Main Stories, Top Story, Uncategorized - Written on Friday, November 13, 2009 11:08 - 41 Comments
Are Singaporeans 21st century individuals?
Reena Devi
Recently, I had the enlightening encounter of interacting with a member of the opposite gender who shared that is if his girlfriend stayed out late, went clubbing and drinking, she would not be his girlfriend in the first place – she would be considered ‘fling’ material.
I could not help but find it intriguing that this twenty-something, university-educated man, raised in a seemingly modern society such as Singapore, holds on to a belief which yesteryear’s generations would be more comfortable with. Surely, his grasp of what makes a woman could not be so narrow that the moment a girl decides to stay out past eleven to dance and have a couple of drinks with her friends, she is to be regarded as ‘easy’ and ‘cheap’.
(Photos abovd below courtesy of Wilfred Wong)
His views of women raise an uncanny parallel to those of Iranian society in the 70s. For the first time in Iranian history then, men witnessed the transformation of the traditional Iranian woman into the modern twentieth century female – the kind who joined the ranks of political parties, participated in rallies, worked, and had lovers.
This challenged the bipolar image of women as the virtuous versus the promiscuous. The men of that period, accepting principles of equality and freedom for both sexes and at the same time growing up with the traditional notions of good, non-sexual, virgin women, no doubt had trouble coping with the new image.
This is clearly exemplified in a classic Iranian literature piece of that time, Blind Owl by Sadegh Hedayat. In this short novel, Hedayat articulates the impotent male psyche unable to deal with the new reality that formulates itself around the shape of a woman. In fact the women in Blind Owl symbolise the two polarized images of the classical Iranian narrative – the inaccessible ethereal women and the all too accessible temptress. There is no integration of the different aspects of women, no understanding that they can exist as a cohesive whole-being rather than as individual extremes.
This mindset definitely mirrors the opinions voiced by Singaporean men, for it is not just the specific male I encountered who seems to have lost touch with the changing identity of women in today’s social climate. This society has done everything in action to indicate a grasp of the western liberal ideals associated with feminism and openness of society but our collective social consciousness is still stuck in a time of the past.
This dichotomy is not healthy and may have far-reaching effects on future generations if not addressed. When I say addressed, I do not mean the government leaping in, setting up committees or organising campaigns to change mindsets. We can no longer blame the authorities for every socially ingrained flaw in our attitudes and thinking. Change in any society is more effective bottom-up, especially change that has to do with our inherent beliefs and values.
It is us, the people on the street, you and I, men and women, who still hold on to conforming ways and
Thus, I think it is safe to say this is an affliction of the masses and it is almost as highly dangerous as any social pandemic due to its degree of denial. Singaporeans love to flaunt their modern lifestyles as an ostentatious show of how vastly progressive they are compared to others in Asian societies. We have bars, clubs, quirky food places, pole dancing, male ‘strippers’, cable television. Yet, for example, divorced women are still considered a social stigma in most communities here.
It is not merely with regard to gender issues that we possess such old school values. Despite the amount of support and campaigning the government has put into our existence as multi-racial society, most people from different racial groups choose to lead parallel rather than integrated lives, from the time they go to school till they enter the workforce.
Those who protest and claim Singapore as a melting pot due to an increase in mixed marriages, need to witness that such interracial marital unions only occur in specific directions; for example, more Chinese women marry Caucasian men than Chinese men who marry Caucasian women. Even the expatriate communities here exist almost separately from the local communities despite the government’s best efforts to address this issue.
Hence, the question that really needs to be asked and addressed today is this – As Singaporeans, do we really possess the heart and mind of a twenty first century individual?
Related posts:
41 Comments
At a deeper level, woman is the ‘true creator’ of this world
Even man is conceived in woman
Spiritually too, woman(related to qualities like peace, compassion, kindness, patience and love) is superior to man(agressive, angry, war-like, full of hatred and destructive)
There is no place in the modern world for those old, restrictive and conservative ideas about woman( especially those that originate from religions)
Woman should have the same freedoms as enjoyed by man, whether related to sex, or clubbing, or anything.
From woman is man born,
inside her he is conceived;
To woman man is engaged,
and woman he marries.
By woman’s help is man
kept in restraint.
Why revile her of whom
are born great ones of the earth.
by BABA GURU NANAK DEV JI.
nowadays girls are just as liberal as men..don’t assumed they were the bimbos of yesteryears..they ALL have equal RIGHTS….
then again..
if this girls demand to be treated equal
how come i still have to pay the night out bills 100%? the carparks..the petrol and the damned erp poles bip beep as well
~puzzle~
Before asking the question “As Singaporeans, do we really possess the heart and mind of a twenty first century individual?”, it is important to state what the author means by a ‘twenty first century individual’.
This excellent piece of commentary seems to be trying to hide feminist overtones under the veil of a more generic and progressive title/question with the use of the term ‘twenty first century individual’. A more appropriate title/question that would fit the commentary could perhaps be like ‘Can Singaporean men accept the modern women?’ or something to that effect. Using the question that the author posits misleads readers to, either consciously or sub-consciously, assume that what makes an individual a 21st century individual hinges upon its conception of gender. To the extent that it can be argued that it is a necessary condition of 21st century thinking, it is definitely not a sufficient condition, since the modern person exhibits extensive differences with the person in the past, ranging from simple things like hobbies, to broad-based issues such as ideology.
1) Solo Bear on November 13th, 2009 11.25 am
What is so “modern” about clubbing, strip clubs and free sex?
What is so “backward” about conservative lifestyle?
Are these not stereotyping ideas?
What I think the article is trying to convey is that the stereotyping of these two positions as the ONLY possible position a women can be labelled as.
Your grouping of clubbing, strip club and free sex together is exactly what the article is talking about. The first para mentions clubbing, and the ‘interviewee’ immediately associated it with free sex (fling)… which is sort of what you just did.
so.. modernization is degradation of Moral Values..??
Or, does progress means modernization?
Which side of the sword, the blunt side or the razor edged?
How many sides are sharp by the way.. this ‘tool’..?
..or does this ’sword’ even have a handle..?
until i see the following:-
1.women being conscripted in army together with men
2. all women do not expect men to foot their bills for every single date or even a casual meet up
3. women stand up and fight for men’s charter to be billed and legislated
that “21st century” expectation is just an expectation….
For everything and anything that happens in this world…there is a reason…The masculine and feminist status quo has been aroudn for ages for reasons known at times..
Men will have to be educated into truly accepting that women have the same desires as they have. Desires, aspirations — success in their careers, the right to make decisions, the right to chose who to spend the night with.
Just as men are not castigated for sowing their wild oats, so too should women be allowed to do so. And men must accept this. Women have sexual desires just as men do. And those women who express these desires should not be frowned upon.
Times have changed, for the better, as far as relations between men and women are concerned. And we should not seek to turn the clock back — when men are allowed to be the strong sex and women, submissive and compliant.
@b
You make some very astute points. I’m not sure why your remarks were voted down.
It is comforting, and indeed inspiring to know that Singaporeans have indeed come a long way in the way we are able to think critically and eloquently express ourselves though we might not always agree with each other.
lobo,
I was hesitant as to whether to continue to discuss with anyone in this post – let alone in ANY post at TOC. It seems a habit of TOC mods to censor, delete, or withhold my comments as the discussion goes by. Not that I have transgressed any of their rules.
Anyway, I will address your points. And if you find me missing later after some time, you will know why.
You posted:
>>
What I think the article is trying to convey is that the stereotyping of these two positions as the ONLY possible position a women can be labelled as.
>>
Me:
Actually, that is what I have pointed out in my blog. I made a point that today’s women face the prospect of having to subordinate themselves to the wimps of Feminists, in exchange for breaking the “shackles of patriarchal society” as what feminists claim. What irony.
If you are interested, that post can be found in my Oct 2009 archives, titled – “Modern Woman’s Dilemma – which is worse, Patriarchal Domination or Feminist Oppression?”
>>
Your grouping of clubbing, strip club and free sex together is exactly what the article is talking about. The first para mentions clubbing, and the ‘interviewee’ immediately associated it with free sex (fling)… which is sort of what you just did.
>>
Me:
But then again, isn’t that what is prevalent in clubbing? It may not end up in intercourse, but there is a lot of sexually (implicit or explicit) talk, actions and interactions, no?
Was there not a practice that clubs make it free for young women, so as to attract the men? Was there not an incident that these women who were given the free treatment, had to be below 35?
Has not sex been used by the clubs?
Denying that sex is not the theme of clubbing is like denying that fine dining is not the theme of top restaurants.
Anyway, my main point is that the author of the main article is stereotyping free sex as modern and conservative lifestyle as backward. No different from the allegation that conservatives are stereotyping others.
@Solo Bear
I’d like to ask you some questions.
1. Why are free sex, clubbing and strip clubs wrong?
2. How do you define a conservative lifestyle?
3. Has anyone tried to coerce you or anyone you know, whether by law or physical force, into “free sex, strip clubs and clubbing” or otherwise giving up a “conservative lifestyle?”
@CJ
In this context, modernisation would refer to the critical examination of previously held assumptions. After that, you lost me in some fiendish object metaphor taken way too far.
@Lisa
Though your numbered points are not entirely without merit, their position is weakened by this bizzare association with an appeal to an illusory objectivity.
Despite innumberable flaws in our present way of life, it is worth remembering that much of what we enjoy today is the result of people thinking critically and upsetting the status quo. For example – chattel slavery is no longer rampant. Few sovereigns today claim the divine right of rule. Both of these were once defended by their apologists on the grounds that:
1. There is a reason that the world is thus, so be quiet, peasant!
2. It’s been this way since the time of my grandfather’s grandfather.
#11) Solo Bear wrote -
“…of having to subordinate themselves to the WIMPS of Feminists”
wahahahhahahahahahahahahaa!!!!!!!!!
What Is so modern about Modern
The term “modern” is not a constant. It changes as time passes. Today’s “modern” ideas will be tomorrow’s archaic thinking. Today’s “modern” fashion will be old and ancient in 100 years’ time. So, anyone who tries to use the term “modern” had better think deeply twice before he/she tries to use it to convince or influence others.
Of course, any woman can demand for whatever rights or equality.
But don’t forget that whatever the woman’s rights are, the man who is or who is not going to accept her as his “girl friend”, “mistress”, or “wife” also has his right to choose, irrespective of whether he happens to live in Ancient Rome or the 18th, 21st or 31st century.
Reena Devi,
Huh…is your friend from Siberia or North Korea ?!
How does the girlfriend feel if his boyfriend stay out late , went clubbing and drinking without her or even “informing” her ?
There is nothing wrong with staying out late at clubs and pubs , except for the the possibility of the girlfriend “betraying” the boyfriend with flings , flirts with different guys . Are these hit ons not common at these venues ?
Yah ,on can say it can just be for fun or cheap thrill , what ever happens at the club ends there . But we are talking about jealously and fear enhanced by wild imagination by one partner , whether it is the boyfriend or the girlfriend in this case.
Of course unless both parties are open enough for their partners to play around , it is usually hard to find someone fully acceptance of such behaviors .
No offence, Reena, but imho, this article should be disregarded.
You have a mixed bag of different idealogies going on here, but many are misleadingly pointing to the liberal-conservative argument that I think you want (or are trying to imply you want) to present. At the end of the day, I don’t see how your disparate arguments can lead to any enlightenment about Sgeans in the 21st century. Some examples:
1) All societies have their liberals, moderates and conservatives. Modernity is about having enough social room to accomodate all views and values, be they liberal or conservative. Yet you seem to view modernity purely in terms of liberalism.
2) Having said that, accomodation does not equate adoption. It is about understanding and respecting what others are, but does not necessarily mean you shd adopt it for yourself. Say, in a modern, progressive society, people can be open to homosexuality, but not everyone is compelled to try it themselves. Hence, not correct to equate social allowances with personal values.
3) Your argument of ‘old social values’ vs the ‘inescapable reality of modernity’ is not new. What you fail to acknowledge here is that, even in the most ‘progressive’ of societies, there is always a constant contest of the two polar extremes, often with the moderates (or people who really don’t care) caught in between. The winner of the contest does not define which society is more “21st century” than the others, but rather the availability AND openess of the contest.
4) I detect feminism in your argument. I have nothing against feminism, but I am concerned that your stand borders on “more rights for women” rather than “equal rights for women and men”. Have you tried asking a Sg woman if she thinks a man who hangs out at bars, drives a flashy number, usually half drunk, is good life-partner material? Put on the other lens for a fairer judgement, pls, then we can talk about Sg society as a whole.
5) You did not consider that the values we attest to marriage are often associated with religion. Can we then say secular societies are more ready for the 21st century than religious ones? Lots of world examples to consider here…
6) Honestly, I doubt anyone would see melting pots in terms of mixed marriages. The proverbial melting pot has cultural underpinnings of crossing national boundaries. Granted, you might be trying to redefine it, but do note that while marriage norms can have an influence on culture, it is not the only influence.
I think I can go on a para by para rebuttal, but that would really be pointless, as you shd get the drift by now.
b:
>>
A more appropriate title/question that would fit the commentary could perhaps be like ‘Can Singaporean men accept the modern women?’
>>
Me:
So exactly what makes a woman “modern”? It appears that the article implies if she is free to have sex anyway she wants, that is modern. If she follows tradition, she is backward.
Now what if SHE DECIDES to be conservative because SHE WANTS to be conservative. Isn’t that having a sexual lifestyle the way SHE WANTS? So does that now make her the “modern” woman, because she has DECIDED for HERSELF?
Putting in a nutshell, why is free sex “modern” and conservative lifestyle “backward”?
Agents Provocateur
>>
1. Why are free sex, clubbing and strip clubs wrong?
>>
Me:
I never even said that. I asked why is that considered modern?
>>
2. How do you define a conservative lifestyle?
>>
Me:
The exact opposite lifestyle of the clubbing, free sex lifestyle. You know.
>>
3. Has anyone tried to coerce you or anyone you know, whether by law or physical force, into “free sex, strip clubs and clubbing” or otherwise giving up a “conservative lifestyle?”
>>
Me:
No. Neither has anyone stopped anyone from clubbing. So what is your point?
My point is the stereotyping that free sex is modern and abstinence is backward. Why the stereotyping – the very allegation “modernists” accuse “conservatives” of?
>>
In this context, modernisation would refer to the critical examination of previously held assumptions. After that, you lost me in some fiendish object metaphor taken way too far.
>>
Me:
Then the questioning of free sex can be called modern. Free sex has been a long practised culture of the oldest industry in the world – prostitution. Today, questioning that makes it modern thinking, no?
>>
Despite innumberable flaws in our present way of life, it is worth remembering that much of what we enjoy today is the result of people thinking critically and upsetting the status quo. For example – chattel slavery is no longer rampant. Few sovereigns today claim the divine right of rule. Both of these were once defended by their apologists on the grounds that:
>>
Me:
About upsetting status quo. Please note that there were great civilizations in many lands, before the colonists invaded and pillaged these lands. And isn’t it the questioning that tribal peoples are humans at all by the colonists, that allowed the justification of the slave trade in the first place?
Questioning past practices makes that kind of thinking modern?
If liberal gender views is a criterion to be 21st century people, huge swaths of America must still be in the stone age.
Where we stand on the tolerant-dogmatic spectrum is a better gauge of our maturity as a nation, rather than the liberal-conservative.
Let him keep his anti-feminist views. Criticise him only when he imposes them on others.
Be Heard….and most will listen.
The level of communication of such issues are still kept low. People don’t understand or want to think otherwise. Thus remains the old ways.
Male or female….people here have a long way to go, in terms of matters to the heart.
where where to find free sex @.@ in singapore ???
