Gaddafi's Feminist Third Way

The confused take on women reflects a desire to be unique that left the Gaddafis scorned by both the Arab world and the west 

By Nesrine Malik

Muammar Gaddafi flanked by a member of his female-only bodyguards in 2000. Photograph: Marwan Naamani/AFP/Getty Images

"We will not give up, we are not women," Colonel Muammar Gaddafi declared on Thursday. From a man who had demanded female-only bodyguards for the past few decades, and who fancies himself a bit of a forward-thinking feminist, these are rather odd words.

His Green Book, a short work setting out his philosophy, has pages and pages dedicated to his quirky views on women, underpinned by a belief that we just have to admit to our biological limitations. He dwells on the harsh realities that force women to work and states:

"The belief, even if it is held by a woman, that she carries out physical labour of her own is not, in fact, true. She performs the physical work only because a harsh materialistic society has placed her into coercive circumstances. She has no alternative but to submit to the conditions of that society, even though she may think that she works of her own accord.

In fact, the alleged basis that 'there is no difference in any way between men and women' deprives woman of her freedom. The east regards her as a commodity to be bought and sold, while the west does not recognise her femininity."

Call it a third feminist way, if you will. But it's definitely a confused one. Gaddafi holds that western feminism has forced women to overreach their physical capabilities, yet he is obsessed with powerful women. Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright and camouflage-clad women in heels are the objects of his affection – but only if he is in charge.

Obviously Gaddafi is neither a feminist nor moderniser but a man desperate to be recognised for being unique and for liberating himself from the supposed backwardness of "the east", appointing himself as the arbiter of social convention in lieu of religion, tradition or culture.

It appears he applied his philosophies at home as well, spawning a family that resembled soap opera characters. His children seem to have a fascination with the trappings of western culture, but also a fixation on being some new incarnation of secular Arab leadership.

His second marriage (which bore all his offspring except one) was to a nurse with whom he fell in love when she treated him. His own daughter, a glamorous lawyer, is certainly no subjugated eastern woman. Power-suited with bleached blonde hair, she was part of the team that defended Saddam Hussein against the charge of crimes against humanity.

Gaddafi's most notorious son, Saif al-Islam, has brought the august institution of the London School of Economics into disrepute through his long-standing association and the PhD that he was awarded. A self-styled cultural ambassador, he exhibited his art in a specially erected pavilion in London's Kensington Gardens.

Another son is a footballer who managed to fulfil his dream of playing in the Italian football league. Saadi (he of gay porn DVD fame) had a director's chair with his name written on it, and a position as an executive producer for a company based in Sunset Boulevard. I can just see him in the gloaming, sat in his make-believe producer's chair, fantasising about presiding over a set of Hollywood stars at his beck and call.

The grandiosely named Hannibal, has an MBA from Copenhagen Business School and is married to an "ex-model" who fell pregnant before their marriage, and who enjoys torturing her servants. Certainly not the type of woman a traditional Arab family would approve of.

But the Gaddafis are not a traditional Arab ruling family. They are neither slick-suited businessmen like the Mubaraks, nor a conventional Arab dynasty. They neither have the poise of the Moroccan royal family, nor the glamour of the Jordanian one. They have no blue blood and no statesmanship to garner any prestige.

Fathered by a man who, when his pan-Arab campaign failed, retreated into blaming imperialism for almost everything, they are a motley crew of misfits seemingly desperate to ingratiate themselves with the west, but without internalising enough of its values to forfeit their birth right.

They never found a place or real status as statesmen or power brokers in their own backyard. Ironically, the west embraced the Gaddafi family far more readily than the Arab world ever did. They had money and found a willing audience wherever they went – even in the halls of the London School of Economics, so perhaps the finger-pointing over their gaucheness is a tad hypocritical.

The most remarkable aspect of the Gaddafis, and what many Arabs find intriguing, is their utter lack of conservative values or even attempts at maintaining some semblance of decorum. In a region where the appearance of dignity means a lot, the Gaddafis do not balk at swearing live on television. They seem not to care about keeping up appearances the way other Arab heads of state do, so the contempt and utter madness is clear for all to see.

Even Bashar al-Assad manages to pay lip service to protocol.

The Gaddafis departed from convention – not towards liberalism or liberation from suffocating traditions and religion, but towards bitterness and an embracing of their maladjustment – all underscored by the knowledge that even before being rejected by their own people in Libya, they were scorned by the Arab world at large.

-This commentary was published in The Guardian on 02/09/2011
-Nesrine Malik is a Sudanese-born writer and commentator who lives in London. She previously worked in the financial sector