…and this is a 
Didgeridoos are not for you, little girl
Category: Kooks • Weirdness
Posted on: September 3, 2008 8:49 AM, by PZ Myers
Harper Collins is about to release a children's book called The Daring Book for Girls(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) in Australia. It contains a very short section on how to play a didgeridoo — and wouldn't you know it, someone is offended.
But the general manager of the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association, Dr Mark Rose, says the publishers have committed a major faux pas by including a didgeridoo lesson for girls.
Dr Rose says the didgeridoo is a man's instrument and touching it could make girls infertile, and has called for the book to be pulped.
I think Dr Rose has confused aboriginal belief with reality. The didgeridoo is a long piece of hollow painted wood. Go ahead, girls, you can touch it and it won't hurt you, no matter how much someone claims its magic powers will do weird things to your gonads.
I would think that he could, possibly, make a case for cultural insensitivity if it were true that it would the book violated native taboos, but even that wouldn't be grounds for demanding that the book be destroyed — it would just mean that members of a culture that rigidly defines women's roles would not be buying the book. But this Rose kook goes further — he's not just saying it violates a tradition, he is arguing that it literally has magic powers. What next, will Catholics start claiming that pieces of bread literally turn into pieces of a god? That would be ridiculous.
"I would say from an Indigenous perspective, an extreme mistake, but part of a general ignorance that mainstream Australia has about Aboriginal culture," he said. "We know very clearly that there is a range of consequences for females touching a didgeridoo, it's men's business, and in the girls book, instructions on how to use it, for us it is an extreme cultural indiscretion."
Dr Rose says the consequences for a girl touching a didgeridoo can be quite extreme.
"It would vary in the places where it is, infertility would be the start of it ranging to other consequences," he said. "I won't even let my daughter touch one.... as cultural respect. And we know it's men's business. "In our times there are men's business and women's business, and the didgeridoo is definitely a men's business ceremonial tool."
Heh heh. He said "ceremonial tool." I know who's playing the tool here.
(via Josh Reviews Everything)
Comments
Posted by: alex | September 3, 2008 8:55 AM
interesting. if i was to bodge together a musical instrument that resembled, but was not actually, a didgeridoo - at what point would it acquire the ability to sterilise girls? is there a threshold point where it would become didgeridoo-like enough to mildly reduce fertility? and if it was being played in a forest where there was no-one there to hear it, would it make a sound?
Posted by: Alan C | September 3, 2008 8:56 AM
I have heard the Tuvan throat-singing can also cause infertility in women. (Just a word of warning to the ladies).
Posted by: Renee | September 3, 2008 8:58 AM
Awesome. I'm a girl and I OWN a didgeridoo. I'm guessing according to Rose, I should be dead by now, or something.
Posted by: mr-zero | September 3, 2008 8:59 AM
Didgeridoo?
Didgeridon't!
With apologies.
Z
Posted by: Vidar | September 3, 2008 9:01 AM
How long before books are going to be banned because someone believes that all fiction is of teh debbil?
I'm goin gto a sushi restaurant, and tell the owners that their serving of raw fish is an affront to the Great Cepholapod in Outer Space. Who's with me!
Posted by: TSC | September 3, 2008 9:02 AM
Wow. What about gourdalins?
Posted by: Kel | September 3, 2008 9:03 AM
I remember this custom from primary school. I remember not being very critical of it, to the point where I thought it was wrong for a girl in my class to play one.
Oh how times have changed.
Posted by: Robert Davidson | September 3, 2008 9:03 AM
The argument here is rather complicated by the context of 200 years of whites telling Aborigines that their beliefs are wicked and wrong. That does make the cultural insensitivity a bit more dicey than it would be in dealing with, say, Catholic beliefs.
Posted by: Schmeer | September 3, 2008 9:04 AM
I'm disappointed that no one asked the good Doctor by which mechanism is the woman or girl is made infertile. Do the ovaries vanish or just turn into non-descended testicles? Show me the magic!
Posted by: Holbach | September 3, 2008 9:05 AM
Is there anything in our world that does not have a religious or obscene cultural taboo based on superstition and nonsense? Here is yet another example that is finally seeing the light of non-reason. Crackers, didgeridoos, assorted icons, shrouds, and all manner of insane connotations. We can only surmise what will be next to amuse and infuriate us, and brought to you by religion and it's substrates.
Posted by: Undo | September 3, 2008 9:06 AM
Stupid caveman beliefs. It's hard to believe that we have microprocessors and space telescopes and yet these primitives still think this crap. Ugh.
Posted by: DaveX | September 3, 2008 9:06 AM
COLLINS BLOWS IT-- INFERTILE BELIEF FOUND TO BE PHALLUS-Y
Posted by: SteveM | September 3, 2008 9:07 AM
All I can think of is Lisa Simpson playing a didgeridoo when they went to Australia.
Posted by: Lynnai | September 3, 2008 9:07 AM
Well if you are running with one and fall on it in a really improbabple manner..... nah, I got nothing.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 3, 2008 9:09 AM
Only a man can touch and put his mouth on the long, hard, male instrument.
Posted by: Buddhist With An Attitude | September 3, 2008 9:15 AM
It's very simple: only allow women who are past fertile age, or women who don't care if they become infertile, to play the damn instrument. That would force Dr. Rose to come up with some other threats, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there (unless bridge crossing is men's business).
Posted by: Eric | September 3, 2008 9:15 AM
I think the author of the story got confused - Rose was trying to say that if a woman touches his ceremonial tool, then they'll become infertile. It's all a big mix-up, really.
Posted by: Woody Tanaka | September 3, 2008 9:21 AM
Robert Davidson:
Nonsense. It is only "complicated" if one adheres to the belief that because, at some point in history, white people were cruel to aboriginal populations, that, therefore, the descendants of those aboriginal people have a right to require the descendants of those white people to pay respect to nonsensical, superstitious gibberish. The fact that they were victims does not turn "superstitious nonsense" into "non-superstitious nonsense," solely as a result of that group's history of victimization.
Posted by: Sigmund | September 3, 2008 9:23 AM
Playing a digeridoo can cause infertility problems for boys too. (Not through any magical properties but because girls will think you're a dork and avoid you like the plague.)
Posted by: Kate | September 3, 2008 9:23 AM
The argument here is rather complicated by the context of 200 years of whites telling Aborigines that their beliefs are wicked and wrong. That does make the cultural insensitivity a bit more dicey than it would be in dealing with, say, Catholic beliefs.
So, then Robert, it's *not* an incredibly stupid thing to believe? Of *course* it is! It's idiotic! It's ludicrous! Ridiculous!
It deserves as much ridicule as the belief that crackers are gods, or that there is a giant dragon that lives in the earth.
Posted by: Whiskeyjack | September 3, 2008 9:24 AM
I'm going to add my voice to those of the other women who have not only touched, but played (and in some cases own) a didgeridoo with no noticeable ill effects. Countering anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence...
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | September 3, 2008 9:25 AM
I wonder if it is as effective at preventing pregnancy as, say, abstinence-only sex education? Maybe Sarah should have introduced Bristol to a didgeridoo instead of a boyfriend.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | September 3, 2008 9:26 AM
You mean these women play a didgeridoo and don't become infertile? How culturally insensitive of them!
Posted by: Robert Davidson | September 3, 2008 9:33 AM
I just find it unseemly to find rich, powerful white people telling oppressed black people how they are to believe, and treading all over what they hold sacred. It doesn't matter how ridiculous you might find their beliefs - there is a power issue here.
It's beside the point how tenable the beliefs are here - the real point is what intellectual violence is being done to people who have had a gutful of white murder, oppression, family destruction and cultural destruction. Have you found anything different from talking with Australian Aborigines?
It's also an issue of cultural property. The didgeridoo is considered Aboriginal property, and it is violation of Aboriginal law to treat it outside its restrictions. You can totally ignore Aboriginal law if you like, but realise that you are thereby continuing the trampling of an ancient culture.
Posted by: Sili | September 3, 2008 9:33 AM
Only just saw the headline, and here it is getting rightly condemned.
Yay for equal-opportunity mockery!
Don't they sell didgeridoos to tourists? Don't tell me they refuse to take a woman's money.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 3, 2008 9:34 AM
He seems very confused. At times he says it has actual medical consequences, at other times he refers to "cultural respect." He should get his story straight before he imposes his worldview on the general population.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2008 9:40 AM
Religion being used to make one culture subordinate to another? Say it isn't so!
Oh goodie, another concern troll.
It's sacred to them. That doesn't mean anyone else has to treat it that way.
It's a frickin' stick.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | September 3, 2008 9:41 AM
Maybe some claim it causes infertility, but I have never heard this.
To me it is purely a cultural respect thing - not religious or superstitious at all. The didge is men's business and the bull-roarer is women's business. They fulfill different social roles. A man wearing a dress (and a dog collar) makes the same sense as a woman playing a didgeridoo - they can, but why would they? Throwing religion into the mix, especially in this day and age doesn't compute.
I've spun a bull-rorarer (I'm male), and may again, but only cuz they make a kewl sound. I'ts just plain rude and insulting to do it regularly. A (female friend) played a few notes on her didge the other night and I thought immediately she shouldn't have, but didn't say anything. We are both white. I know lots of indigenous aussies, not one I know worships the rainbow serpent - it tends to be regarded as just one more creation myth by white and indigenous Australians alike. for the record: in a smackdown, with or without cage, the rainbow serpent would take God, Allah and Yahweh in one go
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | September 3, 2008 9:42 AM
Is he a gynecologist, perchance? He might be trying to guilt women who play the didgeridoo into arranging an appointment with him for a tubal ligation. Out of cultural respect, you know.
Posted by: Bart Mitchell | September 3, 2008 9:42 AM
I bought this book for my daughter, and she loves it!
I picked it up without browsing through it, as I was already familiar with his 'Dangerous Book for Boys'. I have to say, I'm a tad disappointed with the lack of 'mens business' in it. Over all, it is a good book, but the clear division between 'boy' and 'girl' is quite apparent between the two versions.
On a side note, my wife and I spent 6 months in Australia for our honeymoon (backpacking). We both held, and played the digerydoo on many occasions. I think our beautiful healthy daughter is quite enough evidence to show that the good Doctor Rose is incorrect in his hypothesis on infertility.
Posted by: karen | September 3, 2008 9:46 AM
No worries. Just throw a boomerang to get yer fertility back again.
Posted by: Robert Davidson | September 3, 2008 9:46 AM
Do you know how infuriating it is to have concerns dismissed as "a concern troll"? This is an incredibly crucial issue for Australians - it's the defining characteristic of our culture. Certainly not a troll. My friends' lives have been extraordinarily damaged by how they have been treated by white culture - please don't simply dismiss it in an offhand way.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | September 3, 2008 9:47 AM
Could this be the a new cutting edge contraceptive? Could the didgeridoo replace the pill? eh? eh? Cheaper than a condom cause you only have to buy it once? Safer then getting your tubes tied. eh? eh?
@#27...
ahem, *cough* *cough*
its a FRACKING stick.
Posted by: catta | September 3, 2008 9:49 AM
Wait... I've got a didgeridoo. I occasionally play it. You mean I never have to pay for contraceptives ever again? Great! Also, whom can I sue if this method fails?
(And yes. I bought it in Australia. I don't remember hearing that particular piece of silliness. Considering how touchy they are about Ayers Rock and how they will tell you aaaall about it whether you intend to go there or not, I'm sure they'd have mentioned the whole didge thing if it was all that important.)
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 3, 2008 9:49 AM
This is the kind of idiocy for which the word "wanker" (spoken with an Australian accent and much vehemence) is so appropriate.
Posted by: Julian | September 3, 2008 9:54 AM
DaveX wins the internets
How insecure does it show men to be when every single stone-age penis-replacement is either broken by or breaks any woman who touches it? Sounds like a certain anthropologist need to read Totem and Taboo.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | September 3, 2008 9:54 AM
Unseemly? Does it not occur to you that this is one person claiming to speak for an entire group of people? I, personally, find that terribly "unseemly". Or does it not occur to you that you have simply taken this individuals perspective at face value and assumed that all aboriginal people actually believe this? Or does it not occur to you that this person, in expressing his personal opinion, and seeking to speak for every aboriginal person, is bring aboriginal custom into disrepute? I personally find those things "unseemly". Just as I find it "unseemly" for catholic bishops to push their twisted view of the world into the press, and claim that they represent all "catholics". For that matter, substitute any self-appointed spokesman, and you'll find something truly "unseemly" going on.
What the hell is "cultural property"?
Posted by: Ponder | September 3, 2008 9:55 AM
@28- I am not an aboriginal Australian, I do not follow their particular religion, I couldn't give a damn about what they think if I use a bull-roarer or if a girl uses a didgeridoo, furthermore THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT! Their religion, not ours. Their silly rules, not ours. They do not apply to us and the aboriginals should not expect them to apply to us. You are probably insulting some religion somewhere every ten minutes or so. Eaten any beef of late? Grave insult to the Hindus. You cannot live trying not to insult every religion, their rules do not apply and they have to accept that. They want to be offended, fine. Their problem, not ours.
Uluru/Ayers Rock- Would I climb it? Certainly like to, but I would consider it actually aboriginal territory here, their rock, so I probably wouldn't. Like I'd tapdance cheerfully on a magic jebus biscuit, but not actually climb an RC cathedral, damned tempting though that might be.
Posted by: Dahan | September 3, 2008 9:55 AM
Hmmm, guess I shouldn't have bought my wife a didge as a present all those years ago when I was in Australia. I figured it would be a nice gift because she plays flute, sax, clarinet, and a bunch of other wind instruments. She must never know of my mistake.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2008 9:56 AM
Do you know how infuriating it is when people insist their religious rules be followed by everyone? Arbitrary rules defined by a religion have no authority over anyone except those who choose to obey them, whether it's a cracker or a flute. Period.
Whatever injustices you have suffered at the hands of others does not in any way, shape or form mean we have to obey your religious rules. I can sympathize with the intolerance you have been subject to (really, I can). But telling the rest of the world that women can't play a musical instrument because one culture believes it's wrong isn't the solution.
Posted by: Robert Davidson | September 3, 2008 9:57 AM
Armchair Dissident - aren't you projecting your own values onto Australian Aborigines? How many Aborigines have you spoken to you before firing off these opinions?
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2008 9:59 AM
The original crackergate thread was originally entitled "It's a Frickin' Cracker" until PZ changed it to make it rhyme. I did the same thing with "stick".
Posted by: Bart Mitchell | September 3, 2008 9:59 AM
Peter McKellar at #28, are you equating playing a musical instrument with cross dressing?
Are the bullrorarer playing males the equivalent of a San Francisco Queen?
Either way, I approve of this message.
Crushing cultural dogmas is just as important as crushing religious ones (is there a difference between them?) I challenge you to put on a public duet with your friend, playing the others instruments. (insert sexual innuendo here)
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | September 3, 2008 10:01 AM
As much as I hate quoting from Wikipedia (my copy of Encyclopaedia Britannica is at home):
Or, to put it briefly and succinctly: I was right, you was wrong. Or to be more brief: suck it.
Posted by: Joshua BA | September 3, 2008 10:03 AM
I am tired of this "You must respect other cultures" BS. WHY must I respect and avoid disparaging a culture or cultural belief that I find to be bad, offensive, or evil? I could not care any less that they have darker skin than I do. I do care that they cling to useless, and apparently evil (according to my ethics), beliefs and practices.
Just because their culture was marginalized by a stronger group does not in any way necessarily make that marginalization a bad thing. Nobody sane complains that Nazism (an evil culture and set of beliefs) was almost completely wiped out. It seems that the only bad cultures people think shouldn't be wiped out are non-white. I just differ in that I don't care what color skin the majority of a culture's members have.
If my ridicule, contempt, and arguments against a culture that I see as malign lead to it's downfall, I am not going to shed a tear. I may in fact celebrate the advancement of us as a species.
Posted by: Robert Davidson | September 3, 2008 10:05 AM
Armchair Dissident - which particular group are you referring to? There is no such thing as a generalised Dreaming Law - there is incredible diversity across this vast continent, and hundreds of languages and ethnic groups. Dijeridus only appear in a small minority, of course.
I get the feeling people here are rather out of touch with these cultures, and it's sounding more and more like a rabid right-wing site (like Andrew Bolt's blog). A shame - I was starting to like Pharyngula, but it appears a lot more bigoted than I had originally thought.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2008 10:06 AM
Drama queen exit. The door's that way ---------------->
Posted by: Ranson | September 3, 2008 10:09 AM
Welcome to India, the United States, Mexico, South America, Canada, the Middle East, Africa, and every damn where else that we honkys have ever plopped down a colony. We have ignored, slaughtered, "re-educated", and pirated every native culture we've ever touched. In a lot of cases, that means that things that have been "sacred" since "the dawn of time" are often cheapened and commercialized, much to the disappointment of natives. If you have guilt about the fact it happened, fine. Don't expect anyone else to. I regret lots of the things the USA has done. I can't change them. I also care less about preserving ancient ways of life than I do about moving the world forward. Sure, many things might be lost (I always feel sad when a language dies), but mystic proclamations and taboos don't deserve my pity. People, yes. The need to rub blue mud into one's bellybutton during the third moon of the month? Not so much. This is a blue mud/bellybutton situation.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 3, 2008 10:09 AM
Is it too late in this thread to waggle my eyebrows and offer my services to any nubile women wishing to take lessons in "didgeridoo" playing? I will provide the "instrument" and give full instruction in technique.
Posted by: Robert Davidson | September 3, 2008 10:09 AM
Oh grow up tsg - pathetic. Engage with the arguments. Better yet, start actually discussing evolution and other interesting things.
Posted by: Rik. | September 3, 2008 10:11 AM
You know, I have this sacred ritual. Every seventh day of the seventh month, I must sacrifice a virgin of 17 winters to the Great God Adljeika. But, people won't let me! And now, I am doomed to, after my death, suffer the Great God's displeasure and my Immortal Soul shall be thrown into the sun where it, together with the souls of the other sinners, shall burn bringing me unimaginable suffering and give light to the Illuminated Ones that live on Earth.
Not only am I OPPRESSED, I am also OFFENDED by other people NOT SACRIFICING VIRGINS, as this is a GRAVE INSULT to the GREAT GOD Adljeika and His Holy Instution Here on Earth! Therefore, I demand other people also sacrifice a virgin of 17 winters every seventh day of the seventh month! Or you will suffer my displeasure and the Terrible Holy Wrath of the Great God Adljeika!
Posted by: The Chemist | September 3, 2008 10:11 AM
Don't be a fucktard. Of course they do, it's called freedom of speech. If you want to say they don't have a right to ban it, say THAT.
As for calling Robert Davidson a concern troll, can we cut out the childishness of calling people concern trolls every time they try to present a coherent counter-argument? I don't agree with him, but fuck am I get tired of hearing that phrase applied so liberally here. Just for the record, it has never been used on me, to my recollection.
@ Robert Davidson, I understand your sentiment. However, telling people that they have a right to be offended or a right to object is very different than saying a book can and should be banned. In theory (and I hate myself for using this example) this means that banning Salman Rushdie's books is a legitimate act by Middle Eastern governments because it offends local sensibilities.
Meanwhile, The Daring Book for Girls was not written to specifically offend aboriginals. I would hold your argument in much higher regard if it was deliberate race baiting, but this is not the case.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 3, 2008 10:12 AM
Renee (@3):
Maybe not dead, but you could presumably be saving a lot of money on contraception!
Alex (@1):
Funny you should mention that: I think didges make cool sounds, and a while back I thought about acquiring one so I could learn to play. In searching around on teh intertoobz, I found that there are a number of places that give plans for making your own didge from a length of PVC pipe. Real didges, if I understand it correctly, are made from pieces of wood that have been naturally hollowed out by termites... and as such, each one is a unique, "natural" item. I imagine it's from this found-in-nature aspect of the instrument that its mystical signficance arises; it's hard to imagine that anyone thinks a length of pipe from Home Depot automagically becomes a fearsome womb-shriveler just because you buzz your lips in one end of it!
BTW, according to the wiki on didges:
Posted by: Robert Davidson | September 3, 2008 10:13 AM
Ranson - it's not that I feel guilt about a destroyed culture, but great sadness. This is the world's oldest collection of continuous cultures. Religion is inseparably woven into these highly distinctive stories, songs, pictures, dances, languages etc. What are we saying? Let these go extinct without a struggle? Destroying people's identities and communities in the process, leaving them to lives wasted on alcohol dependency, domestic abuse and squalor? This is not a trivial issue.
Posted by: Ross | September 3, 2008 10:15 AM
The real question here is: Does didgeridoo-induced infertility violate the Catholic Church's ban on birth control? If not, I think we should start distributing didgeridoos to any woman that wants one in poor Catholic countries as a population control! What could go wrong?
Who knows? Dr. Rose's revelation of the didgeridoo's power over the ovaries may help save the world from overpopulation!
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 3, 2008 10:15 AM
Actually if I recall correctly the fuss over the Satanic Verses wasn't that it was banned but rather that senior cleric in Shia Islam at the time called on all Muslims to kill the author and anyone involved in publishing who knew of the contents.
The Japanese interpreter was murdered, and two other interpreters survived assasination attempts. Rushdie himself spent several years in hiding, under 24-hour armed guard.
Who cares if it's banned in Saudi Arabia? The issue was a bit more serious than that.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | September 3, 2008 10:15 AM
Then you need a lesson in reading comprehension. Dr Rose, speaking - or at least implicitly speaking, without clarification - on behalf of all aboriginal people stated categorically that:
He is appearing to make this statement in his official capacity within the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association. He is not simply stating that some Aboriginals, in some circumstances might find it culturally insensitive. He is stating - at least implicitly - that all aboriginals believe, not just that it is culturally insensitive for girls to play one, but that it's a magical device that makes them infertile.
Posted by: EntoAggie | September 3, 2008 10:15 AM
I agree with Robert Davidson to an extent. The fact is we need to make a distinction between the cultural appropriation/cultural insensitivity issue (which DOES have implications on our race relations here in the US), and the claims the doctor is making that the instrument actually causes these problems for women who play it.
As for the latter issue, it is of course ridiculous. It is a cultural belief, and that is all, and I believe PZ addressed this by saying that if that is their belief, simply don't allow the women *within that culture* to play the instrument. In other words, yes, it is a fracking stick.
The first issue, though, is stickier. Cultural appropriation is a major issue. It is a fact that aboriginees in Australia have suffered greatly at the hands of the white colonialists, and appropriating a native instrument for our own uses, because it is "cool" or whatever, is part of that. It is pretty much stealing from another, weaker, people, simply because we *can*.
Think of it in terms of Native Americans. For a time, their beliefs were trampled upon, mocked, villainized. Now, in the past few decades, they've been "cool" and "spiritual" and a lot of people have taken them up as evidence of their open-minded spirituality or what have you. Of course the beliefs are still superstitious mumbo-jumbo, I wouldn't argue that. However, that doesn't change the fact that as the whites in power, WE have the choice to make those beliefs acceptable or not. The Native Americans did not have that choice.
So, on the one hand, yes we have a fracking stick. But on the other, we have serious issues of cultural appropriation by white people, who then procede to completely disregard the instrument's inventors' intentions and rules regarding the instrument. This goes beyond superstition. It is an issue of power, an issue that we don't have to think about because we ARE the ones in power.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 3, 2008 10:17 AM
Ooops! Sorry folks, I missed the fact that Armchair Dissident had previously posted precisely the same excerpt from the didge wiki. Forgive my redundancy.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | September 3, 2008 10:18 AM
Robert Davidson your argument is bogus. It is the same one that allows Hollocaust survivors to commit ethnic cleansing on Pallestinians because they were abused by others. Two wrongs do not make a right. If the didgeridoo were as precious as you say then why do the Aborginals sell them to the tourists? You cannot have it both ways. I suspect this spat is really over that someone is MAKING MONEY out OUR CULTURE. It is a simple territorial dispute and the cultural spin is just spin.
