Home / View Point / Guest Columns / Of sensuality and vulgarity: why Tim Kee is foolish but not misogynistic

Of sensuality and vulgarity: why Tim Kee is foolish but not misogynistic

I wonder if the wide spectrum of persons who have used the words “misogyny” and “misogynic” to describe ex-Port of Spain Mayor Raymond Tim Kee following his asinine statements on the murder of pannist Asami Nagakiya either believe what they are saying, or understand the definitions of the words?

Photo: Former TTFA president and ex-Port of Spain Mayor Raymond Tim Kee (centre) gestures to an Ecuador player while former Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar (right) has a word to her grandson before kick off of the FIFA Women's World Cup Play Off second leg on 2 December 2014. (Courtesy Allan V Crane/Wired868)
Photo: Former TTFA president and ex-Port of Spain Mayor Raymond Tim Kee (centre) gestures to an Ecuador player while former Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar (right) has a word to her grandson before kick off of the FIFA Women’s World Cup Play Off second leg on 2 December 2014.
(Courtesy Allan V Crane/Wired868)

According to the Oxford English dictionary, misogyny means “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women”.

And misogynic “is very close to the meaning of ‘misogynistic’, or ‘hating women’, but he may not feel full-out hatred toward them”.

Now I don’t know Tim Kee except as Mayor, and as someone who does not have a way with words to the extent that he often plants both feet in his mouth when he speaks. Witness his war with the Savannah vendors, which saw him backing down after uttering disparaging remarks, and his frequent bouts with other vendors and burgesses of the capital city over which he presided.

Based on these conflicts that were all triggered because he seemed to have spoken before thinking, I would say Tim Kee is a foolish man.

In the Nagakiya issue, before he knew anything about how she was killed—the autopsy was still pending, and whether she was raped has yet to be determined—he mouthed off on the way women un-dressed for Carnival, on their lewd behaviour that he had harped on earlier, and so on.

Photo: Late Japanese pannist Asami Nagakiya. (Courtesy Andrea De Silva)
Photo: Late Japanese pannist Asami Nagakiya.
(Courtesy Andrea De Silva)

In other words, he seemed to have suggested that Nagakiya might have invited her own demise through her conduct during Carnival, which was a very stupid insinuation that warranted condemnation, and, indeed, his resignation as Mayor.

That said, does anyone among the few thousand persons who came down on him like the proverbial tonne of bricks really believe that Tim Kee hates women? That he has contempt for them? That he bears ingrained prejudice against them?

I don’t know the man, but surely he must have a mother, probably a wife, sisters, daughters, aunts.

Do those in the pack that attacked him believe that he hates or holds in contempt all these female family members, or women in general? I think not.

I should add my own position before the fem-pack turns rabid on me: nothing that a woman says, does or wears or does not wear, justifies advances from any man, far less rape. A person’s body, be it man or woman, but more so women because of their physiognomy, is sacrosanct.

And when it comes to sex, consensual is the only format that is acceptable.

Photo: Rape check list... (Courtesy The Logical Indian)
Photo: Rape check list…
(Courtesy The Logical Indian)

What the ex-Mayor was trying to get across, though, his abhorrence toward rampant lewdness on the streets and stages during the Carnival, with women being the prime offenders, is a very valid issue that needs to be discussed.

Many people in the society feel strongly about this overwhelming affront to our sensitivities, so much so that they have voted with their feet: they stay away from fetes and street parades where such behaviour is predominant. Note the steep decline in spectators on Carnival days, from Jouvert ot Las’ Lap.

But they do not speak out against the vulgarity for fear of being pounced upon by the feminist and ultra-liberal lobbies that are aggressive as they are intimidating.

Me? I don’t give a damn. I’ve been around for too long, having established my bona fides as an architect of change and defender of human rights and women’s rights, for me to fear a backlash from anyone, any group or segment of the society.

I ask the women who claim full rights to their bodies if such rights include exposing their every crevice in public, before children, whose impressionable minds might tell them such behaviour is acceptable?

Photo: Revellers enjoy themselves on the road during Carnival 2015. (Copyright Loop TT)
Photo: Revellers enjoy themselves on the road during Carnival 2015.
(Copyright Loop TT)

I ask them if simulating sexual acts of varying contortions, no holes barred, and their seeming fixation with rear-ending each other, on stage, on the road, before television cameras, is right?

Citizens surrender our rights to drive on most streets of cities and towns for the duration of Carnival, give way to masqueraders whose hired thugs even beat us up if so much as step close to their gyrating bodies, for what?

To see them simulate sex?

We pay hundreds of millions of dollars, pay thousands of soldiers and police officers to protect them (hardly us) during the festival, not to see the spectacle of colour, creativity and listen to good music, but to be assaulted by deafening noise and seas of near-naked, gyrating bodies.

To add insult, they tell us they have the right to bare their backsides in our faces, and we must accept their animalistic behaviour or, well, stay home and do not even watch local television.

Photo: Port of Spain mayor Raymond Tim Kee (second from left) and councillor Farai Hove Masaisai. (Courtesy Facebook)
Photo: Ex-Port of Spain mayor Raymond Tim Kee (second from left) and councillor Farai Hove Masaisai.
(Courtesy Facebook)

They seem to not know that a woman can be sensual, ooze sexuality, without baring her all, without being vulgar.

But then, what do they know of sensuality who only vulgarity know?

About Raffique Shah

Raffique Shah
Raffique Shah is a columnist for over three decades, founder of the T&T International Marathon, co-founder of the ULF with Basdeo Panday and George Weekes, a former sugar cane farmers union leader and an ex-Siparia MP. He trained at the UK’s Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and was arrested, court-martialled, sentenced and eventually freed on appeal after leading 300 troops in a mutiny at Teteron Barracks during the Black Power revolution of 1970.

Check Also

Daly Bread: Swallowing the Carnival wrecker and other camels

Carnival post-mortems are usually futile because the vested interests in Carnival are so strong that …


  1. It had it’s glaring mistakes, but I think it was a good piece, generally.

  2. I shall now embark on a column entitled “why Raffique Shah is foolish fullstop.” I’ll be finished by next April.

  3. Hmmmm, Raffique Shah prob said “Finally! A man who knows what’s what” when he heard Tim Kee’s statement. This is not a matter of right thinking wrong timing.
    When our (the) men get profiled & assaulted or killed we women jump in the fray in support of them.
    When we women get attacked & murdered where is our support? Where are our men saying no, nope, not gonna happen on my watch!! Where????
    We women are human beings and we deserve the right to live a life free of being shamed. There is no ‘hoe uniform” that gives anyone permission to treat us as less than human. To each his own & how Tim Kee likes to see women dress is between he & his wife if she so chooses to oblige his censorship of her wardrobe.
    Ummmm ummmm ummmmm……. Disappointed in these 2, fist bumping over “women should dress like they expect to be treated”
    If they subscribe to this mentality, they are prob dishing it out too!!

  4. Trini endorsement of slackness! A fact

  5. I liked Shah’s editorial letter

  6. Apparently we’re all dying to run around naked and are trying to bully the right-minded citizens of this country into seeing our naughty bits. ?

    • I think that Mr. Tim Kee’s sensibilities were seriously affronted by the behaviour of women during Carnival, and that is what was uppermost on his mind when he was asked to comment. He simply failed to censor himself and give the politically correct response. He is no misogynist. We can all agree that his comments were extremely ‘outta timin’. However, I think it is foolish for anyone to leave their house without taking sensible precautions as to their safety, or predominantly rely on the police for same. What we want society to be is definitely not what society is in reality, and while I believe that the only person to blame for rape is the rapist, we must know that personal perversions aside, other factors also influence this type of behaviour. I remember a former classmate telling of his mindset after an afternoon of watching porn with his friends. He said if it were not for his upbringing, if the opportunity arose he very well could have raped a woman on his way home. Now, not every man has this self-control, and a woman dressed in revealing clothing or behaviour is like waving the flag before the bull.

      There are very different rules for men and women, whether we like it or not, so what a man does at Carnival is never as challenged as with a woman. This is fact, and won’t be changing anytime soon, so these are the standards that inform our opinion. Talking about the gender double standards is beating a dead horse – it is what it is. Women ought to know this, that they are held to a different standard than do men. It doesn’t have to be right for it to be so. So, let us forget Mr. Tim Kee, and remind women that the rules have not changed, that they have to be careful of those weak-minded men who are predators awaiting opportunity.

      Self expression is great, but please note that because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should – unless you are the last human being on earth. You do not live in a bubble. Your self-expression impacts on others, and you will be assessed and judged, positively or not. I do not see why certain behaviour is ok at Carnival but outside of Carnival you are looked at askance. If it ok yesterday, it ought to be ok today, not so? Otherwise, everyone is lying to themselves under the flag of double and triple standards.

      Mr. Tim Kee has been forced out of office, and us right-minded folks yell ‘hurray’ in self satisfaction, but I tell you, no one is laughing as much as the murderer. He was able to do a double trick – rape and kill a woman, and get a Mayor fired. That is power. Mr. Tim Kee is gone, but the joke’s on us.

  7. And if we’re building the discussion on assumptions rooted in that bullfriggery, we’ll get nowhere.

  8. Well said, Calisa Paulson. Bullfriggeries is the order of the day. One goalpost for women and another for men.

  9. But, has there ever not been a line drawn as regards what is acceptable in public?

    Three things are bugging me here:

    1. Lack of acknowledgment of the fact that the lines are in a different place for men and women.

    2. Lack of acknowledgment of the fact that many people’s ideas of vulgarity and propriety are informed by antiquated religious principles which themselves spring from a foundation of misogyny.

    3. The shifting definition of vulgar. If something is not vulgar in a certain space on Carnival Monday and Tuesday, how does it become vulgar in that same space on Ash Wednesday?

    And, as an “extreme” example of the first two issues: why are men allowed (legally and socially) to be bareback 365 days of the year and women are not?

  10. If Keith offer me body guard services FB might never see me!

  11. You weren’t complaining about policing when Rowley was offering bodyguard services though Rhoda! Lol.
    Okay. If the point is that women always shoulder the blame when talk turns to immorality, then I can see your point.
    Although that can be a chicken and egg situation too.
    Still do we agree there should be a line drawn somewhere as regards what is acceptable attire in public?

  12. misogynist
    [mi-soj-uh-nist, mahy‐]
    Spell Syllables
    a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women.

  13. Raf score an own goal here…just like Tim Kee last week. Both men of a particular era from conservative religious backgrounds. They should stop policing my damn body and see after themselves.

  14. Well, I can agree that an additional paragraph explaining why there is a distinction between male and female vulgarity would be helpful.
    I won’t say the absence of that alone makes it comparable to Tim Kee’s statements though.

  15. The comment is comparable because without even entering into a discussion about what constitutes vulgarity the author concludes that women are the “prime offenders”. Tim Kee raised the issue about vulgarity and then immediately went into the idea that women should refrain from said vulgarity for their own good. Vulgarity is being equated with feminity in both cases, like if it’s a switch applicable to women alone that they can turn on and off, subject to their approval of course. Incendiary.

  16. Vulgar also has context….given the context of Carnival how are we deyermining vulgarity? Look, miis me with all yuh bullshit, eh.

  17. ..Ok. I done. Open discussion is available only to those who are open. And is worthwhile only if it results in ” change”. Right? Supporting gender equality doesn’t mean supporting ANYTHING some women believe. I done yes..

  18. No it does not lead there. What we as a society need to do is have an open discussion on these issues and come to a concensus. Many of our laws are archaic and need to be updated or even removed entirely as they are just not relevant anymore. Further, we need to evolve our thinking on a great many issues, bearing in mind that they can be extremely emotive issues. And yes, that means some of us are going to have to give up some deeply held notions and beliefs and consider new ones as we navigate and negotiate a new and progressive social contract. But make no mistake, change is happening whether you like it or not. Women aren’t going to remain silent anymore. I rather we discuss and progress than we go kicking and screaming into the future but I know we like the drama…

  19. ..Right. So just leave everybody to do their thing. Right? Including being “vulgar” to a woman? Who has the right to criticize vulgarity aimed at a woman as in fact being vulgar? The man got his opinion too. You see where your argument leads? Or is it that all opinions are not equal and that some are in fact incorrect and self-serving? And btw, why we still discussing Tim Kee? We agree his statement was inappropriate and he was forced to resign. Let’s move on..

  20. The opinion comes in when you try to determine what’s vulgar. How you interpret vulgarity is subjective. What’s vulgar to you may not be deemed vulgar by another. And let’s agree that puritanical, Victorian era ideas on vulgarity are receding more and more. Also let’s agree that many people that find Tim Kee’s utterances and those of his supporters objectionable, are not all members of any rabid feminist group as some would like to paint us in an effort to discount our views. Some of us are ordinary men and women who understand that victim Blaming and shaming is prevalent in our society and needs to be eradicated.

  21. I’m surprised that you think I care what does and doesn’t surprise you.

  22. Yes. I did post that there is a combination of law and opinion. Partly dictated by what is permissible by law and partly by good taste. But I guess that was in another comment.

  23. We have all heard of a Freudian slip ….. let us term the mayor’s comments as a Tim Keeian slip.

    All ah we know what he mean!

  24. Pardna you know me …. when I “suggest” something yuh will know it.

    Ah know Soyini does know it! LOL

  25. ..If vulgarity were merely opinion Lasana then one could literally do ANYTHING. THAT is where tje extreme feminists would lead us. There is also Law. There is role modeling for the next generation. There is common sense..

  26. I think however it’s based on actual emotion of sex and sexuality and human anatomy
    A man can be bare backed but a woman can’t be bare backed in public

    So women would offend easier being in a bra than a man bareback in the streets

    Then in a heterosexual world men need women to be present and to be willing to engage in whatever activity

    So when women are blamed for lewdness it’s because the incidents happen with their voluntary approval


  27. Lol. And that’s what got Tim Kee in trouble. But are you suggesting that the same applies to Raffique?

  28. I get your point on it being associated with women Rhoda. But the media tends to focus on the women I think. So those are probably the images that sink in.

  29. I get your point on it being associated with women Rhoda. But the media tends to focus on the women I think. So those are probably the images that sink in.

  30. Communication isn’t solely what one says, it’s equally important when it is said and in response to what.

    For instance if someone were to ask me what I thought of their mother and my response was about whores, jammettes and side chicks I’m pretty sure I’d collect a bottle to my head regardless of what I meant or to whom I was referring!

  31. Kyle, the main problem I had with the ex-mayor’s comments were the victim blaming and the discussion of vulgarity in the context of a murder.
    Lewdness and vulgarity is an opinion to me which you can agree with or not.
    I don’t see it as being comparable to Tim Kee’s statements.

    • The mere fact that he can associate lewdness and vulgarity with women…and then justify a woman’s murder with it is what makes him misogynistic. Raffique hasn’t convinced me. Sorry.
      Doh come around me wearing pants, eh Lasana Liburd…because what yuh get yuh look for.

  32. “What the ex-Mayor was trying to get across, though, his abhorrence toward rampant lewdness on the streets and stages during the Carnival, with women being the prime offenders,”

    LOL. This is just a longer, more eloquent version of what Tim Kee said, filled with even more fallacious, misogynist arguments. What really going on in this place boy.

  33. “What the ex-Mayor was trying to get across, though, his abhorrence toward rampant lewdness on the streets and stages during the Carnival, with women being the prime offenders,”

    LOL. This is just a longer, more eloquent version of what Tim Kee said, filled with even more fallacious, misogynist arguments. What really going on in this place boy.

  34. I just wanna break it sufficiently down for the differently logical!

  35. Steups, u splitting hairs. I move on from that misogyny point.

  36. Steups, u splitting hairs. I move on from that misogyny point.

  37. It’s like discussing whether Donald Trump is racist, makes racist comments or if we understand the definition of racism.

  38. I think another failure of the article was naming females as the only/ predominant cause of the vulgarity.

  39. I wasn’t necessarily addressing the article either but a comment or comments previous on this thread that spoke about the behavior of women.

  40. At the root of trying to police women and their bodies is a deep seated problem with female sexuality.

  41. You say he is not misogynistic but gave no strong argument to support your point, other than saying in essence you don’t think so…

  42. Before I go any further I need to know what we’re talking about.
    Is it whether or not Tim Kee is a misogynist, his comments were misogynistic, or the definition of misogyny?

    If it’s any, all or a combination of any two of the above i won’t be interested.
    I ain’t into splitting hairs!

  43. 1. His definition of misogyny implied that if the person doesn’t explicitly say / believe that they hate women then they’re not misogynist. Really that’s coming from an educated person? And what does having female relatives have to do with anything? That’s like not being racist because you have “black friends” smh. And why is vulgarity suddenly gender biased? That reeks as well. What is vulgarity in our culture? Why is something acceptable one day and under certain conditions but not on the road? Simulating sex? Smh. Is that what wining means to the repressed? No men are doing it then? If it’s the costumes then the men are bare chested so why isn’t that vulgar? Or are we back to only women can be vulgar or if I have nasty thoughts then you’re the vulgar one and not me?

    Throw away the entire thing and beat yuhself with them church flagellation whip. None of it made any sense

  44. Well the article did say he was foolish. I think it’s a synonym. That’s agreed. The part about him not being a misogynist was the weakest part and could/ should have been left out . But the article makes some very valid points. Imo

  45. Well the article did say he was foolish. I think it’s a synonym. That’s agreed. The part about him not being a misogynist was the weakest part and could/ should have been left out . But the article makes some very valid points. Imo

  46. “Behavior”

    I wasn’t being specific

  47. I’m pretty sure most women who think men shouldn’t express opinion on women issues judge other women for falling short of their standards

    A bit hypocritical

  48. No.
    I overs Tim Kee since Saturday.
    I will check it now though!

  49. Yes this is something to discuss with patience….many things influence ppls opinion in this discussion

  50. As Khan said this is the 21st century

    Aren’t we suppose to be more tolerant at least of thought speech and expression

    So do men having opinions about women conduct have any merit?

  51. Quite interesting how some media workers who fight for free speech seem not to like non media workers having the same

  52. It’s quite interesting how people love their views to heard and analyzed and then they turn around and attack others personally for their views

  53. I’m pretty sure we all expect certain behavior from other people and it affects our emotions

  54. ..We could agree to have respect for a man like Shah even if one disagrees with his position..

  55. If we can’t all agree he’s a misogynist can we at the very least agree that he’s an enormous ass hole?

  56. If I hear one man talk about proper female behavior I might lose my shit. This as I walk down the street and have men and boys soot me and tell me I am walking like I have a sweet cyat and and tell me my tut tuts look good to suck and follow me through the streets and grab me and flash me. Can we turn our gaze to male vulgarity for 2 seconds? Or is that my fault too?

    • Nope. If you turn your head in the direction of a cute guy it’s still on you, cos you’re a damn floozie.

    • Lol. Yeah. I see what you mean. It remains the woman’s fault for the man’s behaviour in a sense.
      But how does a man approach the topic of vulgarity then? Because surely there is a worthwhile conversation to be had on that too.

    • Lasana I would argue that that conversation has been had. Over and over annually. from flag women to women on camera during the parade we hear about how lewd and vulgar women are. No mention of the cameramen who gleefully and purposely focus on these images however. Or directors who switch to those shots. Also no mention of the men who all this “simulated sex” is occurring with.

    • In other words, the woman is viewed through the lens of the man and his mindset/need at the time. “It’s a man’s world”.

      That is not to say that anyone should be stopped from having a conversation about vulgarity. It’s the ages-old one sided ingrained perspective that’s irritating (to put it mildly).

      So the start is… to start talking. Like we are here.

    • That isn’t the type of conversation I’m referring to Fayola. I mean a real dialogue where, in conclusion, you can say the consensus is x or y.

  57. It will become ok for men to tell women how to behave/express themselves when it becomes ok for white people to tell all other races of people how to behave/express themselves.

    • So U would have been able to receive the article differently if a woman wrote it?

    • Your emotions are negatively affected by two women gyrating on each other in Carnival costumes?

    • Afiya, short answer yes. Just as I receive criticism of the BLM differently when it comes from a black person as opposed to when it comes from a white person.

    • Kyon, the article is talking specifically about women, lewdness, and Carnival. You’re talking generally?

    • Well the article expresses the views of many women and men. And raises valid issues. Imo.

    • Chabeth Haynes general lewdness and vulgarity

    • Afiya, I didn’t say the article didn’t raise valid points or express the views of many. I’m questioning why those views continue to be limited to women when technically men are more naked during Carnival than women. the majority of women are not baring their every crevice at Carnival. They are wearing the same amount of clothing that they would wear to the beach. So to single out the ones who are in body paint of “overly exposed” and generalize all female masqueraders is to single out the one black guy with a criminal record and say all black men are criminals. (and for the record, I have no problem if a woman wants to have her costume be nothing but body paint. That’s her call. But that’s not my thing. I prefer a costume that involves cloth of some kind)
      Kyon, if you’re talking about general lewdness and vulgarity, then you have to talk about men and women. If a man and a woman engage in the same behaviour, it can’t be lewd and vulgar for her but not for him. The article specifically talks about women gyrating on each other. That’s somehow less acceptable than a woman and a man gyrating on each other?

    • That said , people have the right to behave however they choose. And others have a right to have views on chosen behavior and express it, if they wish.

    • U raise a good point Chabeth, while u were typing that I said in another part of this post : “I think another failure of the article was naming females as the only/ predominant cause of the vulgarity.” My one clear view tho- there is a vulgarity problem.

    • As pointed out elsewhere, vulgarity is a matter of opinion, and I honestly don’t have a problem with anyone expressing their opinion on the matter as long as they’re honest about their motivations. If the vulgarity of women is the only issue on the table (and in my lengthy journeys across the local internet space over the past week, I’ve seen exactly no one concerned about vulgarity reference men aside from allusions to the harm vulgar women invite) then the matter isn’t vulgarity so much as it is propriety. And this is where we get into trouble. Because while everyone is entitled to an opinion, they’re not entitled to enforce them on others.

    • And let’s expand the discussion about vulgarity to outside the carnival period. Men are verbally vulgar to me all year round. Offering unsolicited opinions. Nobody asked you. Keep it to yourself!

    • Well, that’s where folks get antsy. Because they’d rather keep making it about Carnival than to acknowledge that the entire issue is rooted in a set of logical fallacies that extend into the other 363 days of the year, the biggest being: if you’re a good girl and dress just right, yuh safe.

    • One
      Should women adhere to standards of dress and behavior

    • Two
      Do men who promote standards for women do they give excuses for violence against women?

    • Idk what you’re trying to ask/say, Kyon.

    • LOL, I started typing, eh, and then said nah, man.

    • LOL.
      Conversation #1… I knw he didn’t think that through because there’s no way he could be suggesting that anybody other than a woman decide the standard for her dress and behaviour.
      And conversation #2… I just don’t understand the question. Lol.

    • Well Chabeth are you a Christian Muslim or Hindu ?

    • I said standards

      Why is there a question about the gender of who set the standard lol?

    • 1. Well, therein lies the question: whose standards? (I suspect the Citizens Against Vulgarity keep raising this matter because they think we’re all just waiting for a chance to run the streets buck naked.)

      2. I tried reading it without the “do they” and near as I can tell, it’s asking whether men advocating for standards (again, whose?) are also excusing violence against women, but then that makes it a straw man question/argument, because that was never the accusation. The mayor was criticized in part for raising the matter standards of female dress and behavior in relation to the death of a masquerader. His timing made the link between dress/behavior and crime and also served to legitimize the view that blame for violent crime against women should rest on women.

      ^ That view, BTW, serves only to empower the people perpetrating violent crimes against women, by giving them a way to rationalize their actions. And it’s also pure nonsense since women are often harassed/brutalized even when dressed “appropriately”.

    • It doesn’t matter what book guides my religious beliefs. It is not right for me to impart them on other people. Just the fact you mention three religious denominations tells you that there’s diversity in thought… whoever is the biggest or baddest does not get to force everyone else to conform.
      Why do women need men to set standards for us? Why aren’t we intelligent enough to set our own standards? And if we set our own standards, why can’t men just say ok, they’ve set their standards and we’re good with that? We’re not children. Lol.
      And you’re never going to get everyone to agree on what the standard should be. Not even every woman. Because we’re not homogenous in thought because we each have functioning brains.
      My personal standard is as long as I’m hurting nobody, I’m good.

    • I’m somewhat intrigued about where that religious thing was going, but I can’t imagine it’s anywhere good.

      Also, the reason there’s a question about the gender of the individual(s) setting the standards is because you specified that the standards will apply only to women. This is where all the vulgarity arguments fall apart, BTW. There’s no logical reason why there should be different standards for men and women, or why women are the only ones being singled out repeatedly for vulgarity. None, whatsoever.

