The Tribune

By DR IAN BETHEL BENNETT

THERE is violence and rape, yet we talk about sins of the flesh. Just over the last few weeks we have had a number of events in the news involving alleged violence towards and denigration of women, yet the Christian Council remained silent.

It was not until they saw the light of Carnival did they speak out about the sins of the flesh.

We can have internet porn allegedly depicting minors and murder, but what is important to them is the possibility, the potential that women will be ‘under-dressed’ in public with the government’s new plan for bringing in millions of dollars.

Meanwhile, they are spending millions, if not more, on the creation of a carnival that will be an imitation of someone else’s culture. Be that as it may, it was surprising to see the vehemence with which the Council decided to condemn the Carnival on the grounds that it would promote incest and fornication.

We can kill our wives, we can rape young girls, we can beat women. Police officers can be charged in connection with child pornography, pastors can be convicted of having unlawful sexual relations with young girls they were supposed to have been counselling, yet the official mouth piece of the Christian majority says nothing.

However, they are up in arms because of Carnival. How does this happen? Are women that unimportant that they can be used and degraded, but the idea of ‘immodesty’ can be so egregious that they come out in force?

While Christianity is argued to be about Christian principles of life, love, humanity, honour, service, honesty and compassion, there seems to be little of this in real life.

In fact, it seems that what these people are saying is that if women dress provocatively, men are not responsible for their actions. Men are unable to control themselves because women are wicked; women are deceitful.

This is reminiscent of the marital rape bill when opponents began referring to Bahamian women as vindictive and wanting to claim their husbands raped them just because.

Where does that put women, and why have men no responsibility for their actions? How can we be so regressive in our thinking?

In other countries – which is always a line that gives some branches of the church reason to state that those countries are unchristian – women are beginning to assume leadership roles in the church. Apparently here we have returned to the place in history where we must cast out demons and perform exorcisms. Women can be raped because of the way they dress and the man can argue that he was tempted and thereby exonerate himself from any responsibility or guilt.

Is this branch of the church saying that men cannot be held responsible for their actions?

In the meantime, if we have Carnival we argue that men cannot be responsible for anything they have done nor will do. What kind of society are we creating?

It is not surprising that last year there were in the vicinity of 500 births to girls 15 and under. How did they get pregnant? Well, one knows that teenage pregnancy is meant to be on the decline, but who are the fathers? Or would it be better to say that the girl did it on her own?

While it is normal that we protest things that we think will make our country less than what it can be, it is surprising that we would protest something, that although foreign, is no different from Junkanoo or any other weekend festival in terms of women being scantily clad, but we say nothing about the other problems.

We condone the abuse of young girls because they must want it, they looked for it, but we say nothing about male responsibility and accountability.

Why is it that so many adult men can get away with murder and rape, literally and figuratively, and the ‘church’ says nothing about these crimes against humanity?

Is the ‘church’ condoning the exploitation of women by allowing men to get away with bad behaviour?

As a nation that promotes and lives off the funds raised from tourism, would it not be safe to say that scantily clad women on beaches bring trouble to our shores?

Is it that we are condoning when tourists are assaulted on the beaches? How does the Council view this? Is it that they should be covered from head to toe when they come to the Bahamas?

Why would they bother to come if they cannot enjoy the natural beauty we have to offer because they are not allowed to wear swimsuits on the beach given that Bahamian men are unable to control themselves? What would that do to our tourist industry? Are they being immodest?

How can the Council in all its wisdom choose to attack the government and society on such an innocuous event when women are being killed every day?

Or do they blame the women for their boyfriends, husbands, partners and friends raping and killing them?

Can we really so glibly blame the girl children for being molested by family members? It sounds like the Council is saying that men can behave any way they wish, but women are the cause of anything that goes wrong.

This line of thinking is further damaging the moral fibre of our community. It is further cementing the unequal misogynist patriarchy that dominates and allows people with less power to be abused and exploited by those with more power.