Until the writer can define what she means by “21st century individuals”, the article is pointless.
Like some posters here mentioned, I cannot tell if the writer is trying to argue for the case of more women’s rights or equal women’s rights or equal social treatment between men and women.
If it is the last part, it will never happen, unless men can bear children one day.
11) Solo Bear on November 13th, 2009 3.57 pm
If you are interested, that post can be found in my Oct 2009 archives, titled – “Modern Woman’s Dilemma – which is worse, Patriarchal Domination or Feminist Oppression?”
too long… only skimmed through. basically only read the conclusion. :p
which I agree. “The only way to be truly free from any dominance and/or oppression is when the woman decides for herself and for herself alone.”
though you could do with a better title to your post since it again seems to suggest that there are only two positions to take.
But then again, isn’t that what is prevalent in clubbing? It may not end up in intercourse, but there is a lot of sexually (implicit or explicit) talk, actions and interactions, no?
what isn’t about Sex? You heard of Sigmund Freud? =)
It’s not just used by clubs, it’s also in F1, u know?
Anyway, my main point is that the author of the main article is stereotyping free sex as modern and conservative lifestyle as backward.
I see it as “Man can do it, so women should too”. The ‘modern’ part is actually to say that Woman can do what Man do. imo, that is why the article started with a Man’s (the interviewee) perspective.
toStarchser,
In 20th century singapore you are referred to as Hai gon, chee hong,robert,gongkia,chai tao and the reference hasnt change inthe 21st. Only think change is that you need more of those payments to get under the skirts chasing. ANd if you talkabout chaing stars, then you better cut you loses if you are not Richard Li.
Sorry,I dun mean to be offensive,but to be fair ,the interviewee should be informed that what he had said was brought up here for discussion.He would then be able to tell whether did he actually said those words.We should listen to what he said and not one side story.
There is always a possibility of someone making a small statement into a big issue just to argue for women’s right.
The interviewee may have just replied that he does not prefer some one who stay out late,go clubbing and drinking as his girfriend.
I dun think there is anything wrong with that.He has a choice.
[i]24) gutless on November 14th, 2009 12.06 am toStarchser,
In 20th century singapore you are referred to as Hai gon, chee hong,robert,gongkia,chai tao and the reference hasnt change inthe 21st
[/i]
khek khek..now i go where no men gone before…
cebu…here i cum….monday moanin to be in effect…….
Reena Devi,here is the real deal of being a 21st century individual,
For several centuries, societies struggled under the tyranny of kings, despotic rulers, and dictators who claimed supernatural powers and direct communication with “God”. After renaissance and the French and American revolutions, individuals got liberated from the twin yokes of political and religious powers. Individual liberty and autonomy are flowering, at least in parts of the world.
Exercising the powers of questioning and reasoning has made it possible to study the cosmos we live in and study ourselves on a scientific basis. Scientific developments have spawned several new tools and materials that have become indispensable for everyday living. Science has also spawned several dangers threatening to destabilize societies, other species and the world itself.
The power of reasoning and questioning has liberated individual human beings to develop to their fullest potential. Scientific and industrial developments have increased quality of life in some parts of the world. But they have also increased the materialistic needs of individuals, inequalities and competition for limited resources.
Individuals endowed with liberty to do what they please and cash to get what they want (not necessarily what they need) tend to forget that others also have similar aspirations. When individual achievements define what you are, what you can get and get away with, competition becomes a part of the societal fabric.
When individual needs and roles intersect the needs and roles of others, we need boundaries and acceptable rules of conduct. We develop laws for this purpose. Laws are necessary for a civil society. But laws can also be corrupted, misused and circumvented. Laws can be used for power and privilege. There is also a risk of all relationships including parent-child relationship becoming legal relationships, as is happening already. Legal relationship has also the disadvantage of being an adversarial relationship.
When primacy of the individual is overemphasized, each one tries to defend his or her boundary. Each one becomes an island. We forget that we are interconnected. Yes, individual liberty and autonomy exerted in a lawful, law-abiding society is much better than the whimsical rules by kings and dictators. But, emphasis on individual freedom without any expectation of assuming associated responsibilities and emphasis on legal relationship at the exclusion of moral relationship lead to conflicts. Recognition of the common web of life and of interconnectedness is more likely to lead to a harmonious life.
Add to this the emergence of commerce and industry. One enters business to make money. If that is not the motive why would anyone want to do business? There is nothing inherently wrong with business, commerce and reasonable profit. Indeed we need them for a complex society. Businesses serve the needs of people. But the problem is when the owners and leaders become greedy. They forget that by greediness they cheat and thus lose the trust of the people. Profit motive is not the problem. Greed and misuse of trust are the problems. This happens because business owners sometimes forget that they are part of the fabric of the society and they have a social contract with the people.
The focus, in the past two or three centuries has been on individual liberty, social control and social contract (social compact as the British call it) and reliance on legal contracts. Now we have come a full circle and recognize the importance of personal virtue, morality and individual responsibility. If every one of us develops our own “inner policeman” we will have less need for outer policeman. We need a new set of guidelines for developing inner controls. These guidelines should be acceptable to people of all faiths and cultures.
Reena Devi,do you really feel we Singaporeans are ready to be a 21st century individual?
[i]Reena Devi,do you really feel we Singaporeans are ready to be a 21st century individual? [/i]
ole yes we men are ready as lon as we united as 1
don’t be so chee hong..you will get your wish
women on the other hands do have EXPIRY dates (trust me on that) they were too ^EXPENSIVE^ to be handle..1 by 1 they crumble they fall
today? those who left on the shelve is tryin very very hard to get MY attention
i alway tell them..well you did have your chance
@ REJECTIN me….
i have no worry @ all…i am a fine ole wine..very very rare…dinosaur to be exact…
singaporeans are 21st century.
however, the fact remains, for 50 years, they consciously DENY
progress of Opposition power in singapore.
Its such that singapore is now effectively a 1 party state as is well known.
Talents exist and they go the other way, consciously.
So, excuses like there is not enough talents to form an Alternative team is plain illogical and lame and I am ashamed to hear.
So, my feel is that TALENTS of singapore Resulted in the status quo.
Oh, what is th GROWTH RATES gonna be like?
I suppose like this no need for Alternative Team?
What if the next election produce an even more dominant ruling party where singapore talents all decide to vote for ruling party only?
Who pays the tax?
The “eye” in the first photo above is a symbol of persecution! Whether in sg or china or vietnam, wherever. I will certainly not marry someone with that “eye”. I will marry a more “rounded” eye who can see the big picture of dictatorships insteaad of the slight “slant” in the eyes!
I think the phrase ’21st-century individuals’ conceals too much implied meaning that should be better explained. What exactly do you mean? In our 21st century in places like Pakistan and Iran there are women who can’t go to school or drive, are they denied the right to use the Gregorian calendar?
Or maybe you don’t mean 21st century, maybe you mean some other, ideological label that doesn’t deserve to be hidden under the guise of a numerical hope.
Anyway, I think we don’t need to call ourselves 21st century, or whatever. Just ask the simple question – are men willing to accept the same standards for women, as for themselves?
Implicit in the author’s writing is the notion that these stereotypes do not mesh with reality, that they are relics from the past. But where’s the empirical evidence to convince people to put away the stereotype?
The author’s university-educated friend makes a judgment that women who party the nights away are more suited for casual flings than for marriage. Has she proven him wrong by her own example? Or ought she consider that he’s seen his fair share of women and has done his own observation?
My own thoughts on the matter: There could be a multiple-equilibrium situation going on here. If all women chose to party a bit more, then nobody would lose her marriageability, since the societal benchmark will have to shift. But if few women chose to party, then the stereotype will have good empirical legs.
What’s sex gotta do with it?
Rushing out of MRT trains before passengers can alight properly?
Blocking free access on elevators by NOT standing on the left if stationary?
Not giving up seats to more needy commuters on buses, trains?
Spitting in public places?
Littering, especially when trash bins are a hand’s reach?
Dirtying public lifts?
Dirtying public toilets?
Playing LOUD music on transport
EATING on public transport
Talking and using handphones in cinemas/concerts/seminars?
Staring ?
Total disregard for pedestrians by cyclists on walkways?
General Indifference & reckless manner?
and many many many more.
Now add “FIRST WORLD to” at the beginning to every point made above.
Can see now? Ya, Singaporeans way beyond 21st century.
Also never forget, our government and media says we are FIRST WORLD. Surely, they never lie.
Thank you for all your comments. If there seems to be generalisation, lack of cohesiveness or definition, it is partly due to the fact that this article is a mere commentary piece I wrote to raise various issues I am interested in exploring further and more fully as an academic paper. So whether you disagree or agree with me, at least I know there are people interested enough in such social trends to voice their opinions about it and thus, I look forward to delving into this further academically.
#34 Reena:
I hope to read your paper when it’s published! Another thing I wondered about the other day; working married women in Singapore have a dilemma of balancing workplace stress and the barely-diminished expectation for them to do housework. Often, couples patch over this problem by hiring a maid (full or part-time) without actually resolving the gender roles and social expectations of men and women.
The government says that it wants more women out in the workplace. Maybe it should start psyching men to treat women as their equals too. Maybe it can begin by not treating women (especially graduate women) like birthing sows.
I find Reena’s thesis most intriguing — specifically, the male tendency to pigeon-hole all women as “virtuous” or “promiscuous”. Both extremes, the stay-at-home mum dedicated to her children and faithful to her husband, and the ‘Sarong Party Girl’, present themselves in local cultural discourse. In a sense, they feed on each other in a relationship of negation: the ‘wild’, party-going girl’s allure to the opposite sex lies partly in the perception that she is everything that the ‘pure’, family-woman is not, and vice versa.
It seems that whether one idealizes or bestializes women, one is not treating them as distinct individuals, each with her own personality and interests.
Perhaps, though, this tendency to objectify women is a reflection of the male psyche, rather than a symptom of any particular community’s or society’s malaise. Not to condone it, of course.
la nausée
>>
I find Reena’s thesis most intriguing — specifically, the male tendency to pigeon-hole all women as “virtuous” or “promiscuous”. Both extremes, the stay-at-home mum dedicated to her children and faithful to her husband, and the ‘Sarong Party Girl’, present themselves in local cultural discourse. In a sense, they feed on each other in a relationship of negation: the ‘wild’, party-going girl’s allure to the opposite sex lies partly in the perception that she is everything that the ‘pure’, family-woman is not, and vice versa.
>>
Me:
I can argue that Feminists pigeon-hole women too. It is either a woman is “independent and free from patriarchal oppression”, or “chained under male societal domination”.
Both are extremes too – the assertive woman who is not controlled by male thought, and the “submissive woman” who is controlled by male society.
And both negate each other too. The strong woman who is not bothered by male dominance, which is exactly the opposite of the submissive woman subjugating herself to the male.
>>
It seems that whether one idealizes or bestializes women, one is not treating them as distinct individuals, each with her own personality and interests.
>>
Likewise, Feminists are treating these women not as individuals, but pigeonholing them into two opposite ends.
A case point is the wearing of the hijab. If she wears it, feminists say she has subjugated herself to male society. If she takes it off, that is liberation.
No consideration for the woman who WANTS to wear it.
>>
Perhaps, though, this tendency to objectify women is a reflection of the male psyche, rather than a symptom of any particular community’s or society’s malaise. Not to condone it, of course.
>>
Me:
In an attempt by Feminists to unchain women from the the male psyche, they have chained women to their own pigeonholing ways.
Pity the “modern woman”. It truly is either she faces male psyche or Feminist domination.
#37 Solo Bear:
I question your phrase ‘Feminist domination’. What, exactly, do you mean?
Feminism is an empowerment of the female gender to be substantially equal in opportunity and chance, as far as possible, to the male gender. Where it makes no absolute physical difference whatsoever (e.g. giving birth, donating sperm) feminism calls for a destruction of gender-based discrimination.