    • But standards apply to men also

    • The same ones? Because to hear those who support Tim Kee’s stance on vulgarity tell it, the only offenders are women.

  58. I still think this issue is multifaceted and we keep mixing the issues up…

  59. I didn’t agree with the reason why Shah is sure he isn’t a misogynist. That seemed weak to me.
    He might well not be one. But not for that reason.
    Otherwise I have no problem with the separate topic of vulgarity.
    Once it is not being raised in the context of a murder.

  60. I thought that part of the argument was weak Vernal. I agreed with much of what he said except for that argument.
    He might truly not be a misogynist. But not because he has a mother and a wife.

    • This article disappoints. And he might truly not be a misogynist? How do we then explain the successive stupid explanations and apologies? A bad week?
      #FOH with them assbackwards arguments. I demand better of you Lasana.

    • Rhoda, I’ve always found Tim Kee’s mind to be more uncomplicated than malicious generally. I didn’t say he was or wasn’t. My personal belief is that he doesn’t hate women. But what I’m saying there is that Shah’s argument to determine he wasn’t is weak.
      As for the rest of the argument, I actually do think vulgarity in carnival is a worthwhile discussion and has always been. At Express, every year we would go in the photographic department and watch pics of people literally having sex. And often group sex.
      I still feel that in no way should this discussion be used in the context of a murder… But I’d agree that there should a conversation on vulgarity.

    • 1. Tim Kee being a simpleton does not mean his attitudes are not misogynistic. Being dunce doesn’t absolve him.
      2. How you determining and defining vulgar? Through what prism? In some religions practised right here wining is a crucial aspect of expression…as is sexuality? So who gets to define vulgar?

    • I don’t disagree with you on either point. I have no formula to determine whether Tim Kee is or isn’t misogynistic.
      I felt his comments suggested an ingrained prejudice. But I won’t know where to file myself if we debate whether someone who is not misogynistic can make a misogynistic statement.
      The thing is I just see this as an opinion piece. Who gets to define vulgar?
      Society does have some guidelines in place through the law of the land.
      But I’d agree that it differs from person to person. So I don’t have a problem with Shah also getting to have an opinion of what constitutes vulgarity.

    • I’d be better able to entertain a discussion about the vulgarity of Carnival if it wasn’t ALWAYS framed around women. If enough people honestly feel that things have gone too far, why not talk about it? But if those same people are only concerned with women’s behavior, I can’t take them seriously.

    • Totally agree. I remain amazed that people are seeking to argue that there can be no definition of vulgarity. The discussion is needed and this has nothing to do with religion.

  61. ..Some people are so involved with their own thinking that they can’t listen to another thought..

  62. So long story short …. because Tim Kee have “a mother, probably a wife, sisters, daughters, aunts” he can’t be a misogynist?

    Who is the editor at the Express boy?

  63. Raffique continues to be a hit or miss columnist.
    He first correctly defines the term “misogyny” as “A dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women”.
    Okay fine, but then he questions whether it is correct to accuse Tim Kee of misogyny because “surely he must have a mother, probably a wife, sisters, daughters, aunts” as though having such relations disqualifies one from being a misogynist.

    Does it really need to be pointed out to a man Raffique’s age that EVERYONE has a mother and nearly everyone has a wife, sisters, daughters, aunts?

    More troubling still is the fact that this column made it past the Express editor!

  64. Lasana most concise summary of the whole matter.

  65. Trying to link the attacks on women to displeasure with women behavior is like trying to blame a victim for their murder

  66. Yes you can Alana Morton. Yes you can


  67. The article is clear that the dress or manner of the female is not an invitation/ justification to rape or harass them.

  68. BEAUTIFULLY SAID! Now let the Facebook intellectual bullies take on Shah. See if You can get him fired.

  69. Having female relatives does not disqualify one from holding “ingrained prejudices” against women. This is also known as the “I’m not racist, I have black friends” defense.

    This is also about more than Mr. Tim Kee. He was in this instance the representation of a deeply rooted misconceptions we in T&T hold about gender roles. By speaking out against him, we spoke out against men who think that it is OK to abuse women who do not fill the role they’re expected to. We spoke out against the women who think that the victims deserved what they suffered.

    The premise of this article is that lewdness is in and of itself a bad thing. It is not subject to debate, and from it all conclusions presented here are drawn. That is a dangerous line of thought to adopt.

