Obedient Wives' Club

The New Straits Times of June 7, 2011, on page 18 under the main heading of ‘Obedient wives’, had carried four articles responding to something said by a Dr. Rohaya Mohamed, Vice-President of something called the “Obedient Wives’ Club” after the launch of its Malaysian chapter. Apparently she had said that, “A man married to a woman who is as good or better than a prostitute in bed has no reason to stray”. (Microsoft Word set to U.K. English, corrected “as good or better” to “as good as or better”.)

Poor Dr. Rohaya. Maybe she had hoped for some attention, but I do not think that she expected the vitriolic response. “An insult to women” read the heading of the response from K.T. Maran. “Insult to men, too” was the heading of the response from D. L. (Daniel Lim? Daud Lokman? Or David Lazarus?) “Its not a case of master and slave” was the heading of the response of Jose Mario Dolor De Vega, lecturer, Department of Social Science, School of Humanities and Social Science, Nilai University College, Bandar Baru Nilai, Negri Sembilan. “It’s against Islam’s teachings” was the heading of the response from Ainul Khairil Ezral, the only responder (or is the correct word ‘respondent’? Microsoft Word could not tell) whose name sounded like a Muslim.

I had been wondering about what had actually transpired at the occasion; what was this international organization called the “Obedient Wives’ Club” that has just launched its Malaysian chapter, and who were the members of this club. I was also wondering why this very public outcry about the formation of a private club and what its vice-president (don’t read: president in charge of vice) said to its members. To me, this is a free country (at least in matters that do not “threaten national security”) and people of like minds are free to associate with each other. Likewise, those wives who believe that wives should be disobedient (disobedient being the opposite of obedient) can go ahead and form an international “Disobedient Wives’ Club”. And then, wives who believe that they should be obedient and disobedient at the same time (although I do not know how that can be realised) can form the “Obedient Disobedient Wives’ Club” or “the Disobedient Obedient Wives’ Club” whichever the founding members prefer. And what about the wives who believe that it is the husband who should be obedient to their wives and should perform like the gladiators of ancient Rome in the clandestine sexual service of their respective dominas (the Roman ladies who owned them or whose husbands own these gladiators); do they not want to form an international “Wives of Obedient Husbands’ Club”? If all these separate groups were to form separate clubs with large memberships and hold regular tea meetings to gossip or do whatever else women do at such women-only get-togethers, they would significantly boost the Malaysian economy.

Today, Tuesday, June 14, 2011, my question was partly answered on page 5 of the New Straits Times. Under the heading “Sharizat: OWC a stain on Muslims”, it was reported that the club was founded by a private limited company that was the off shoot of the now defunct Al Arqam movement. No wonder the outcry. Once an organization is banned, its members is supposed to disappear altogether and never again surface, never again associate with each other for any purpose whatsoever, and never again should its members be allowed to amount to anything in society. It does not matter if the offending element has been discarded. I wonder who among the four commentators above was there at the function. Or was the honourable minister there? Otherwise, whatever their comments were, such comments were all based on hearsay and therefore inadmissible.

I am still trying to figure out which are the elements that are regarded offensive here and therefore constitute a stain on Muslims. Is it the idea that a wife should be obedient to the husband (that alone and by itself) that is offensive? Or is it the idea that a group of women who holds to that belief should form a club and make their views public? Or is it the idea that there is here an educated woman suggesting that it is alright for a woman to behave like a prostitute in the privacy of her own bedroom if it pleases her man, although she is supposed to present a picture of modesty to the public. Or is it really the idea of being like a prostitute only for one man exclusively that offends. I do not hear much protest about women who appear quarter dressed or three-quarter undressed in public. In many places over the world, including in this country, women sometimes behave like prostitutes with different men in public, but there is no hue and cry about it, at least not from the quarters making noise in this instance. I know at least one case of the wife of a taxi driver forbidding the husband from working on Wednesday evenings (ladies’ night at the clubs). On ladies night she assumes, there would be many women of easy virtue prowling the streets of Kuala Lumpur.

