King Abdullah is dead, satire is on life support...

I had to check and double-check and check again. The world is currently such a ridiculous place that sometimes even the sharpest among us can accidentally fall for a spoof article. So when I found out a US Army General was sponsoring an essay competition in honour of the recently departed King Abdullah, I did a double take.

But sure enough, there it was, announced on the Department of Defense website on January 26, the same day the first execution by beheading under Saudi Arabia's new ruler, King Salman, took place. General Martin E. Dempsey is the brains behind this absurd idea.

I even tweeted the writer of the announcement to ask if this competition was real, if this really was the next innovation of the awful grief orgy for a despotic monarch of a terrible regime. He replied, rather adorably: "No, ma'am. Not a spoof. It is the real deal." I was last called "ma'am" when I went through passport control at the airport in Atlanta, Georgia, in 2009.

The thing is the focus of the competition isn't a terrible idea. The statement said that the competition focuses on "issues related to the Arab-Muslim world and is designed to encourage strategic thinking and meaningful research on a crucial part of the world." There is nothing at all wrong with intelligent research on the Arab-Muslim world. Indeed, intelligent research is a welcome alternative to oversimplification, ignorance and lack of understanding of a region that is both troubled and fascinating.

But the whole idea jumps the shark when it is stated that King Abdullah is a "man of remarkable character and courage" and a "fitting tribute to the life and leadership of the Saudi Arabian monarch." This would be the "leadership" of a man who, despite being an absolute monarch, has still let the religious arm of the state run an oppressive, evil regime. Come on, Abdullah - if you were going to be an absolute monarch, you may as well have tried for the benevolent dictatorship style rather than the useless style where you turned a blind eye to religious police being ridiculous, awful and violent to people trying to live peacefully in your country.

I get it. Saudi Arabia is joining the military effort in the fight against ISIS. Saudi is letting the US use their land to train and equip Syrian fighters. Saudi buys arms from the US and the UK for its well-equipped military, even though it has done pretty much bugger-all since 1991. Saudi is, naturally, are more than happy to let the US buy its oil - despite all the noise about the US being so close to energy self-sufficiency, 13% of oil consumed in the US is imported from Saudi.

But the sad fact is that Saudi lending a hand in the fight against ISIS won't do a whole lot to stop the radicalisation that leads to terrorism. It cannot be denied that ISIS has its ideological roots in Wahabbism, the extreme form of strict Islam which has formed the basis of Saudi law and society since the start of the 20th Century with its influence starting much earlier.

Saudi Arabia can throw whatever military might and money it likes behind the fight against ISIS, but as long as the country is beholden to Wahabbism, to the vile religious police, and to a judicial system that does not include fair and open trials and favours public beheadings for crimes ranging from murder to witchcraft, it is part of the problem. It sets a hideous example that inspires some of the worst of humanity.

But as long as there are arms deals at stake and cheap petrol to be enjoyed, it is clearly far preferable for the leaders of the western world to drop everything, including flags to half mast, and head over to Saudi Arabia like dumb labradors to lick the face of the new king in an unironic grief orgy.

Kudos to Michelle Obama for not covering her hair (and looking suitably bored) in Saudi this week - and kudos to Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush for also eschewing headscarves when they visited the kingdom -  but it would have been even better if she didn't go at all. Perhaps she could have released a YouTube video, dressed in one of her trademark sleeveless dresses, saying that she was defying her husband by not going to Saudi. That would have been cool.

Instead, we have witnessed commentators on TV news channels talking about King Abdullah as if he was the Saudi equivalent of Germaine Greer. He mentioned that women will be able to vote and run for office in this year's municipal elections, but we will have to wait and see if King Salman makes good on this promise. He promoted one woman, the Utah-educated Norah Al Faiz, to the position of Deputy Minister of Education for Women's Affairs. She is very accomplished but she is still the deputy to a man who oversees these matters pertaining to women. There are more women in higher education than men in Saudi, this is true, - but when these women cannot drive a car, when they cannot work or travel without permission from their male guardians, when not all professions are open to them, the potential to be gleaned from their education is reined in by misogynistic restrictions. Women's testimonies in courts are worth less than those of men. Women who have pressed rape charges have ended up being punished for immorality if the accused is found not guilty.

On the upside, King Abdullah has daughters who have received university education. But these would be the daughters that he keeps locked up in the palace in terrible conditions, a hangover from his anger at that particular wife not giving him a son. He is a latter day, science-denying Henry VIII, seemingly unaware that it's his contribution to the reproductive process that determines the sex.

So, yeah, I'm not about to shout from the rooftops about what a great guy King Abdullah was for women of Saudi.

And no, it's not just a matter for Saudi Arabia to deal with internally. It is everyone's business. Even if you don't subscribe to the principle that no woman is free if even one woman is oppressed, how about considering, for example, that Saudi beheads people of other nationalities too. It is easy to say: "Well, just don't get a job there if you lose so many rights!" but with cases such as Burmese and Nepalese maids beheaded after farcical murder trials, it is clear that vulnerable people see working in a place like Saudi as an escape from poverty. There is a global problem to consider here.

After all, the world had the balls to impose sanctions against South Africa during the apartheid years. How is the gender apartheid of Saudi any less a crime against humanity?

"I saw your boobs!" "I saw the Outrage Olympics!"

The internet is still buzzing over whether Seth MacFarlane is a hate-filled misogynistic pig after his turn at hosting the Oscars the other night. In particular, the "I Saw Your Boobs" song has attracted much outrage. That'd be the pre-recorded stunt in which Naomi Watts and Charlize Theron, two of the actresses named in the song, were willing participants in the joke.

The overwhelming reaction to this song was a festival of missing the point. As Seth MacFarlane and the Gay Men's Chorus of Los Angeles tunefully rattled off a litany of silver screen breast appearances, pearls were clutched all over the place. Special outrage was saved for his name-checking of actresses who showed their breasts while playing characters who were raped.

Was I the only person who saw this as a satire on the rationalisation process actresses go through when they appear nude on camera for serious roles? How many times have we heard actresses say with a perfectly straight face that the nudity was essential to the storyline or the development of the character? It's artistic nudity as opposed to X-rated movie nudity, so the narrative goes. And, just as the "I Saw Your Boobs" routine demonstrated ironically, it's seldom career suicide to go naked for a serious role. The song listed amazing performances by talented actresses who are clearly valued for more than their breasts.

When I worked at FHM in Australia, the "would you go nude for a role?" question was asked of pretty much every actress who appeared in the magazine when they appeared for a shoot in either lingerie or a bikini. Even a ditzy soap opera star who was hardly likely to end up in a remake of Monster's Ball would give the cookie cutter "If it's appropriate for the role..." answer.

It's certainly more refreshing to hear about actresses who question the need for nudity and have won the battle to not get their breasts out. In today's Metro, Mia Wasikowska says that she has indeed turned down nude scenes and questioned their relevance to the script.

Actresses who chooses to go nude for a scene of sexual abuse don't do it to titillate the audience. But once that scene is out there, there is nothing to stop moviegoers from being aroused even if it is a thoroughly traumatic scene. As such, supposedly high-end men's magazines, such as GQ, have run galleries of breasts in movies and there are countless websites and forums dedicated to leering over naked actresses and flagging up films that feature breasts, bums and vulvae.

No actress has ever said: "Yes, I got naked because I knew it would get bums on cinema seats, turn people on and make the studio pots of money." but that doesn't stop some people from seeing movies because they want to see breasts. People can be creepy.

Perhaps now we can have a conversation on why breasts even need to feature in rape scenes at all. These scenes are always hard to watch, and the sounds and facial expressions of both victim and perpetrator can speak volumes without anyone's private parts being exposed. Such a conversation sounds like a rather po-faced outcome of a comedy sketch, but comedy should exist as a catalyst for serious discussion.

It is stunning that the joke needs to be explained. Did everybody miss the irony of a group of gay men singing about the joys of seeing boobs? Yes, it was a bit puerile but taking the piss out of the earnestness of actresses who've gone nude is a perfectly valid topic for satire. The mention of us seeing Scarlett Johansson's boobs on our phones was a bit unnecessary as that was breast exposure without her consent, but the rest of the song's content was fair game.

Are you wondering why the song wasn't called "I Saw Your Dick"? Off the top of my head, I can recall seeing three actor penises: Harvey Keitel in The Piano, Kevin Bacon in Wild Things and Michael Fassbender in Shame. That is three penises since 1993. Or an average of one cinematic willy every 6.666 years.

There's a gender divide in getting naked to get credibility. That is absolutely worth a spot of satire at the annual festival of frocks, red carpet body snarking, insincerity and nauseating self-congratulation.


Image courtesy of www.kozzi.com