    This article attempts to tell women what you think their expression of sexuality ought to be. I don’t see that as being your place.

    Whether public funds should be used to artificially prop up Carnival is another debate (and is, for the record, something that I disagree strongly with). Do not use it as an attempt to dismiss the concerns raised by the protesters.

    A burgeoning sentiment seems to be that Kee’s mistake was that he was honest, and that perhaps he should have said it better. I think that honesty is something we should cherish in our public officials. PR is perhaps the biggest disaster to befall democracy. We suffered enough of that under the last administration.

  70. Aside of that there is the issue of Children to be considered…. but as i said as far as i concern female sexuality was not the topic here, the connection RTK created was, the wild speculations he did and the fact that based on that he implied it was her own fault … all of that is very wrong… the issue of how vulgar or not Carnival has become is written on another piece of paper…

  71. Why is female sexuality such a problem? It doesn’t matter how you dress or walk or wine. Females are harassed, violated and attacked regardless!!!! So the problem isn’t our behavior as suggested above! How about we teach our males that no means no, a smile isn’t an invitation, that, yelling at a passing woman to “smile nah” isn’t cute, that wearing something short or tight isn’t an invitation to grab or touch, that no its not ok to try to police or control your female partner, that the females in your life are not your property or worth less than you, etc. Please. I really can’t with the apparently “3rd world” accepted mindset and culture. That’s what is absurd.

  72. Trinidadians are litterbugs – we all know it – however, while in the books littering is AGAINST the law, and a chargeable offence – in practice – it is legal! Isn’t it? The same with indecent exposure – while it may be illegal – in practice it is lawful! We cry out for a country like Singapore – well – neither littering nor indecent exposure would be tolerated for one minute in that country – they will all be charged and pay the lawful penalty.

  73. Logic please. He has a wife, mother and daughters therefore he cannot be a hater of women? Very naive. There is some behavior that goes too far but I walked around town a little on Carnival Monday and all of Tuesday afternoon and evening and I saw nothing that was truly outrageous. I think some of those criticizing don’t actually watch Carnival, ,most of what I saw was people just having a decent, good time. Don’t just jump on the bandwagon to condemn women because there is some bad behavior. Yes there were some thongs…but so what? Does that hurt you in some way, or does it just challenge your understanding of what is “proper”?
    Also, accept that the way the body is viewed now has to do with changes that are bigger than carnival, it is global! In some developed countries the sight of a naked woman’s body is no big thing. That is not scandalized and shamed in the way we do here. Time we get over the small mindedness and stop condemning women, when men of course are the ones encouraging the trends–due to men’s misogynistic attitudes. The mayor himself released a flyer for his official boat cruise with a busty and available looking woman in a bikini. Men use women to make money, so perhaps men are the real culprits.

  74. My sentiments, for me it was never about the topic of carnival becoming more and more vulgar, but the connection RTK made between that and the death of Asami, which was outright wrong aside of the fact that vulgarity is still no justification for Rape and Murder as he suggested….

  75. Wearing what one wants is an issue for people? Too early for this.

  76. ..Raffique speaks for me. The concept of an absolute female right to do whatever she wants, and to wear whatever she wants, because she is female, is thoroughly “First World’ and patently absurd. We have a behaviour problem at Carnival time with lewdness and vulgarity by both sexes, but Carnival being ninety percent female it is moreso a problem of women’s behaviour. And we need to fix it but can we?..

  77. “I ask the women who claim full rights to their bodies if such rights include exposing their every crevice in public, before children, whose impressionable minds might tell them such behaviour is acceptable?” Thank you!!

  78. So, because a man loves his mother, wife, daughter, outside woman, etc. means that he is not a misogynist?
    Mr. Tim Kee made clear his position that the way a woman dresses and behaves makes her the cause of her own rape and/or murder. That, I dare say, is the very essence of misogyny.

  79. What many dont see and understand from Tim Kee’s comments is the link between the way women portray themselves and male expectations that a woman should avail themselves to him. This is largely perpetuated at carnival time where women are assaulted for denying men a wine because they believe they are entitled to it, us and our bodies. Tim Kee’s wording left a lot to be desired but he said a lot

  80. Completely missed the mark on every level