Sunday, September 4, 2011

Gaddafi's feminist third way

The confused take on women reflects a desire to be unique that left the Gaddafis scorned by both the Arab world and the west

Nesrine Malik
guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 September 2011

""We will not give up, we are not women," Colonel Muammar Gaddafi declared on Thursday. From a man who had demanded female-only bodyguards for the past few decades, and who fancies himself a bit of a forward-thinking feminist, these are rather odd words.

His Green Book, a short work setting out his philosophy, has pages and pages dedicated to his quirky views on women, underpinned by a belief that we just have to admit to our biological limitations....



Gaddafi holds that western feminism has forced women to overreach their physical capabilities, yet he is obsessed with powerful women. Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright and camouflage-clad women in heels are the objects of his affection – but only if he is in charge....

It appears he applied his philosophies at home as well, spawning a family that resembled soap opera characters. His children seem to have a fascination with the trappings of western culture, but also a fixation on being some new incarnation of secular Arab leadership.....

Gaddafi's most notorious son, Saif al-Islam, has brought the august institution of the London School of Economics into disrepute through his long-standing association and the PhD that he was awarded. A self-styled cultural ambassador, he exhibited his art in a specially erected pavilion in London's Kensington Gardens.....

Fathered by a man who, when his pan-Arab campaign failed, retreated into blaming imperialism for almost everything, they are a motley crew of misfits seemingly desperate to ingratiate themselves with the west, but without internalising enough of its values to forfeit their birthright.

They never found a place or real status as statesmen or power brokers in their own backyard. Ironically, the west embraced the Gaddafi family far more readily than the Arab world ever did. They had money and found a willing audience wherever they went – even in the halls of the London School of Economics, so perhaps the finger-pointing over their gaucheness is a tad hypocritical....."

No comments: