Dawn Ritch, Columnist
A very silly George Murray has written a letter to the editor, it seems from the Court of Versailles during the reign of the Sun King.
He writes that "a gentleman or lady ... (is judged by) how he or she speaks or behaves when being interviewed by the media in public; what he or she says, how it is said etc."
With a name like 'Murray' this great snob probably wouldn't recognise Parisian French even if he heard it, as distinct from creole.
The poor man took issue with my column on the 'PM's Glorious Credit Card'. I pointed out that she's always beautifully dressed, and obviously had a generous husband because no government could afford to dress Mrs. Simpson Miller.
Straw man
He, therefore, went on to set up a straw man of my argument, namely: "The clothes, dear Dawn, which one wears, do not make a man or a woman a gentleman or lady." This, at least, seems to suggest that he understands that there is a distinction between the two.
The only problem is I never said that clothes maketh a lady. I merely suggested that when a lady is very well dressed at all times, it seems a shame to tear her clothes off just to make a point. That is a point not worth making.
This reflects on the cartoonist who does it, rather than the lady herself. It illustrates that he does not know the difference between 'dressed' and 'undressed'.
Even if the cartoonist would like to undress someone, it is misogynistic to undress only the lady and her husband. He has been caricatured elsewhere standing in his underpants and an undershirt at the gate of the supposed matrimonial home. All this is while P. J. Patterson is portrayed dressed in the robes of a prophet, Edward Seaga is a fully-clothed don, and Bruce Golding is always in a business suit. Is this to suggest that Mrs. Simpson Miller is not worth the value of clothing, any clothing at all, except a batty-rider and a brassiere?
Since the public furore over that cartoon, at least Mrs. Simpson Miller has been wearing a skirt suit. But even then it's wrong, because most of the time she's the only leader other than Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel, who is in trouser suits most of the time. These are ladies, but they have to climb platforms and stand in the breeze, and none of them is Marilyn Munroe. Not one of them is going to stand on a grate and show her panties to the whole wide world. They are public figures, but not all of the same kind.
I'm no prude, but cartoonists must have other satirical weapons to fight lady politicians rather than simply stripping their clothes off, and that of their husbands, unless of course the husband is Bill Clinton. But Errald Miller has no such reputation.
It shows a want of imagination and class prejudice. It suggests that black people are incapable of being ladies and gentlemen unless they have middle-class accents. No Jamaicans living in Jamaica could seriously hope to defend empirically such a suggestion. Such an idiot would be exposed as not only intellectually lazy, but a racist bigot.
Disrespect
Above all, it is disrespect for the fairer sex. Not a soul would treat a male prime minister that way. Recently, Dr. Omar Davies, Minister of Finance was seen on public television slapping the Prime Minister on her back, not once, but twice. They were seated in Gordon House and apparently something amused him, so he hit her twice on her back. Both times he winded her. Omar Davies never did that to P.J. Patterson. Why should he take such an ugly liberty with Mrs. Simpson Miller? If the Finance Minister can behave in such an odious fashion, someone urgently needs to have etiquette classes with the entire Cabinet.
The other thing I can't abide is all these photographs of men with their arms slung over the shoulders of the Prime Minister. They never took a picture like that with any past male prime minister, Why do they want to have one like that with her? The simple answer is that each of them is trying to rob her of her dignity purely because she is of the female sex.
No prime minister, whether male or female, should be under anybody's armpits. Furthermore, she is a married lady whose husband is metaphorically dismissed every time this happens. Were she single, one presumes the general behaviour towards her would be even worse.
If men want to help the Prime Minister physically, they can take her by the elbow. There is no need to hang from her shoulders as though she were a clothes hanger, even if she is a clothes horse. They must stand on their own two legs.
It used to be that being well-dressed prevented you from being mauled in public, but not any more. Not apparently when you're a tall lady prime minister wearing heels. It's as though these men are trying to topple her, as though she's a football in flight and they're going to tackle. They might think it with male prime ministers, but nobody's ever seen them do it. They were too anxious to appear sober and dignified. How times have changed.
The only people who should climb on a lady prime minister are children. Even then, their parents should prevent them from kneeling in her lap, because she's not a school yard swing, but flesh and blood. I don't know how she does it. She must run 10 miles every morning, and lift weights. But if she were male, she could have a big belly and nobody would want to climb on her lap. Not a soul.
Library search
I've done a search at the National Library of photographs of all former prime ministers standing in groups. Not one photograph, formal or informal, shows anybody with an arm slung over the then prime minister's shoulder. There's one only in that pose, and it is of Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley who were cousins, and both of them had their arms slung over each other.
Mrs. Simpson Miller is getting older. Who knows, she may even have arthritis. One day somebody's going to get a hook when 50 lbs of arm is coming for her spine, and it won't be pleasant. Omar Davies can keep his hands to himself as well, and all the other like-minded cretins who surround her. Instead of helping, they make themselves a literal burden. There's not a gentleman among them.
