I support your freedom to display [the gnome], but not necessarily your choice to do so.

Similarly, I believe the Australian government was wrong to deny a visa to Holocaust denialist David Irving. No matter how abhorrent his views, he should always retain his basic human right to express them — and then have them shot down in flames under the relentless withering fire of logic and evidence.

Your point about context is another good one.

Yes, in Australia a topless women would doubtless be ejected from a shopping mall. In some malls, though, particularly those near a beach or serving a large urban gay population, a topless man would be fine — even though just 20 years ago that, too, would have been unacceptable.

There’s plenty of Australians still alive who’d remember that a man in public without a hat was a man half undressed. Today, a hat is a rarity — though making a comeback.

Only two years ago, ’Pong and I were nearly ejected from a suburban RSL club because his shirt exposed his upper arms. The elderly patrons must have very delicate sensibilities indeed. I wonder how they managed to survive the War years?

Curiously enough, the photo of the bare-breasted African women on this post is captioned “Afar woman in the Senbete (Sembate) marketplace”. Naked breasts are apparently fine where she chooses to do a little shopping.

As for the gender breakdown of commenters…

I can’t determine everyone’s gender. And I can’t determine where everyone stands on the issue, because some people were making comments without necessarily revealing their personal views. Nevertheless, here’s my count of comments on both this and the original post, counting each individual only once.

Calls to cover up etc: 2 male, 2 female, 1 unknown.
Neutral or ambivalent: 2 male, 2 female.
Opposed to calls to cover up: 10 male, 4 female.

So, while it’s true to say that “most people calling for the gnome to stay were male”, that’s because most commenters were male to begin with.

Breaking it down the other way, the majority favoured the gnome staying, no matter what their gender.

Of course, the minuscule self-selected sample means that any numerical analysis has no actual validity whatsoever. Indeed, readers of my website are more likely to have views similar to my own anyway.

@Toejam: I do like “Gnorm the Gnome”. A lot, in fact.

Does a regular garden gnome somehow “objectify” old men fishing? No? What if we give him a whimsical name, like “Gnorm.” No? Still not objectified? No.

Silliness.

Downunder Discounts Foveaux Street Surry Hills $4.95 for a bikini clad gnome with a face simliar to Gnaomi. They do not currently stock naked gnomes.

I was merely passing on my way back from a presentation on the National Broadband Network given by a member of the Expert Panel who advised the government that this was/is the route to travel.

And Yes. I purchased a gnome. I photographed them on display and it seemed approriate in the circumstances.

It’s hard to tell, but from the names and icons on the comments, it does seem as though the majority of commenters in support of retaining the topless gnome are male. I think that’s significant.

I don’t buy into a simplistic bare breasts = rape argument, but I do believe that there is a causal link between the objectification of women and violence against women. And I’d make the point that when you’re on the side with the power it’s very difficult to see and acknowledge what it might be like to on the side without the power. It’s very easy to say ‘this isn’t offensive because I’m not offended by it’, when the reality is that you’re not the person the offense is aimed at. The case that illustrates that is the “Nigger Brown” football stadium furore. For the white people behind the naming of the stadium to say ‘It’s not offensive, it’s just the bloke’s nickname’ ignores the fact that a number of indigenous people were offended by a word that’s generally meant to be offensive, regardless of the context. For them, the decision to use that term stood as a statement of intent: ‘We don’t care whether you’re offended or not, we have the power and you don’t”.

Since I know you personally, Stil, I know that you don’t have the attitudes towards women that the ownership of a topless female figurine might imply, but I suspect that displaying it may well misrepresent you in certain fora. I support your freedom to display it, but not necessarily your choice to do so.

Also, as I said in my original post, the whole issue with bare breasted women is about choice, and that choice generally takes place in a culturally and legally proscribed context. As a theoretically emancipated Western woman, I theoretically have choices about my body and about displaying it. In practice those choices are quite limited. I can choose to bear my breasts on Bondi Beach or on certain kinds of social occasions (although if I chose to do so at my local shopping mall, I suspect I’d get arrested), but the reality is that I don’t because I would find the attention very unwelcome and the situation would feel, if not be, dangerous. To me that suggests that even in a society where the rhetoric suggests that I’m equal, the reality is otherwise.

The garden gnome is indeed a representation, not a woman forced into pornographic display, but representations are after all symbols, and the interpretation of those symbols is at the discretion of the person doing the interpreting. Or to put it more bluntly: it’s your right to display the gnome, but don’t be surprised if some people are offended.

The comments from ActionAid’s staff were doubtless well intended. They were, quite naturally, looking at this through their own lens as an NGO with messages to deliver.

While we’d previously agreed and briefly discussed editorial independence, though, I’m pretty sure that as they wrote those comments they didn’t realise that asking me to change the style and content of my material was, by definition, exerting editorial pressure. My immediate gut feeling was discomfort. When I saw that feeling being reinforced by other media professionals, I knew what my decision had to be. It just took a while to articulate that.

There are lessons in there about choosing the time, place and tone of the conversation. ActionAid, as an organisation, is new at this stuff, and will need to develop a feel for what’s appropriate in different environments. That’s not a criticism, of course, since everyone stumbles when they’re learning.

And this is just a stumble. No-one will really care long-term and, as I said, as an NGO doing stuff for the first time, ActionAid will enjoy a honeymoon period. I just hope that as an organisation they don’t over-analyse it — my own experience with NGOs is that that’s a risk.

It’s also a shame this happened in the extremely busy last week before ActionAid’s launch, ‘cos it hasn’t left any time to chat about it. Oh well, the world’s not perfect etc.

I don’t agree that banning cheerleaders will stop aggressive sexual behaviour by football players but I do believe that objectification of women (even cartoon or plaster gnomes!) does contribute to degrading attitudes towards women.

Media and images DO influence our behaviour and levels of normalcy or acceptability. Have you ever walked out of the ‘Clockwork Orange’ and wanted to punch someone who bumped into you? I have.

We need to be aware of how seemingly innocuous props can indirectly or subconsciously say that ‘It is OK’. And often it is not. Or, at least, should not be.

That said — Stil, you have a good argument and it is very well articulated.

I like that the discussion has had due weight. Those from ActionAid should not be dismayed — their arguments, while perhaps not as well crafted as yours, do remind us of the ongoing issues faced by women around the world. These issues should continue to be brought to the attention of all of us. Debate, after all, is critical in order to achieve change.

I’m told there’s a shop in Surry Hills which still has plenty of the gnomes in stock. Some are topless, some have bikini tops.

it appears that mwandani is possibly an Australian based blogger so would (I think) falling into the “Australian audience” category .

Reference:

J. Nambiza Tungura

http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/nambiza/

“Nambiza Tungaraza is Adelaide-based Swahili blogger, radio presenter, community worker and an artist. In Radio he presents the AFROWORLD program at 101.5fm Radio Adelaide and coordinates/mentor young broadcasters. As an artist (painter and computer graphics designer), he has done exhibitions in Asia, Europe and in Australia. He still paints occasionally. Nambiza also works in various refugees-related projects.”

BTW: There appears to be a surplus of naked gnomes in the inner Western Suburbs of Sydney (25 cases on order – Adelaide according to Google News) so it could be that Pong was short changed. It appears they have been distributed as prizes in a local Bingo competition and this has been the situation for at least two years.

But it wasn’t just that difficulty that delayed my response. I also wanted to let others have their say too. I feared that if I said too much too soon, I’d stifle discussion. Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. However the evolving conversation certainly did help me clarify my own thoughts.

That’s one of the strengths of the open, collaborative style that’s associated with this thing we call “social media” (ugh!).

@Archie Law: We haven’t had a chance to talk about this yet, but I’m guessing it’s all caused… well, a confronting discussion within ActionAid. I remember well the complexities of Sending The Right Message when I worked with another highly political NGO, the AIDS Council of South Australia, both as a board member and a project officer. I look forward to having a yarn when we meet next.

@mwandani: Can you tell us more about your reactions to this discussion? Since you’re writing about Tanzania in what I assume is Swahili (Kiswahili), I’m very interested to know what you think.

I should mention that the photo at the top of the article isn’t intended to imply any connection at all between the toy and Africa — except that the toy and my planned trip to Africa collided to create this conversation.

It’s a still image from the opening of my last video program. Each week the program begins with the gnome on the left of the screen. The camera then moves around to look at things which are relevant that week — on this occasion my passport, a booklet about health for travellers, and the book on Africa I’ve just started reading.

The program is more or less aimed at an Australian audience — inasmuch as it has any planned target audience at all.

But of course seeing the photograph here, out of its original context, does create a different connection, whether I intended to or not.