Back home in New Zealand we have the same issue with Maori ideas of tapu. If they do not want to do something or go somewhere because of their cultural beliefs then fine, but they can only stop me doing it if they own the land. Yes, I may be being culturally insensitive but do you look to see if any Arabs might be watching before you eat with both hands? if not why not? Do you refrain from eating beef because the cow is sacred to the Hindus? if not why not? Royalists may be offended at my refusal to sing God Save the Queen but tough. All together now: Oh Flower of Scotland, when will see again....
Posted by: profgrrrrl | September 3, 2008 10:18 AM
I had a friend who received a didgeridoo as a gift. I remember us all passing it around and playing with it that evening. Of the 4 women in attendance, we all went on to get pregnant -- 3 within the next year, and me just this year. And 2 of us while using some form of contraception. Go figure ...
Posted by: Ponder | September 3, 2008 10:19 AM
@52- Quite correct, that was poorly worded of me. They don't have the right for us to pay any attention to their complaint would be better.
Posted by: Brian | September 3, 2008 10:21 AM
I think there are two different things going on here.
The first is the claim that women playing the didgeridoo is offensive to Aboriginal culture. Assuming it's true, it's probably worth mentioning in discussions of didgeridoos. This isn't to say that women shouldn't be allowed to play them, of course. To use an extreme analogy, blackface is hideously offensive to black people, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal, just as burning a flag or desecrating a Eucharist wafer shouldn't be illegal. But it is worth knowing the context in which didgeridoos were traditionally played, if only because more knowledge is always a good thing.
The second is the claim that women become infertile by touching didgeridoos. This is absolute bullshit on its face; it is demonstrably false. Resorting to it weakens the cultural sensitivity argument.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | September 3, 2008 10:21 AM
tsg @ 42:
Actually, it was "It's a goddamned cracker" (and the permalink still reflects that).
Posted by: The Chemist | September 3, 2008 10:22 AM
#58 Entoaggie
IAWTC.
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2008 10:23 AM
You first.
I have. You ignored it. That tells me you have no interest in actually discussing it and would rather preach.
PZ chooses to discuss what he finds interesting. I choose to comment on those topics I find interesting. If you don't like a topic, no one is forcing you to read it. In other words, the door's that way ----------->.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 3, 2008 10:24 AM
So wait, does this mean I get to go to American people and tell them to stop mocking our European culture with their ridiculous handling of those traditional European eating implements, the knife and fork?
Learn to use them both together, or stick to chopsticks, idiots!
Hey, that felt good!
But it was pretty silly, don't you think?
Posted by: Muffin | September 3, 2008 10:25 AM
@Robert Davidson/54: If people want to preserve their culture and continue to heed its rules, that's fine, but unless they can make a case for why a certain rule should be universal, they can't expect everyone else to follow it.
Also, you ARE a bit of a drama queen, aren't you? What do "lives wasted on alcohol dependency, domestic abuse and squalor" have to do with a children's book aimed at girls showing how to play a musical instrument? I'll tell you: precisely nothing.
@alex/1: heh, I'm kinda reminded of this xkcd... just make it the stick-didgeridoo-spectrum instead and investigate at which point problems start to appear. ^_~
Posted by: Mike K | September 3, 2008 10:25 AM
Laughing so hard, I can barely type...
So which musical instrument makes men sterile when they touch it?
Suggestions?
Posted by: Robert Davidson | September 3, 2008 10:27 AM
Can we agree on one thing: regardless of how true a claim is, the issue of power imbalances is something to be considered while discussing cultural appropriation?
I'm with everyone opposing the banning of the book, and supporting freedom to criticise beliefs.
Where I'm concerned is at representatives of a colonising culture carelessly treating objects sacred to members of cultures that they have downtrodden.
Posted by: secularguy | September 3, 2008 10:27 AM
That certain people shouldn't be allowed to do certain things because they are women?Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2008 10:28 AM
And how, precisely, does a women who is not an Australian Aboriginee playing a didgeridoo cause that?
Posted by: extatyzoma | September 3, 2008 10:28 AM
interesting.
i have a freaking awesome didgeridoo that i brought back from Australia and loads of people have had their mouths round the end of its impressive length and gitth, men and women.
as a communal repository of bacteria, viruses, fungi, worm eggs and general bodily secretions it does have me worried, but I think ovaries are pretty safe.
Posted by: John C. Welch | September 3, 2008 10:29 AM
Funny...I wonder if the same dingalings saying we must all act like TOUCHING A STICK WILL MAKE WOMEN STERILE are fine with honor killings and burning widows alive?
AFTER ALL, IT'S THEIR CULTURE! WE CAN'T JUDGE.
It's a fucking stick. Should you get smacked upside the head with it, you'd not feel any better because it was a sacred aborigine stick.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | September 3, 2008 10:30 AM
I thought Australians were tougher than this? Don't they wrestle crocodiles when still in first grade or something? And they are all very strong from clinging to the bottom of the Earth all day and night. That's why the baby Jesus gave the koala those claws, you know.
Posted by: JStein | September 3, 2008 10:32 AM
This whole deal is pretty ridiculous. Obviously, the superstition is stupid, but even more than that, it's all just sexist posturing.
Posted by: Joshua BA | September 3, 2008 10:33 AM
How can you be so sure it was careless? Maybe the colonizing culture seriously considered the beliefs and customs of the native culture and simply decided that it was crap and not worth making sure it survived?Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2008 10:33 AM
It's a fallacious argument. That's the point.
When people stop making the same tired, bogus argument the phrase stands for, I'll stop using it.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | September 3, 2008 10:36 AM
Robert Davidson said:
Robert, I can see where you are coming from and I agree Australian Aborigines have been treated atrociously and still suffer cultural damage (not to mention straight-forward discrimination) now. However acknowledging this fact does not necessarily mean that every pronouncement made by an aboriginal authority must be respected and obeyed without question (and remember it is one person talking here - do we have any evidence that all or even most aborigines want this book pulped even among those who accept that the didgeridoo is "man's business"?)
This book in no way forces aboriginal girls who believe that playing the didgeridoo will lead them to become sterile to play it (although a high school biology lesson might well prove rather more effective in casting doubts on that particular belief in the girl's minds - are you going to deprive them of this too in case it undermines their culture?). All it does is allow girls (by no means of all whom will be aborigine or even if they are believe in the literally in the truth of their legends) who wish to play it to learn how to do it properly and if they don't wish to (I don't, but that has more to do with Rolf Harris than anything else!) they don't have to buy the book. It's called personal choice and in such a matter where no-one is being harmed culture has no right to interfere.
As a further point to consider is that implicit in your post seems to me to be the assumption that it is wrong to confront ancient cultures with modern societal mores and that instead they should be preserved like museum pieces without changing.
This IMO does not work in the context of the ever-changing world that, like it or not, Aboriginal Australia is now in and part of that change is that female emancipation is now a fact of life. If Aboriginal culture is incapable of adapting to this changed fact it will inevitably fossilise and then die out. If you care as much as you seem to about Aboriginal life and culture do you really want that to happen?
Posted by: tsg | September 3, 2008 10:36 AM
That's my story and I'm (fricking) sticking to it ;^)
Posted by: Interrobang | September 3, 2008 10:38 AM
As far as I can see, there are three issues here:
1) Cultural appropriation, which is a legitimate issue. Pretty much anyplace the British colonised wound up having its original cultures oppressed somehow (including, ahem, Peter Ashby, what happened in British Palestine originally), and I'm inclined to give the guy a bit of a bye for being paranoid on that account.
2) Demands for censorship. Sorry, this is bogus and needs to be dealt with by a polite, sincere letter in the Canadian style (I don't know if Aussies are passive-aggressive enough to do this properly) saying, "Yeah, I understand you're upset; too bad."
3) The woo-filled claim. This is also bogus and probably is best dealt with by pointing and laughing. Politesse only goes so far, even if you're Canadian like me.