So is your idea of ‘feminist domination’ a presence of such gender equality? Then I am very curious as to why you think ‘feminist domination’, in your words, is to be pitied.
plopp
>>
I question your phrase ‘Feminist domination’. What, exactly, do you mean?
>>
Me:
Feminist Domination is the exact opposite of “Male Domination”. I see Feminism not as an ideology to end women’s subordination to Male Thought, but a transfer of women’s subjugation to Feminist Thought. To me, I see Feminism is an ideology to get women to act, behave and think how feminists want them to.
A case example is the wearing of the headscarf. Many feminists will argue that the headscarf demeans the woman. Hence, to wear it, means a woman is subordinating herself to Male Thought – she must be covered. To drop the headscarf means liberation. Isn’t this pigeon holing the way Male Domination allegedly does?
But what if the woman herself wants to wear it? To feminists, it is either she is submissive to the Male (wears headscarf) or liberated (takes off headscarf). No Middle Path.
>>
Feminism is an empowerment of the female gender to be substantially equal in opportunity and chance, as far as possible, to the male gender. Where it makes no absolute physical difference whatsoever (e.g. giving birth, donating sperm) feminism calls for a destruction of gender-based discrimination.
>>
Me:
I am not even thinking along those lines.
>>
So is your idea of ‘feminist domination’ a presence of such gender equality? Then I am very curious as to why you think ‘feminist domination’, in your words, is to be pitied.
>>
Me;
What is more pitiful, or rather pathetic, is that many women feel that they are liberated by Feminism, not realizing they have actually transferred their subordination from one party (The Male Thought) to another party – The Feminist Thought.
I have discussed this in detail in my blog. Don’t want to put up link in here because somehow the mods here are touchy about me linking my posts here. But if you are interested, the post can be found in my archives. It was made on 27 Oct 1009. The title of the post is: “Modern Woman’s Dilemma – which is worse, Patriarchal Domination or Feminist Oppression?”
Regarding Reena’s view on the claim that singapore as a ‘melting pot’ is evidenced by intermarriages is quite true. However, it must also be said that ‘intermarriages’ can also serve as evidence of assimilation before marriage. For instance, an ‘Indian’ becoming more ‘Chinese’ prior to being able to pursue a relationship with a chinese. That is more a union between soy sauce and spring onions as opposed to the former with chili.
Interesting. I think it deserves more thought and comment (at my site).
ed
Solobear,
That is an interesting perspective indeed, and i’ve certainly never heard that one before.
But conforming to the feminist perspective does not necessarily equate it with being subjugated within the patriarchal. The latter maintains imbalance in gender relations whilst the former tips the scale in favour of egalitarianism.
However, i would agree with you with regards to domination per se. But this is a separate issue that has to be addressed from the vantage of cultural domination amongst women, i.e. western standards vs. Muslim standards, amongst others.
The overarching patriarchal system, if ever overthrown, will certainly require an address of other forms of domination that takes place within and between the fe/male sectors that cannot be addressed on the feminist vs patriarchal stage.
For myself, I would say that the feminist movement achieved, generally, only its incorporation into the patriarchal state of affairs and turned it into a ‘transvestriarchal’ milieu where women, in efforts to be recognised as equals, became ‘as bad as men’. Hence, other subsidiary forms of patriarchy still draws its strength from this incorporation, i.e. national fragmentation of humanity, capitalism, cultural hegemony, etc. They are all products of, or ran parallel with, patriarchy, and hence, can be surmised to serve as complementary cultures or by-products. The feminist, generally, sought equality, and not assimilation to their relatively empathetic ethos – which is why I’m inclined to say that it generally takes a homosexual male to marry a woman these days.
ed
Leave a Reply
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
What is so “modern” about clubbing, strip clubs and free sex?
What is so “backward” about conservative lifestyle?
Are these not stereotyping ideas?
So are not “modern living” proponents just as “guilty” as the conservatives they accuse, for not being open to ideas that it takes all sorts of cultures and beliefs to make this world?