The Inspector-General of Misconception (5 page)

The Office polled Australians on what they considered their chief dilemma.

It was done not so much as a ‘snapshot' in the style of Hugh Mackay but more as a ‘hidden camera' in the style of investigative journalism; that is, the people being surveyed were not aware of what it was that was being surveyed.

We decided against sampling because of the error factor and decided instead to ask everyone. People hate not to be asked and we think that polls offend by not giving everyone a chance to have a say.

Our poll turned up a fairly predictable finding.

Among males the chief dilemma was whether one should wash hands
before
urinating or
after
.

We traced this dilemma to a piece of male folklore which masquerades as wisdom and which imparts that it is more sensible for men (and perhaps women?) to wash the hands
before
going to the toilet, rather than after, because the genitals are cleaner than the hands.

Any male under twenty-one who has been in a public toilet has been told this by wise older men at least seventy-six times (Australian Bureau of Statistics figure).

Geoffrey Dutton even records this piece of lore in one of his fine poems and we have admitted that as evidence in our official findings.

Our Researchers believe that this erroneous male belief amuses because it is seen as evidence of how bourgeois society always gets things wrong (or perhaps how our parents turned out to be wrong); it is also seen as a delightful contradiction; and finally, it is seen as evidence of the nonsense of official hygiene.

The ranking female concern was whether men
ever
wash their hands.

Or more specifically, women were tormented about whether their sexual partners – men or women – wash their hands before engaging in hand-sex.

Hand-sex is our homey way of saying ‘digital stimulation' (to climax or beyond)
with partners
. Hand-sex without partners was not part of the survey.

Fingernail care has always been a consideration in hand-sex; of that, more later. Though, at this point, we state that the erotic role and erotic charge given off by painted fingernails is as strong as ever. Which shouldn't
surprise, given the elemental character of fingernails as loving claws.

If, predicably, life is to be more focused on hand-sex because of the Terrible Time of the AIDS Plague in Which We Live, the fingers and the fingernails will inevitably receive more cosmetic and featured attention and that is one of our Official Recommendations.

Certainly, we intend to conduct a further telephone poll with special reference to the fashion of heavily be-ringed fingers.

As a footnote to our survey, it was revealed that men never worry about whether women (or male sexual partners) have clean hands. Probably because most men keep their eyes shut and hope for the best.

There is another class of men who are happy to take what they get. This report in no way condemns this position.

The Medical Team here at Our Office went to work on these beliefs and practices.

Firstly, they said, the whole body is teeming with bacteria, inside and outside; some harmful some not.

Secondly, they said, it is more likely that potent illness-causing bacteria will be found around and about the genitals. Excreta and the urine both carry, from time to time, dangerous bacteria, especially if the person has been or is ill.

So, our Medical Team concluded that the genitals are not ‘cleaner' than are the hands. The genitals are more likely to harbour dangerous bacteria.

Our Office intends putting out an Edict on the matter effective today.

Our Medical Team also pointed out that the hands also engage in much minute-to-minute friction which reduces bacterial presence, but that is not the point. It is which bacteria you encounter and where you put those bacteria which matters.

Unless you are putting your hands in strange places and touching dangerous substances you are okay.

More so with the genitals.

On this matter, we speak here as men-and-women-of-the-world. It is much harder to control
where the genitals go
,
what they touch
,
and what they get up to
.

Given that we don't know where the hands or genitals of others have been, maybe they should be washed, as our mothers told us, both before and after the meal. Or whatever.

We hope never again to go into a male public toilet and hear a Wise Old Man tell some kid that the hands are dirtier than the genitals.

Whether people should wash after sex is another divergence shown up by our studies. It seems that the
romantiques
believe that you should delay washing for as long as possible (By the way, the results of a supplementary poll of Pastoral Poets on this matter are still not in.) so as to preserve, through odour, the memory of the moment.

Readers will be amused to know that we still remember the time we first used our hand sexually with a girl at high school after which we kept our hand unwashed for seven months. We are, perhaps,
ultra-romantique
, even old-fashioned.

But we digress.

What we call the
hygienists
believe you wash both before and as soon as possible after sex. Or preferably the sexual act is performed under a running shower with heavy mutual soaping with a medicated soap which, judging by American movies, is the preferred form of American intercourse.

As for sex and dirt generally, the experts here in Our Office say it is a question more of aesthetics, symbolism and style.

But isn't everything?

As part of our follow-up study, we interviewed a cross-section of Professional Sex Workers who said that as a rule both the visitor and they shower before sex.

They said that they were not so much protecting themselves from disease as eliminating body odours.

The Sex Workers also shared with us the insight that the shower was more than that. That the showering was a symbolic return to some sort of innocence; that there was poetry in the showering.

Everyone in The Office found that quite charming.

We have never underestimated the Power of the Shower.

The Shower accents one set of activities from another.

The Shower is a way of rearranging the perimeter of the mind.

The Shower creates attitude. And as our Professional Sex Workers told us, it can be a return to innocence. It moulds us, melts us, sluices us. And is, of course, a purification rite.

But wet hair, as Helen Gurley Brown said, can be sexually off-putting. The wetdog effect.

We rush to say that Our Office has nothing against wet dogs. Not that we personally, nor our staff (they wish to have this put on the record) recall that much about wet dogs in our lives.

Perhaps the odd, friendly stray.

Some of those polled said that they found newly washed bodies too aseptic to be erotic.

There is a type of
romantique
who wants the smells of the body and the smells of life; underarm smells for instance. These
romantiques
enjoy gutter sex. For them, deodorants and so on spoil it all. We once heard a young woman say, ‘I'm going to the Q bar
to get dirty
.'

Anthropologist Mary Douglas was brought in to give evidence to our Inquiry and she told us that she saw dirt and its management as symbolic – involving femininity and cleanliness.

Mary Douglas stated that, ‘If we can abstract pathogenicity and hygiene from our notions … This idea of dirt takes us straight into the field of symbolism …'

Thank you Ms Douglas, you may step down now.

‘Dirt is not a scientific fact but a principal means to arrange cultures,' sociologist Phyllis Palmer told us.

We concur. Thank you Ms Palmer.

Theorists Jesus Fuenmayor, Kate Haug and Frazer Ward, told us that, ‘Femininity seems to be defined in terms of how women manage dirt. Women who had servants to deal with dirt were perceived to be more feminine, more ladylike.'

We told the Theorists that at Our Office we are very concerned with the problem of cultural and theoretical universals as in ‘The Male' and ‘Femininity' constructs.

That is, all those people who are for one reason or another exceptions to generalised statements about ‘The Male' and ‘The Female' are a category which may be larger or at least as significant as the generalised category.

The Theorists went away musing on our words, and we think that they felt there was a lot of sense in what we said.

It seems important to clear up the question of soap.

Soaps do not sterilise. Warm water used in handwashing does not sterilise, although it may
dissolve
some substances caught on the skin. Soaps dislodge foreign particles and molecules from the host skin.

Dr Stuart Levy of Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston is an outspoken critic of household use of so-called antibacterial soaps. They provide, he says, a false sense of security and may be creating superbugs resistant to bacterial methods used in critical situations in hospitals.

Tests show that the so-called antibacterial soaps are no more effective than ordinary soap.

And the medical wisdom is that it is beneficial for kids to ‘get dirty' – it helps the immune system to mature.

Washing your hands before and after anything reduces the foreign bacteria on your skin temporarily – for how long after washing anyhow are we ‘clean'? For how long after absolution are we sinless?

And another thing, those wretched hot air dryers are
not ‘more hygienic', they are less hygienic.

It is the friction with a towel that removes dirt. The soap simply loosens the particles. Have a look at the hand towel after you've used it. It always has some dirt on it. If the soap and water were enough, towels would never get dirty.

So let's hear no more nonsense about all that.

While we are talking about lavatories, why is it considered thoughtful for men to put the seat of the toilet down for women?

Wouldn't reasoning then lead women to ‘thoughtfully' put the seat up for men?

One could argue that given that the seat down position is statistically the most used position, it should be left in that position.

Or isn't it about time that men sat down to pee?

The overwhelming evidence is that not many men have the accuracy or the decency to pee straight and not to drip. Even in the best restaurants.

Ruling:
All people should sit to pee.

We are not particularly happy with the conduct of controversy in this land.

The Inspector-General feels that some misunderstanding exists about how to conduct a ‘controversy' and where it should happen.

There are two qualities which characterise us as Australians but again do not distinguish us. Other cultures share these qualities – but not many.

These qualities are civility and urbanity.

Civility we define as basic public courtesy and peaceable public behaviour. Obviously, we frequently fall from grace in our aspirations towards civility but at least, as a culture, we do
aspire
and often achieve a high degree of civility. Up to about six drinks.

Urbanity is perhaps a more stylish and polished public behaviour –
advanced civility
if you like. You will have to do a one-month program with the Inspectorate
to qualify for urbanity. The cost of martini-drinking is included in the fee.

One of the tenets of civility is the willingness to be publicly courteous with those with whom we disagree or dislike when inescapably we find ourselves in their company.

Another is the capacity for negotiating without violence with those we oppose or of whom we strongly disapprove.

The third tenet of civility requires that we exercise discernment about when and how we choose to disagree with our opponents.

Hence, when we have recognised a public figure we dislike in the supermarket, it does not follow that we should ram their trolley. Civility requires the containment of disagreement to appropriate places.

Intellectual disagreement and disapproval is only humanly bearable when it is confined to the diverse forums we have created for civilised disagreement.

The media, the letter to the editor, talkback radio, the seminar, the meeting, the festival, the private letter, even the fax, the critique, and the satire are the forums for expressing disapproval and disagreement.

A further tenet is that one does not disagree with all the powers at one's disposal.

The forums for confrontation do not include the abusive telephone call late at night, the burning of fiery crosses in people's front gardens. Or painting slogans on the walls of people's homes. Or the harassment of the family of public figures of those we oppose.

People who engage in the public discourse cannot go about the ordinary parts of their life without fear of abuse; talented people will consider public life not to be worth the candle.

What about civility and Hitler?

What about the invitation you receive in 1939 to lunch with Hitler?

Do you refuse as a protest against his policies?

Do you accept and argue calmly and rationally for a change of his policies?

And when he rants, do you thank him and hope that he will have lunch with you when next he visits your part of the world?

Or do you accept the invitation and assassinate him after dessert?

What do you do in 1942 when the lunch invitation arrives?

The Office accepts that there are some people and movements which are unacceptable in a civilised society – that threaten free society in a very tangible way (imprisoning opponents, for example).

Assessing and meeting that threat is part of the judgment of being a liberal democratic citizen.

Sometimes the threat cannot be extinguished without legal suppression or violence.

Democratically elected dictatorships or viciously anti-liberal and inhumane governments may have to be rebelled against.

Some people are to be shunned.

Some people are not worth arguing with.

These are judgments to be made about those who consistently and deliberately offend against civility.

These judgments have to be made on a case-by-case basis.

The guidance in making these judgments comes from a knowledge of history as well as a considered interpretation of the situation confronting us.

Inhibitions of discourse

There is an expression which has been around for some time now called Political Correctness which bedevils our conversation and public discussion.

But it is not PC which is a problem now. The problem is that we no longer know what subject is PC.

It has a very fuzzy meaning.

Essentially, the term applies to the attempt to use political piety (disguised as humanism or parading itself as an upholder of prevailing notions of ‘decency') to place certain ideas beyond question or joke. Further, to make the questioning of those ideas an offence against the decency of the discourse.

The natural opponents of Political Correctness are satire, comic heresy, bad taste jokes and ultimately, the questioning mind and the lateral-thinking mind.

Political Correctness has been a source of inhibition and prudishness in conversation, and the butt of innumerable jokes but it lives on.

Political Correctness closes down discussion – when we dare to buck it we hear ourselves having dutifully to
say in an uncomfortable voice, ‘I suppose that is politically incorrect.'

And of course what is PC in one circle of thinking is non-PC in another.

For example, in some subgroups it is not currently acceptable to criticise American foreign policy. In others it is not acceptable to support it.

The few examples we wish to visit in this investigation belong to what might be called the humanist-liberal subgroup. Or the progressive subgroup.

In truth, we also want to talk about
Compulsive Anti-Political Correctness
but before we do we would like to visit some of the categories of thought which have had the blanket of Political Correctness draped over them as being no-go areas for open discussion.

These include the notion of sexism, the notion of racism, and the notion of multiculturalism (all of which we support but where we feel the meaning of the terms have drifted wider and wider until they are disruptive of discourse).

Reckless use of the term ‘sexism'

The original and precise meaning of sexism and one to which we subscribe is words, conduct, laws and customs which contribute to the belief that women are intrinsically inferior to men or contribute to the invisibility of women in society – vocabulary such as policemen/firemen instead of police officers/fire fighters and so on.

The fact of the matter is that
all generalisations about gender (male or female) are sexist
.

But the word ‘sexist' is flung around and increasingly involves a misapplication and reckless allegations.

Sexist is often confused with public expressions of sexual desire, sexual depiction, sexual flamboyance, sexual display, erotica, and especially jokes of sexual nature.

It results in the mumbled confusion of someone saying, ‘Oh, we suppose that's sexist?' – an expression of utter confusion.

There are such things as sexist statements and practices and we do not support these. But the word is not at all clear-cut. We have to be very careful when we allege ‘sexism' even, or especially, when we allege it silently or publicly against ourselves.

We call it false-feminism, a political position which is really a new prudery masquerading as genuine feminism.

Camille Paglia uses the example of dance clubs in the US where women dance naked or semi-naked, usually around poles and in front of mirrors on stage, while men watch. She says these are really contemporary versions of ancient temples where men came to worship fertility and the female form. And at these ‘temples' they pay homage and offer up gifts (by placing dollar bills in the garter belts of the women). She says it is not a sexist act to go to these places.

You may or may not buy this interpretation but we offer it as an example of how the allegation of sexism is not always clear-cut.

And some jokes are funny
because
they offend contemporary political propriety – they are funny, in part, because they are inconsequential
heresies
. Yes, some jokes
are belligerently ‘silencing' but it is better to live in a robust world than in an atmosphere of inhibited blandness.

We quote some other confusion in use of the word ‘sexism'.

Example One:
A professor of English introduces the wife and daughter of a friend, knowing that we know their husband and father as a writer (he is absent).

He says, ‘Helen is Peter's wife and Anna his daughter; I suppose that's a sexist thing to say.'

To find a point of common connection and to identify Helen and Anna in this way to us is not sexist.

Example Two:
A leading playwright is on stage as a member of a panel of other writers at an international writers' festival. He asks permission to invite his wife to sit up on the panel with the others.

He feels that this is demonstrating an anti-sexist attitude.

Yet we see it as a
sexist
act. That is, giving his wife a privilege on the basis of her sexual role in his life.

And we wish to stress that in suggesting that there is confusion and misuse of the word ‘sexism', in no way do we wish to say that sexism does not exist and that it is not in every way demeaning. We believe it requires our vigilant and vigorous attention.

But we need to be precise in our usage otherwise it kills conversation, especially about sexual matters.

Compulsive Anti-Political Correctness

Australians, in a healthy way – although also in a
perversely unhealthy way – do have the tendency to buck Political Correctness but this has lead to another curious and infuriating phenomenon – even more mindless than Political Correctness – but perhaps more vicious. It is the posture of Anti-Political Correctness.

We have observed a veritable appetite, say among some columnists, to oppose anything which sounds humanistic or what they consider to be held as politically correct by liberal-humanists – and Political Correctness, it has to be remembered, contains within its list many genuine virtues (it is the social implication that these virtues are beyond discussion which is the problem).

It is a sure sign of political mindlessness to oppose
all
of the agenda of one's opponent. ‘Oh, stop being Politically Correct,' they will say, whenever a defence is mounted of a liberal-humanist position.

We think Anti-Political Correctness is now the greater bane. A compulsive need to ridicule every humane or ‘softhearted' impulse in areas of the indigenous people, illegal immigrants, feminism and so on.