By the way, I do not think many men would baulk at the idea of behaving like a male prostitute for the wife, if it pleases her. In fact I think some if not most modern men may find such behaviour erotic. I am of course assuming that he can carry the part; not everybody is well enough endowed, in build and stamina, to be a male prostitute. There is of course an underlying assumption of what behaving like a prostitute means here, which may or may not be the same as the interpretation of the commentators above. I would assume that the good doctor had meant seductive and erotic behaviour, and love making in uninhibited abandon. From the kinds of garments and undergarments displayed in shop windows to those peddled, advertised and modeled in glossy magazines, and from the kinds of contents graphically portrayed in printed literature to the movies with lines like, “What does a girl have to do to get laid around here?” shown on local television, I thought that such was the attitude towards sex promoted in many parts of the world. The only difference in this instance is its exclusivity.

The idea of an obedient wife was long ago already considered politically incorrect in the West and among those enamoured with anything originating in the West. The Christians in the advanced countries (I do not know if this applies to all Christian communities, including those belonging to the orthodox eastern churches), have long ago dropped the words “to obey” from their marriage vows. Nevertheless there are still a lot of people in the world, besides the conservative Muslims (who follow faithfully what they believe to be required by their faith), who believe in the idea that the wife should obey the husband; for one, the Hindus. Then again, how about those Japanese practicing Shinto Buddhism? If this idea of a wife’s obedience to her husband is all that is supposed to be giving Muslims a bad image with them, then as far as I am concerned they can go jump in the lake. All that it is is that we espouse different views from them and we do not apologise for our beliefs. Are we always to tailor our views according to what they believe?

Anyway, where did this idea (that if you are obedient to someone then you are his slave) come from? I have always been obedient to whoever I am expected to be obedient. That included my parents as their son, my teachers as their student, my instructors as their instructed, my superiors as their subordinates, my coaches as their player and my leaders as their follower etc., etc., save when obeying one would mean disobeying another that is higher. Did all this obedience make me a slave to any one of them? I certainly do not think so.

Through all that had been written in the newspaper reports cited above, I had not seen anywhere the presence of a man telling the women assembled that their husbands had a right to treat them like prostitutes. It was one woman, presumably also a wife (and I assume more educated and therefore more exposed than many or most of those in the assembly) telling the other women to be like prostitutes, when in bed with their husbands. So where did the idea that husbands in Malaysia were treating their wives like mere prostitutes and sex slaves come from. A women behaving like a prostitute in bed is an idiomatic way of saying that she is erotic, seductive and makes love with abandon and no inhibitions, game for anything. Treating a woman like a mere prostitute means that she is being treated with complete disdain. The word prostitute thus carries different nuances in the two situations above.

I was not there, so I did not personally hear what she said, did not personally see her body language, nor the response of her audience. Did she in fact speak Malay and used the word “sundal” or “pelacur” or “jalang”, which was translated as “prostitute” in English. Other words of similar import in English include “whore’ and “slut”. All these words carry slightly different nuances. Did she say these words naughtily tongue in cheek? Was she greeted with a burst of laughter with the women giggling under their purdahs? Was it in fact the case of a more exposed member of a group of women in effect saying to the other purdah clad members, “Now look here girls, there is nothing wrong with enjoying sex. Leave your inhibitions behind. Don’t just lie there like a third rate prostitute. Go ahead, be naughty. Behave like a slut. You are allowed to enjoy it, you know?”?

Maybe this, maybe that and maybe the other. Whatever it was that actually transpired, can’t we just leave them alone? They did no force anyone to join them. And behaving like a slut in the privacy of the bed chamber with your husband is certainly not a felony. And friend, a woman enjoying wild uninhibited sex with her husband in the privacy of their own bed chamber has not gone against the teachings of Islam, not unless they transgress the limits set by Allah. In fact Islam recognises sex as something to be enjoyed, besides being a means for procreation, even by women. They do not have to be prudes. Remember the case of the woman married to this sahabat (companion of the Prophet) who fasted every day and spent every night at prayer? What it means here is that he never had time for sex with her. When she complained to the Prophet, did he not remind the sahabat that his wife too has need of him? It reminds me of the story of a young couple from Sarawak. The husband was somewhat pious for a young man of that period. This was in the early seventies. For a few months he had been making love to his then new wife as if he was afraid he would break her (those were her words). She was getting impatient since after awhile she really did not fancy the lights-off-under-the-sheet type of very careful sex. So one Saturday, (in those days, we worked half day on Saturdays) she waited for him to come home in the afternoon, stark naked in the sitting room, spread eagled on the sofa, facing the door. Well, he got home to the biggest shock of his pious life. They even forgot to close the door properly. The wife told my wife and my wife told me, but they do not know that I know, I think.