Sri Lanka in both sexes. So this old lady may be barking up the wrong tree…
You’re right but what on earth does the fact that you went to the best schools or come from a good family have to do with it? Or do you want to suggest that that somehow gives you a better idea of appropriate dress?
I too am appalled at what Gypsy has encountered. It’s good that you wrote that letter to her. What I dont get is CheeLanka’s innuendo that somehow the woman who was patronizing to Gypsy was a Buddhist. Going by the word ‘priest’ i would imagine that the gathering had something to do with Catholic priests. The word for clergy in buddhism is monk. So dont automatically use your prejudices against Buddhism in this forum. It is unwarranted. The tarnishing of Buddhism by politicians who are not true Buddhists is a different story entirely. They just use it for their own gain.
Talk about self indulgence
@appalled,
I don’t need innuendo. I wasn’t talking about the religious faith of an individual; I was referring to the root of religious fanaticism that is currently sweeping Sri Lanka.
If you didn’t get it the first time around, I will say this again: we are witnessing for the past few years the rise of Sinhala Buddhis fundamentalism. It is working like a contagion: it transcends political parties and other usual divisive factors such as caste and social class. It infects and takes over even many educated minds. The intolerance of pluralism and diversity is one symptom of this malady. The perennial suspicion of everyone and everything that is not Sinhala-Buddhist is another.
Get it? Or are you too infected to see this any longer?
How does the woman in question know what boys and priests will find attractive in a woman? Talk about sexist stereotyping !
Gypsy Bohemia, you go girrrrrrrrrl !!!!
It is too bad the author did not describe what she was wearing, and what the occassion was. Instead she goes up on a strident note and attempts to claim that she, her parents, teachers etc have all been shamed. It is clear that the writer’s dress DID offend at least one person. This is why there are dress codes and professional ways of dressing. An English girl friend of mine visited me in Paris, at a time when the very short skirt was in vogue in London, while it ws already out of style in Paris. She got lots and lots of cat calls and jeers when we walked down Blvd. St. Miclhel. The very short skirt was too crass at that moment in the Latin quater.
If you are going in to a Jewish Temple, it is very hard to know how to dress, especially with respect to hats and skull caps. In certain levels of New York society, dressing like the girls in the program “sex and the city ” is perfectly acceptable, even when going to church. But this is certainly not the case if you are in Sri Lanka or New Delhi.
I think this writer has a lot to learn. Sexuality is seen as a weapon in many traditional societies. Such societies have a right to protect their values, just as you have a right to preach your own point of view. But you have to get off the high horse and do the preaching. Tell us what you wore to this event, and what sort of an event was it? Your essay does not lay down the facts, but expresses your indignation. That does not help. It shows lack of sensitivity.
You cannot force your ideas of what is appropriate simple because you think that you are so liberated, while the rest of the world is made up of Talibans.
Gypsy,
Sorry you had to encounter this control freak. It is always nice to see smartly dressed women and men in any society. Attractive women are Gods gift to mankind, and that includes teenage boys and priests. We are not animals to act on all our primal urges. That’s what makes us civilized. Boys and priests (and men in general) should be taught to treat women with utmost respect.
Let me guess, and tell me if I’m wrong.
The “counselor” must be a middle aged, women of below average looks?
Only person who needs counseling is her.
Gypsy Bohemia,
You seem a young woman, a feminist and, moreover, a femme fatale. It is understood you are hurt by the unwarranted comments of a self-righteous woman. Such self-righteous women (and men) are a dime a dozen in any part of the world. Almost all women – no matter their age, appearance or social status – have been subjected to similar sexist remarks at least once in their life.
My advice for women, especially for young ones, whenever she is accosted by a sexist schmuck is to have a cutting answer at the ready.
You may have better comebacks, but, perhaps, you could give mine a try sometime:
Sexist schmuck: ““Darling… there are young boys and priests here and when they see you dressed like this, you give them temptation”.
You: Ah…come on now; don’t feel too bad about yourself. Not all men are turned off by you!
If the sexist schmuck happens to be a man just try this one on him: Ah…come on now; are you sure you’re not wearing a thong underneath your dress pants? (Someone actually used this line on a perverted man, and it worked).
Please may I know where this lady is? May be she is fast & I am
interested to meet her for a religeous encounter. KURUSILVA
.I agree that if the lady was harassed (in any manner what so ever) by priests or any men (young or otherwise) it is not the fault of the lady. In that case the priests or the men (young or otherwise) have committed a serious criminal offence. At the same time, if a woman thinks that the purpose of being a woman is to sexually tempt others even if there is no real desire to do so I would like to remind sexuality is more sacred than this casual attitude. Both men and women need to dress in a suitable manner so that unnecessary and unethical flirtation does not occur. This is an expression of respect for other peoples’ feelings. We need to respect our human nature. That is, it is a requirement from both sexes to behave in a manner that we do not target human weaknesses for our own selfish gratification. This does not comment on how one dress in his or her own bedroom.
Swarnajith Udana
It is an undeniable fact that the amount of skin that is generally being exposed by some modern women’s clothing styles have seen significant increases in recent times. The social norms of western societies seem to have accepted these changes with hardly any objections. I am not sure what type of dress was worn by Gypsy. It could have been a dress that we would not allow our younger sisters to wear in public. The Sri Lankan culture is not the culture found in London, New York, or Sydney. When in Rome … Let’s be honest, the amount of cleavage that is flaunted by some women these days leave very very little to imagination. I was at a Sri Lankan social event when a middle aged woman seated at our table, wearing such a dress, had one of her breasts pop out by accident. She quickly scooped it back in, but not before some of us noticed it. Luckily her adult son who accompanied her to the event was not at the table and was saved the embarrasment. I am not passing judgement on Gypsy as I do not know exactly what she wore and how much of what she exposed to whom. However, I do think that society needs people who have the courage to step up and call a spade a spade. Sex in the western media has made flaunting a glamorous activity. Many youngsters in the developing world who ape the west seem driven by what appears on TV and movies from both Woods — i.e.Holly+Bolly
Countries have laws about indecent exposure. Organisations too have their own rules of dress. As long as she didn’t break any laws and no police came up to arrest her, and the organisation itself where she was covering an event did not object, she didn’t do anything wrong and it’s irrelevant what she wore. Even if the counsellor was speaking on behalf of the organisation, she had no right to impose her morals on another person–she should have just said “Here, these are the rules of this organisation, and you are flouting them.”
Sexual morality is not a universal thing–people have different ideas about dress and about what’s appropriate, etc. To suggest that one should dress differently in Sri Lanka as opposed to the West begs the question of who decides what is appropriate wear for Sri Lanka. Who has the cultural authority to decide? Nobody but the law can do that. Organisations too have the right to set their own rules for themselves. But in shared public spaces, if you don’t like or approve of what another person is wearing, you should just suck it up. If someone comes to your home wearing something you disapprove off, just don’t invite them next time. No need to preach your morality and appear holier than thou. Or give them instructions on how to dress when they come to your home. That gives the other person the choice of not coming to your home if they disagree about dress codes. But again, no need to moralise.
This notion that women should not tempt men is mere patriarchal thinking. One is responsible for one’s own responses. If you think about it, men’s pants are provocative. Should women demand men change into togas or cover their face so that they can’t be tempted? Would men think that is a reasonable request?
The problem is as to who sees what and how you interpret. How do yu look at a nude portrait whether art or photo . What you see is artistic and why worry what you see in a womens attire?
Thanks for the comments everyone – they were all interesting.
I did not describe what I was wearing on purpose to make a point – I don’t think it should matter how I am dressed, I should have been treated with much more respect – as a woman and as a professional. I wasn’t at a party, I was there as a journalist, in my work clothes. If I looked attractive that is certainly not my fault, nor is it a reason to make idiotic judgments.
I mentioned my parents and my workplace because I think that counts for a lot. Upbringing – especially in this country – has a lot to do with how you dress and how you behave and I have been brought up exceedingly well. As for where I work – if my superiors at the media institution at which I work allowed me to dress as I was, that means it was indeed appropriate. Very few institutions would allow their employees to go anywhere dressed inappropriately because it would reflect badly on them. So yes – I think it was a valid point that I made.
We so often blame men for leering at us or cat calling us but we rarely stop to think that women too, are to blame in some ways. This lady is the perfect example. If all women cannot learn how to respect themselves and their own identity, then what can we hope of men?
Thanks again for the comments.
All in all, she was out of line.
If people dress appropriately to the place they are visiting, this type of situation will not arise. Sometimes, people will not say what they think out of politeness. It was out of order for that lady to tell another what to wear or not to wear. At the same time Gypsy is too full of herself. Women or men for that matter should wear anything as long as it is decent. If Men and Women get excited by what some one wears, they should learn to control themselves.
A story comes to my mind. When a mother living in the UK advised her daughter not to dress “provacatively” when she was going out, the daughter said it is the men who should be locked up if they cause problem for women which is true. But the men in her wisdom told the daughter ” I agree. But we can’t do that. So please be careful”. We can reform the world only gradually.
@ CheeLanka. No i am not infected. I read Stanley Thambiah’s phenomenal book “Buddhism Betrayed’ many years ago as an undergraduate, and even then, agreed with what he said about the religious fundamentalism sweeping the country. I have the utmost respect for diversity and am even against there being “ministries” of Buddha Sasana etc. My comment was that, this particular encounter was to do with an occasion related to a different religion (other than Buddhism). So although the State is making Buddhism the basis of their fundamentalism, other religions too, are doing the same thing. What I didnt like was your assumption that this was necessarily a Buddhist issue. (e.g. you had said ‘budu ban’)
//Men should be able to respect a woman and treat them accordingly no matter what their attire
Small question, do women do the same? What is their respect / attitude towards a half naked man with “amude”? What is their attitude towrds a man who comes to a office in “sarong”?
This is not a gender related problem. It is a common problem. Gender biasing will not help in the solution
Not to worry. She must be having lot of knowledge about the personal affairs of youngesters. After all she is a counselor.
To her the best counseling proverb should be ” Do not look at attractive items with a dirty mind”.
Right on, Gypsy!
Angel:
“Women or men for that matter should wear anything as long as it is decent. If Men and Women get excited by what some one wears, they should learn to control themselves.”
- this is precisely what I have said as well. What about that, then, constitutes me being full of myself?!
Migara: The point remains, I was not in a sarong or anything else indecent. As my reply to her outrageous judgement says, I met many priests and nuns who could have easily told me the same thing but they didn’t – they were not at all offended by my dress. I met a good many people that day – she was the only one to create such a fuss. It was out of line. I didn’t make it a gender problem – SHE did. I was just responding to her as such.
Dayan – Thanks!
The manner the so-called counselor seems to have dealt with you sounds absolutely inappropriate and I believe what tempted her must be more of her jealous then the concern for social welfare. However, as a well-wisher, all what I want to say to the author is that being a journalist, irrefutably you have taken the responsibility of leading societies. In this process, you must forsake arrogance and personal assertions. Calm and objectiveness must be upheld at all times. My parents were not well known and I did not have the choicest upbringing [although enough of moral guidance] and I did not attend the best schools or universities – so, aren’t you alienating the billions like me around the world? If you think it is fame, the food, the dress and best schools and universities that sculpts a good human being, I am afraid you are in the wrong side of the isle!
There are journalists and journalists. I wonder if this woman writer, claiming to be a journalist, holds media accreditation issued by the government’s Department of Information (the only kind of journalist recognized by the state) and whether her publication is part of the Editors’ Guild of Sri Lanka (the hallmark of print media professionalism in Sri Lanka). If, on the other hand, she belongs to one of these little amateurish operations run by spiteful NGOs acting against the national interest, then there is no journalism there…only rhetoric and envy of mainstream media. Staff of such entities cannot claim to be journalists by any definition of that term.
To Reza Kandy,
You have misconstrued Gypsy’s comment about her background. I think she needed to mention it in order to eliminate any suggestion that her general behaviour or manner might have been at fault – the training she received removes that possibility. I think we needed to know that if we are to get a better picture of the situation we was describing.
Gypsy is NOT saying that a person who did not go to such a school has no sense of decency.
To Gypsy,
Surely, this must happen a lot in Sri Lanka, particularly under the ‘regime’ that CheeLanka alludes to?
Anyway, what’s wrong with turning on young men and priests? I was a young man once and these fleeting thrills were very welcome indeed
As for priests, isn’t it exactly what they need, to test their resistence to temptation, their commitment to god’s work? If they are tempted then they are in the wrong business, no?
Ed Migara – Your contribution to this debate/conversation is about as useless as the SL government’s actions to resolve the IDP issue. Regardless of whether you define the writer as a journalist or not the issue is something completely unrelated to that. You may want to focus on that and take your raving and ranting to a forum that’s less in touch with reality.
To Ed Migara,
Wow! So under your system we will have no idea what’s going on, for example, in Iran right now? Ed, Citizen Journalism is real and it’s here. YouTube, Twitter and so on. Much of the news items, images/video, come from your ‘unregistered, unauthourised, non-kosher’ people. Are you saying we must apply in triplicate on the appropriate form and wait for approval in six month’s time … before we blog? Did you, before you added your comment? Idiot.
Whether Gypsy qualifies as a journalist has nothing whatever to do with the validity of the issue she raises.
Kalusudda and Varunwije – Thank you for your comments. KS, that is precisely what I meant – thanks for putting it down so well.
It is so sad to see in this forum some people try to use anything to insult Singhalese and Buddhists. People like Chee Lanka and President Been are so pathetic losers. What they have in their mind is hatred and nothing else. They are making a completely different issue in to anti Sinhalese anti Buddhist issue. Buddhism has nothing in a woman making a comment on another’s dress and it is your utter ignorance to think in that way. It is people like you who made Sri Lanka a land of sadness for the past thirty years spreading hatred and ignorance among all races in the country. As the country is trying to get a new start try to come out of your idiotic ideas and get a life. Buddhism and Sinhalese culture could help you get civilised in a great deal. If Sri Lanka or any other country was ruled according to Buddhist values they will be a great nation in this world.
To Sanath,
CheeLanka’s comment does have some relevance to Gypsy’s issue. I remember reading somewhere that the mainstream religious establishment was trying to ban Valentine’s Day, and then to re-schedule a pop concert for religious reasons. So to say that the mainsteam religious voices are not concerned with what a woman wears I don’t think is the case.
Taking up another of your points, though I realise going way off the topic of this thread, every country/tribe/race considers its system of morals to be the best. Even despots and their followers like we saw in Germany in the last century. And it is sheer ignorance to think that universal principles of morality are unique to one’s own religion. It does not matter whether you recite them in Pali, Latin or Spanish. Or whether they are 5 items or 10 items, or indeed consolidated into 1 item. What is more important is not the language it is recited in, whether they know the words in Pali or Latin, or they know what it means … or whether it is recited at all … but whether the people live by it. I personally don’t think any society can claim not to be hypocritical in this regard. In SL it is hypocritical in a big way, though I realise not immediately obvious from within. I do wish these calls for ‘Five Precepts’ or the ‘Ten Commandments’ or the equivalent in ‘The Q’ran’ to be replaced by a call for ‘Universal principles of morality’, because they are the same. To suggest otherwise is just being divisive. And ignorant.
Well, I was engaged in School administration myself and always held that those who visit the college, especially during school hours, should be decent in their dress. The article does not verify the kind of dress the writer was wearing at the meeting at a certain college. While I do not accept that an inappropriate dress (well that is very traditional bound) gives the children and priests temptations, it also must be said that it is a school nonetheless. This is not about temptation but about discipline. The dress the writer wore can be ok in another place not in a school. I think on the part of the counselor there should have been a better way of communicating the same message in a different way. Anyway if I were there I would convey the same message to the writer (if she was wearing an inappropriate dress) in a more clear manner.
At the end of it all, the author has still not said what she wore, and has not revealed the nature of the event. Could this all have been made up?
Previous comments had asked her what she wore etc.
If you want us to fairly judge your case, YOU MUST STATE YOUR CASE. Why not put this dress on a plastic model and post the picture?
We even had someone (Kalusudda) claiming that wearing tempting clothes is a good way of testing Buddhist priests, and the author seems to agree.
So we see the mindset.
So in effect, the author HAS ADMITTED that she had worn clothes that most main stream people would consider unsuitable, inappropriate dress for a sober event involving religious dignitaries.
In a conservative chruch in New England-Boston area it would not have been a polite lady coming and speaking to the author. Instead an usher would have come and asked her to get out.
Check the dress code for visiting the Vatican, or any church in New England, and note how many movies have been banned by the Vatican for various reasons! I am not a Buddhist or a Sinhalese, but I see that this is all part of the bashing of “Sinhala Buddhists” that the ground-views website community is famous for. It is good to have such a website too, but readers should be aware of the strong bias of its writers, and the possibility that they might make up situations for their own “journalistic” needs.
David, this situation does not need to be made up – but it is worthy of being made up because it brings up some pertinent issues that are central to the bigger issues facing the country today. No, I do not live in SL either, and am not bound to any particular faction, so it makes us both ‘necessary’ for an objective exploration of the topic.
But, aren’t we getting just a little carried away by the ‘authenticity of the story’? Isn’t this story an example of bitchiness among women? This is the competitive nature that exists in any society (I expect) and certainly exists in SL society, like it is prevalent in the West. So what Gypsy ‘actually wore’ is a red herring. What kind of function it ‘actualy was’ is an equally red herring. What it is is that narrow minded attitudes exist in SL, they always did. The story gives this forum a vehicle to discuss the topic in a wider sense.
As for the priests/monks – you misunderstand. What I meant was, the priests/monks (may) need to confirm *to themselves* that their resolve/commitment is genuine – or at least one expects that they would. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t – that’s their business. All I’m saying is, this kind of temptation gives them an opportunity to do so, if they wish. If the priests detect a stirring in thier loins then they need to take that into account and reconsider their mission/profession/tactics/results/whatever. Some of them who wear robes for convenience/political reasons/compulsion/wrong reasons may show themselves up (perhaps even literally!) and disqualify themselves from the unchallenged respect they seem to demand. At the moment anyone can become one. A big con in the big land of con. Conflict, conspiracy and incongruance.
Budu Ammo! This is another western-inspired, CIA-funded, Vatican-sanctioned and NGO-driven conspiracy to discredit the poor, innocent Sinhala Buddhists who have done no wrong to anyone, ever. Why can’t these foreign elements and their local stooges leave us alone? For 30 years they used the LTTE to attack us. Now they are trying all sorts of other tricks in their book. Groundviews is part of this massive, sinister conspiracy. In fact, the entire Internet is an American invention to undermine our glorious Sinhala Buddhist culture. We must disconnect Sri Lanka from the global Internet, and then these conspirators won’t be able to use Groundviews to insult and threaten our endangered civilization. Budu Ammo – menna apata gahanawo!!!!
Who on earth said anything about a school?!
This was an event that I was covering with a television crew as a journalist. I had stated that in the letter. And also that there were priests and nuns – all of whom treated me with the utmost respect – but that it was not in a church.
I am NOT describing my outfit to anyone – that is simply ridiculous and takes away from the whole point of this letter. I have already stated that I was dressed as I always do – for work. That should be enough.
This article was not meant for publishing – it was sent to her first and foremost and if context is lacking, it is because she knows very well what I am talking about. And in the end, that is what matters. When I was asked if this could be published, I provided a few hurried paragraphs of the events that led to the letter and I think that is sufficient.
In the end, this has nothing to do with religion or even feminism – it is simply about the right of a professional to go about his/her business and not be questioned so rudely based on what they were wearing.
Let me answer kalusudda and tell him or her that I am an American now living temporarily in Sri Lanka and liking it. Buddhist Sri Lanka is far more liberal minded than the US where “In God we trust” is mandatory. No one can run for office even at the local town level without being a Christian. If you admit to being an atheist or if you support public medical plans you get labeled as a “commie” and all sorts of doors close on you. The holeland security people begin to tap your telephone. The evangelicals mysteriously begin to come more frequently to your door. The all pervasive powers of the Church as part of the establishment are incomparable to the mild hold of Buddhism that I see in Colombo. Colombo is suferfically Buddhist and deep inside more like the Anglican high church of the 1950s. Alas, I have to leave this beautiful Island and its tolerant people and return to the obese, wasteful, immoral and intolerant USA very soon. This mis-conceived feminist who claims that “she dressed normally ” should go to the West and try to work there and then she would understand a few things. Sri Lankan women have more dignity than our women in the west. It was n ot for nothing that your people had the first woman prime minister. This “gypsy” is totally clueless and does not understand her own culture.
The writer has now admitted that wht she wrote was not even meant for this publication and that she provided “some hurried paragraphs …”. This means we have a reporter who has now admitted failure even in regard to her professional job of writing a report and now presenting apologies. So, her judgment in regard to her professional work has clearly failed , and it may well be that her judgment in regard to her dress also involved “some hurried” trappings ? Is she willing to reveal to us what she revealed?
The lady journalist has a right to wear what she feels comfortable in. Why blame women for philandering husbands or priests and boys.
Come, come. This is the 21st century and not Victorian age.
Lest we forget, those who cover themselves up from head to feet have the same level of desire as those who dress in fashion of the time.
The counsellor should look back on her younger days and if she could cross her heart and say she did not dress to attract male attention then she’s living a lie.
Pearl Thevanayagam
Edwars (?) – Pls look up the difference between a written report by the media and an email. This was the latter. Also – stick to the point. This isn’t about my abilities as a journalist. Neither is this a forum where you can criticize my dress. If that is what you are after (and this clearly appears to be the case) please look elsewhere.
Pearl – Well said.
With apologies to Gypsie for needing to go off topic again to comment on this sub-thread.
David,
When you say ‘a mild hold’ I think we must be talking about different things. I realise the fundamentalist religious movement in the USA is hugely influencial. However, and here’s the parallel, I don’t think they publicly campaign that entire races should return to where they came from (eg. that the Native Americans are better off in Canada?), that the country belongs to Christians by *devine decree* as written in ancient writings, or publicly demonstrate a political mentality which goes counter to the purpose and ethos of their very existence. To that add the fact that – and something like this will never have happened in SL under the religious political right – the current President of the USA is of African-American origin with a Muslim name … no I don’t think we’re talking of the same thing. The attitude of the religious fundamentalists in the American bible-belt has not fueled a major civil war costing tens of thousands of lives of Americans.
However, I too agree Sri Lanka is a beautiful country with beautiful people, and with beautiful weather. Which is why this is so sad.
(Apologies to Gypsy gain)
What did the old lady say?
” Now, there are young boys and priests here and when they see you dressed like this, you give them temptation. And that is not good for you”.
She has missed out a few things I guess and she may have sounded better if she said ” Now, there are young boys, oldmen, young girls, women, third genders and priests, doctors, lawyers engineers and what not here and when they see you, they may get turned on.”
Ok. So what is wrong with turning people on? And what is wrong about getting turned on?
People are sexually attractive and people do get sexually attracted and people do use their sexual attractiveness to their advantage. And yes, some people are more sexually attractive than others and they may be at an advantage. I do not think that the response to such an advantage is to ban sexual attractiveness.
So what was this counseler getting at that made the journalist get so mad at her?
Perhaps she was a nasty old crone who whatever she may have said actually meant something like “Those who tease cockerels get pecked”…
Pearl – As a philandering husband I would like to point out that all this philandering by husbands is usually done with a female and so in a world where men and women are treated equally women would attract half the blame if philandering is to be held to be a blameworthy occupation. As for myself I don’t see how it is any more dangerous than gardening – especially if one wears a glove…
What is this “Editors’ Guild of Sri Lanka” which one Migara describes as “the hallmark of print media professionalism in Sri Lanka”?? I have been reading scores of Sinhala magazines of various kinds (on world affairs, fashion, education, sports, etc) and none of them seem to be part of this ‘Editors’ Guild’. At least none of them have mentioned it before. May be it is some exclusive club of the Colombo elite which has no room for the ‘Yakkos’. Can Migara tell us who are the ‘members’ of this exclusive media enclave? And Migara should then leave it to the readers to judge whether membership of this Editors’ “Guild” should be the sole criteria for recognition as a ‘journalist’.
IMPORTANT QUESTION: Since Migara refers to the Press Card, may I ask: how many journalists holding the Government Press Card belong to publications that have membership in this ‘Editors’ Guild’? Perhaps this would help clarify things about criteria for recognising journalists!
Temptation and actually acting on it are two different things. Are Sri Lankan men so out of control that they will instantly leap upon anything that attracts their interest? Of course not.
What a woman might be wearing is irrelevant. You can sexualize anything, no matter how much you cover up. I’m sure that there are some in Afghanistan who find the burkha alluring, if only because you DON’T know what’s under there, and so your imagination can go wild.
Obviously this councilor lady has a very dim view of men. She seems to think that men can’t control their desires. Well, men (and women) have to – the world is filled with temptations of all kinds. Mercedes Benz, anyone?