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

Interesting. I think it deserves more thought and comment (at my site).

ed

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?”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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…

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?

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…….

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.

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.