Opinion: “Outrageous” Journalism

Oftentimes, Tuesday evenings here in South Africa are uplifted by a television programme that can be penetrating and thought-provoking.

That programme is “3rd Degree” and is aired on eTV - the only non-State TV channel in this country. The presenter (and, probably, producer, editor, writer and chief bottle washer) is an apparently personable and intelligent young lady who relishes in the name of Debra Patta (my apologies if I have misspelled).

Ms. Patta - I use “Ms” here for a couple of reasons; firstly, because although the lady has previously admitted on air to having a child she has not, to my knowledge, conceded the presence of a biological counterpart in her life; and, secondly, although it is merely an impression on my part (the reasons for which might become clearer later), I strongly suspect that she might strenuously object to being tagged either “Miss” or “Mrs” - has, on occasion, shown herself to be a shrewd and competent journalist. It would be surprising if she were not (at least occasionally) since she is, I understand, also the main or a principal editor of eTV’s news.

On other occasions, Ms. Patta has shown a somewhat distressing tendency to dip into the gutter of journalism, both in terms of the content, style and delivery of some of her work. Generally, I have tended to ignore those lapses since, by and large, they have been out-weighed by her better work and, I suppose, one must make some sort of allowance for the fact that she has chosen a “profession” in which exposure and subsequent success is often all too dependent upon sensationalism and an appeal to the lowest common denominators in our society rather than the highest common factors.

The topic of last Tuesday’s programme concerned a subject on which I have already made comment, (”So, ladies, you don’t like the attention?”), viz: women’s attire and possible subsequent responses.

Now, to be absolutely fair, I must here state that I did not get to see the entire programme; thanks to Eskom’s depredations I did not have power restored to my humble hovel until just after 8:15 pm, thereby missing the first few minutes of the report.

However, from what I did see and hear (and this has been backed up from other people in conversation), I was truly shocked - even horrified -  at the base levels of competence and professionalism exhibited in the programme.

To begin with, in one trailer that I saw for the programme (the previous night, if I remember correctly), Ms. Patta’s voice-over referred to the sentiment that women should not wear mini-skirts in public as an “outrageous suggestion”.

Possibly this might be construed as an acceptable “teaser” for a trailer - it certainly caught my attention.

On the other hand - well, there’s nothing like pre-judging an issue, is there?

 Unfortunately, I saw only that part of the broadcast which dealt, primarily, with the wearing of trousers or pants by women. Perhaps not quite as contentious as the issue of mini-skirts, but obviously still a matter of concern to some segments, at least, of South African society. Even so, I was aghast at what I saw and heard.

1. Even allowing for the limited period I was able to view the broadcast, I could not discern any explicit statement or contextual inclusion of anything indicating that the programme was a personal (to Ms. Patta) opinion or personal (to Ms. Patta) editorial comment;
2. The questions and comments generated by Ms. Patta were neither objective, dispassionate nor fair;
3. The questions from Ms. Patta were biased and clearly intended to cause embarrassment, defensiveness and discomfort in those (men) to whom they were directed;
4. Comments and asides made by Ms. Patta were judgemental, derisory and insulting - particularly when she made direct and overt sarcastic remarks about her male respondents’ mental ages and their alleged inability to contain their sexual drives;
5. Ms. Patta made unashamed use of her prominent public profile to intimidate her (male) interviewees;
6. Ms. Patta appears to have made no attempt to enquire of and determine the extent and weight of various cultural factors in the matter of female modesty in African and other cultures; she seems to have been interested only in propounding her own views regarding the rights or otherwise of men and women to dress and behave in public;
7. Ms. Patta used this particular 3rd Degree programme as a personal platform to espouse her personal agenda.

I really do not mind if Ms. Patta has opinions and wishes to promote them. Good luck to her.

But shame on you, Ms. Patta, for unabashedly fronting your personal views behind your editorial and public status on a national broadcasting platform in the guise of independent investigative reporting. You constantly upbraid other public personages for their alleged abuses of their profile, positions and privileges. But you want your cake and to eat it, too.

And shame on you, too, eTV for not scrutinising and vetting a broadcast that carries your banner. I am aware that you want ever-higher ratings and that both you and Ms. Patta derive huge satisfaction and glee from those, like me, who are dumb enough to feed your drives for self-aggrandizement by responding to your attempts at journalism but who, at the end of the day, matter little to you except as proof to your revenue-generating advertisers of your ability to cobble together an audience.

Both Ms. Patta and eTV have done South Africa a great disservice.

• The victims of sexually-related crimes are not likely to receive any greater sympathy or respect as a result of last Tuesday’s 3rd Degree.
• The perpetrators and potential perpetrators of sexually-related crimes might react adversely to the programme and to Ms. Patta’s apparent open hatred and ridicule of all men.
• The self-styled “profession” of journalism cannot benefit from either the content or the style of the programme - although I suspect that your counterparts at the SABC might be finding it difficult to contain their jubilation at eTV’s ineptitude.
• Such women’s rights issues as really do need attention in this country may be be set back as a result of the strident and indignant single-dimensionalism of the programme and its presenter.

Ms. Patta, you might believe in Western feminist ideas and desires; you might wish to see them transplanted on to the continent of Africa. You certainly appear to believe that men are incorrigible perverts who see women only as sex objects and will perform unspeakable acts to satisfy their basest desires and lusts. You may even be sincere.

But, do you know, I doubt that sincerity and depth of belief. We can test it, of course.

1. Show more cleavage than you do on screen - well, try, at least;
2. Forsake a bra - although your needs in that area do not seem to be too demanding;
3. Start wearing mini-skirts and jeans when you go about your job and other activities - especially in public, and especially without your minders and production teams surrounding and protecting you;
4. Leave your cameras at home or in the office;
5. Don’t do this just in South Africa. Since you seem to believe that your feminist ideology must be applied worldwide then, please, conduct this little test elsewhere in Africa, parts of America (whence such ideas were first spawned) and the Middle East (and where you can also try leaving off the headscarf).

I would, however, suggest that you also take heed of whatever local customs and sensibilities might prevail. For your own sake. Remember that there are women, too, who genuinely and sincerely believe that modesty in both genders is a hugely important part of being a complete and rounded human being - something at which was hinted in your programme the other day but which, inexplicably, you failed to pursue.

You, on the other hand, seem not only to want to tease men by advocating scanty clothing but also then to punish and ridicule them when they are pushed close to or beyond the limits of their endurance.

But, then, either side makes a great sensational story for your ambitious journalistic appetites, doesn’t it?

Spearpoint.

So, ladies, you don’t like the attention?

From the outset, let me state unequivocally that I have never, nor ever will, condone, accept, promote or apologise for rape or sexual harassment (of either gender) under any circumstances.

 However, having put my personal position quite openly, I believe that some issues need to be placed on the table for consideration and, no doubt, heated discussion.

 Although South Africa shall be the focus of my observations and comments, what follows applies just as forcefully to the rest of the world.

South Africa has an unenviable reputation as having one of the world’s worst records for the rape, abuse and sexual harassment of women - and that is only based upon reported cases.

(I think I read somewhere that some 90% of such cases are never actually reported to the police. I also understand that a staggeringly high proportion of reported cases are, for various reasons, either never prosecuted or fail to result in convictions of the perpetrator(s). I am sure that there are competent organisations and individuals who can confirm, deny or correct my ignorance of actual figures.)

One example; very recently here in South Africa a woman was sexually assaulted at a taxi/minibus rank because she dared to present herself in public wearing a mini-skirt. There have been some spirited public protests as a result,(mind you, most public protests in South Africa tend to be spirited), by mini-skirted women.

Another example; last year the former Deputy President of South Africa was acquitted of having raped a female family friend. Part of his defence rested on his assertion that since the young lady in question had been wearing a mini-skirt she clearly had been wanting sex with him.

These are, of course, high profile cases but my understanding is that they represent a truly vast number of similar cases.

It is something of which we, both as men and as South Africans, should be utterly ashamed.

Now comes the big “but”.

But, is it really fair to lay all the blame on the men? Let’s see.

Now, I have not spoken much with many other men about this (although, perhaps surprisingly to some, I have spoken to a lot of women on this subject and I have not yet been torn limb from limb), so maybe I am extrapolating too much from my own personal knowledge and experience as a man,  but certain things occur to me.

I believe it is fair to state that, where sex is concerned, most, if not all, men are hardwired in this particular department. Cerebral activity and censoring seems to find itself bypassed - much like a reflex - when a desirable member of the opposite sex hoves into view. (I am not going to complicate the issue by considering same sex desirabilities, even though I suspect they are probably not too far different). Men just don’t think, they try to get on with it as quickly and as directly as possible. And although there have always been exceptions we are not known for our patience, finesse, subtlety or appreciation of the longer-term implications of what we do. We want it, we want it now and, please, no chitchat.

Having said that, it is also fair to say that men are also incredibly dumb where sex and the promise thereof is concerned. If the lady is desirable and clever enough, most men will wait (for what can feel like) just about forever for a consummation because another feature of the mere male kicks in - that of imagining or fantasizing that the end result will be worth the wait. And like the almost reflexive nature of a man’s primary sex drive, this seems not to involve any rational, logical segment of a man’s brain.

This aspect of men’s natures is well known enough by women that many are quite prepared to utilise that knowledge as a tool (some would go so far as to say “weapon”) in their treatment of men. All too many men are just so easy to lead by the nose (or other parts of their anatomy), grunting and drooling in an anticipatory daze.

Men are frequently delusional where sex is concerned, whilst women tend to be far more pragmatic. A man marries a woman in the hope and belief that she will always be the same and will never change; a woman marries a man with the thought and intention of changing and moulding the poor devil into her vision and version of the right type of male for her.

Part of this, too, centres around the brute fact that a woman has to take a longer view. The production of offspring requires a massive investment from her in terms of time, security and resources. Biologically speaking, she has to ensure that during her times of vulnerability and defencelessness she has, in the form of a (hopefully) loyal, strong and malleable male, in order to guarantee her own survival and that of her children. She needs someone to do the heavy lifting, to kill the predatory animals trying to take her food away and, if the male is at least partially competent, someone to continue the breeding of her genes into the world.

It is for these reasons that women always have been and always will be in charge.

Regardless of what men might like to think, it is always the woman who chooses the agenda and who determines the methodology of scrutinising, selecting and retaining the right man for her. Sometimes it’s not always the same woman. Sometimes the choices and decisions are not always right and the woman suffers as a consequence. But it is always the woman who is the puppet master, pulling the strings where, when and how she thinks (even if it is subconsciously) appropriate and to her best advantage.

I recall reading last year sometime that some researchers had discovered that even in the womb the feminine appears to be in control. Apparently, in the first few days of life all foetuses are female; it is only later that a certain number or proportion of males are permitted to emerge throughout a population in order to allow the pro-generative process to be repeated. I don’t know how accurate, true or biologically possible the above might be, but if it is, in fact, the case then it tends to support the view that women are in charge - with a vengeance. The report could also be used to argue that, given the fundamental level of control the feminine has in the womb, God is female - but don’t let’s go there right now.

So, the point is this: with all this going for you - why are you ladies complaining?

You know men are going to ogle you, mentally undress you, dream of improbable and bizarre couplings with you - even if you dress in a sack (with some men, especially if you dress in a sack). That’s what they are there for, to give you a selection of willing potential partners to choose from and to do the dirty work when you have collared them on enough of a long-term basis.

So, if you then present yourself to men dressed in eye-catching colours, low-cut necklines, high-cut hems, painted faces, feet and hands, please don’t be surprised to receive Neolithic responses and inarticulate and unconsidered behaviour in return. That’s what we men do, that’s what we are when the signals are strong and in-your-face. Advertising tends to generate responses; it proclaims that you are in the market for a mate.

And you like it. The attention, the flattery, the Bower bird-like strutting and showing off - that’s what women need in order to have a selection to choose from that is as wide as possible. It is this that gives women the power over men that they wield and often secretly (and, in my own experience, not-so-secretly) enjoy.

Homosexuals aside, all men, to a greater or lesser extent, like and love all women. Fat, ugly, angular, hairy, drop-dead gorgeous - it doesn’t matter. A man will always chase a woman until she catches him. To men, a woman is, first and foremost, a sexual object; it is the initial stimulus and draw which enables a couple to get together long enough to decide whether other factors can come into consideration and play - compatibility, friendship, companionship, love, respect and so on.

So, ladies, you don’t like the attention? Then don’t draw that type of attention to yourselves - or, if you do, then please don’t be too upset with us mere males when we respond in kind. We can’t help it - that’s how you designed us.

Spearpoint.