Peter EspeutMUCH HAS been said and written this last week or so about the Prime Minister's claim that because of the efforts of his administration, "more man have gal than ever before".
I myself don't have a problem with the use of the term "gal", per se. It can be a term of endearment "Dis long time gal me nevva see you"), or a term of derision ("Ey Gal!"), depending on the context. What was the intention in this case?
What is particularly interesting about the Prime Minister's choice of words is the context, wherein he claimed that he is not getting enough personal respect, and enough credit for his achievements. So "respect" was definitely on the agenda of the discussion.
The basis for the statement that "more man have gal than ever before", the Prime Minister reasoned, is that "more man have car" and "more man have land" and "more man have cellular phone"; and therefore "more man have gal" because that is what women want: men with land and car and cellular phones. And so more "man" should have respect for him.
THE 'GAL'S' CHARACTER
The character of the "gal" painted here is the gold-digger, the "vampire", the "bloodsucker", not motivated by love or a caring relationship, but by what she can get - material things. She is looking for a "boops", not an intimate, tender, love relationship. And so more gal should have respect for him too because they are getting what they want.
This is the sector that the Prime Minister is pandering to, and the sector he is quarrelling with because they have little respect for him, despite all he has done for them.
The question to be asked is: is this picture disrespectful of women? Well, it certainly is not complimentary, if you believe that we should love people, not money. Here the woman is selling herself. But then neither is it complimentary to men, for the man pictured here is prepared to "buy" a suitable "gal" with land and car and cell phone, rather than to seek a life-long love relationship. Neither party is into the "for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer" business; they are only into "better" and "richer". What we are into here is the commoditisation of sex the exchange of material things for sexual favours prostitution by another name which demeans both the man and the woman.
THE OTHER FOOT
In this situation, does the "gal" have more respect for the man because she gets the use of land, car and cell phone? If not, then why does the Prime Minister expect respect for providing them?
Of course, he could have been even-handed and added "More gal have man" which would have put the shoe entirely on the other foot; here the woman is the centre of focus; she is buying and the man is selling himself. After all, more "gal" have land and car and cell phone too, to buy what they want, including "man" (not "bwoy"). And so they should be just as grateful, and have more respect for the Prime Minister. Even though this scenario puts the "gal" on top, it is just as uncomplimentary to women and to men and engenders no more respect. But the Prime Minister did not choose to seek respect using this claim.
Being uncomplimentary is one thing; but is the Prime Minister's characterisation of relations between men and women accurate? If it is, then maybe in the first place he is not being disrespectful, only faithfully reporting how things are. If his description is true, then the real disrespect is out there between Jamaican men and women and he is only a mirror of society, using reality to make his own point, paradoxically that he deserves more respect.
LACK OF RESPECT
In my view, the Prime Minister's analysis is correct for too many of us. How often have you seen a man call to a woman (a gal?) in the street (scantily clad or not) "putting question" to her, a perfect stranger, while undressing her with his eyes (whether she minces along or not). And how often have we seen a woman advertise her wares "out a door", and insinuate herself into a situation with an entree like, "Me would love to ave a baby for you", or "Sponsor me to a weddin' a goin' to next month, nuh?" (both personal experiences). And how often does a man think he has the right to sleep with his date for the price of a movie and a box of chicken? Too many of us look at another person and see only a romp under the covers, or a meal ticket; or the source of a contract or a bribe; or a vote. In short, we seek to use the other for our personal gain, the very opposite of the respect, reverence and value the Prime Minister seeks for himself.
Lack of respect between the genders is matched with lack of respect for life, and personhood. We are told that the "Values and Attitudes Campaign" announced by the Prime Minister (which I am still waiting for) will address negative values and attitudes and promote positive ones. The Prime Minister did not help his case for positive values and attitudes with his outburst.
I honestly do not think the Prime Minister was overtly seeking to disrespect Jamaican women (or men) by his remarks; after all he wants their respect; but he tapped in to the lack of respect for one another which, unfortunately, characterises much of Jamaican society, rather than seeking to uplift gender relations, and this was disappointing. Genuine respect is not earned in this way.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO
