Page 1749 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 18 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: Madam Speaker, I neglected to table the document that I said I would table at the end of my remarks. I seek leave to table the classification of printed matter guidelines of June 1992.
Leave granted.
MR MOORE (3.44): Madam Speaker, I recently addressed the Assembly on this topic under the heading of the status of women. I believe that this is, once again, the issue with which we are wrestling. In fact, Mr Connolly in his speech mentioned the status of women half a dozen times, if not more. Mr Connolly also mentioned the notion that it was not about pure images. I would like to emphasise that we are not talking about nudity, but about sexism. Whilst we must be ever vigilant against the push to control others through moralistic and evangelical arguments, we have an obligation to ensure that all people, regardless of race, colour or sex, are not singled out and debased in our society. I would like to ask members today to imagine the magazines referred to by Ms Szuty as depicting only men in our society - or only Asians or only Muslims, for that matter. How the hue and cry would rise from all departments. The point is that current attitudes and legislation regarding racism prevent this from happening.
Society's own sanctions do not allow the plethora of magazines depicting women in this fashion to extend to men - men who, of course, have been in a majority in parliaments and governments in Australia. They have ensured that, when their bodies are shown, they are invariably hidden behind, perhaps, a convenient shovel, baseball bat, motorbike, or any other large phallic symbol. Perhaps Shakespeare, with tongue firmly in cheek, summed up the situation in his well-known titles: The merry wives of Windsor feel that the two gentlemen of Verona should display their winter's tale measure for measure with the opposite sex. Perhaps a constant display of their genitals will cause a cry of "Much ado about nothing" or perhaps "As you like it". I feel that it may be more akin to a comedy of errors. The taming of the shrew, unfortunately, is the main agenda in this inequitable treatment and is the reason for the tempest which is raging as it does.
All jokes aside, Madam Speaker, the fact is that, in order to purchase a magazine that does contain this graphic representation of men, one expects to go to a designated adult Fyshwick or Mitchell retailer, not a newsagent or a service station. Those who choose to have this material can purchase it and peruse it privately. Men are not constantly confronted with this material depicting male genitalia, whatever size, in their day-to-day lives when they go to buy a newspaper, stamps, or whatever is in the newsagent, petrol, or last minute grocery items at the local service station or their Weet-Bix at the local supermarket. I venture to suggest that, because they are not confronted with this material on this barraging level, they have perhaps failed to understand how the women who are increasingly objecting to it really feel. I believe that they must feel that their right to choose whether or not they want to see themselves depicted thus is non-existent. To complain about it is to be labelled a wowser, enviously unattractive, unfeminine, pushy, unreasonable, a ratbag, et cetera. What they are really exercising is their right to speak out about false and potentially dangerous advertising.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .