Corinna Lim’s assertion that “Singaporean fathers are not rising to the task of child rearing, and state support for equal parenting roles is not adequate” is an accurate description of the causes of Singapore’s woeful birth-rates.
Singapore has seen an increasing number of women joining the workforce, but gender roles have been persistent, and continues to perpetuate. The acceptance of women into the workforce have not seen a reciprocity of the acceptance of men in equal parenting responsibilities, and the paternalistic power structure continues to dominate because of inadequate national policy to encourage a more equal society.
In the last 30 years, women have entered the workplace in droves. More girls graduate from our universities than boys. However, these changes are asymmetrical. Men have not moved into the domestic sphere at the same rate.
This asymmetry makes child rearing much less attractive for women. The woman who derives satisfaction from her work will not be keen to have any, or many, children if she has to bear the bulk of the childcare burden. In the meantime, her husband does not lose sleep about balancing work and family life.
Traditional gender roles not only deprive men of the opportunity to play an active role in their children’s lives but also create an unbalanced environment where women are discouraged from having more children.
It is telling that you can, for the most part, switch the words around and the situation applies to men just as much as to women. While it may be true that Singaporean men have yet to embrace their parenting responsibility as readily as women do (or are expected to do), for some of us the same factors weigh heavily in our decision to start our own families.
This is especially true in my circle of friends and co-workers. I have decided to give up a job offer that would pay more, but would not allow me to spend the time I want to spend with my newborn child who is due in August. A friend packs his shifts tightly so he can accumulate stretches of off-time in order for him to fly back to his wife and two kids in Thailand. Another co-worker sacrifices every single day of paid leave without complaint in order to spend time with, and take care of, his two-year-old son. I appreciate the expanded maternity leave benefits that my wife gets, but this just reinforces the gender roles that I want done away with conclusively.
The sacrifices for men are just as real as those demanded from women. Even taking into account asymmetrical gender roles that seem ingrained in our society, parenting is just as stressful, and as physically and psychologically draining, for men as it is for women. If anything, the persistence of this asymmetry, and the enforcement of inherent gender roles, make men less likely to admit their difficulties, and result in their stubborn refusal to accept their parental responsibilities, or worse, not want to have children at all.
I’m confident that at least some of us men want changes to help us play the role of fathers more fruitfully, and our efforts to do so can be constructively assisted with fair national policies. I have the flexibility of combining annual leave with off-days so I can spend more time with my family, but for fathers working the typical 9am-to-6pm, 5-days-a-week jobs, that flexibility is out of the question. Don’t even get me started on jobs that require longer hours.
Without adequate employment practices and policies to help fathers get there, our attempts to do so on our own is easily stymied, and gets us nothing but frustration in return for our efforts. It’s not unlike trying to swim against the current with one hand tied behind your back. And some employers would also blindfold you while you’re at it.
So Corinna is absolutely correct when she said Singapore is still a long way from accomplishing true gender equality; true gender equality is more than just adequate rights and protection for women, it is also adequate rights and protection for both men and women. Only when this balance is achieved will we be able to say we have an equal society where both men and women are expected to contribute to society and their families in every way they can, and not just restricted to long obsolete pigeonholes of neatly packaged responsibilities dictated by gender.
One more thing: I may be nit-picking, but I take issue with the statement that husbands do not “lose sleep about balancing work and family life”. As a father-to-be, I lose a lot more sleep than my wife does, and foresee losing even more in the future; and my kid isn’t even born yet!
______________________________________________________
This article by Callan Tham first appeared on the Trapper’s Swamp blog
_______________________________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
True gender equality will only happen if women are also liable for 2 years of national service and reservist duties every year till age 40.
Not forgetting too that the current Woman’s charter is also highly biased against man …
AWARE, Corinna and the writer can perhaps also help the men to fight for such equality! Otherwise, please stop selectively talk or write about “true” gender equality!
Domestic asymmetry? I don’t know about the rest of you guys but I don’t thats really true with the modern man and all.
It may be true that man are less domestically involved than women in the current society but take a step back and think, it is them at fault or the society on whole at fault?
A man is EXPECTED by the social norm, to have a job, earn a living for his family, to handle non-domestic aspect of life. They have their duty to serve NS, their duty to put the bread on the table and the duty to stay employed.
Who do you think will be more stressed when they lose their job, men or women?
While a female friend of mine can remain jobless for a few years living of her boyfriend and family, non of my male friend will dare to take that notion. The status quo are place on them to excel. If a women does not do well in her job, society may be more lenient towards her but for a man to fail at his job, the society will inevitably be harsh on him.
Think about it, in a Singaporean family, if both parents were jobless, who will be blamed and pressurized on getting a job first by the society, the husband or the wife?
Coupled with the women charter which further emphasize woman’s rights, I would dare say that the society in Singapore today may not be as patriarchal as many proclaims. Sure more women are joining the workforce but the society heavily stressed the achievement of men placing high emphasis on their wealth.
Zhou, you are right meh! Women can choose to enter the workforce to strike-out against the men or as home-maker to manage the household chores!
In traditional cum oriental soceity of uniquely Singapore can men choose the later as home-making husband without others raising their eye-brow and as a profoundly “nature” choose!
I may be conservative as I believe women should shoulder more domestic responsibility, but if you think it this way, allowing women to join the workforce makes them forget their basic responsibility of child-bearing as a woman.
What I observe is this trend has no U-turn and I expect more Singaporean men to forgo this country and live elsewhere, including myself. The government, with the Women’s Charter, already puts men at a disadvantage. If nothing is to be done, they can jolly well ‘welcome’ more foreigners in and we won’t care much anymore. In this case, Singaporean identity may disappear and Singaporeans may become ‘extinct’. o_O!
Appalling comments. If you actually read it, the Women’s Charter is not in any way “highly biased” against men. What it does is to outline specifically the rights of a woman as what men ALREADY possess. The other laws are not women-friendly, so why not tell me those instead of attacking the Women’s Charter?
JACKSON: As a woman, I’m disgusted with your comment which basically puts WOMEN at a disadvantage. Our basic responsibility is NOT to be a child-bearer. This is why the Women’s Charter exists: to put into law the recognition for equal domestic contribution for both male and female. Society will not progress until male chauvinists recognise that we can contribute to society on the same level as men with an additional biological ability to reproduce.
And yes, if all Singaporean males think the same as you, I hope you will all move away and let us find partners who respect our identity as female.
The existence of a “Singaporean identity” is such a lame excuse for your chauvinistic viewpoint that women exists to serve merely as sexual and reproduction beings. Wake up and smell the equality we are screaming for.
Disclaimer: I’m the author of this article.
People who think “gender equality” is expanding women’s rights to trump men’s is projecting their insecurities. Equality is just that, equality. Corinna may have generalised a little, but the reactions stem from misunderstanding and a possible refusal to understand the issue.
Corinna’s letter is indicative of society’s unfair assumptions that stress both men and women, and asking for fair and equitable practices will benefit both sexes. It is high time men start to see it that way.
Ryvyan,
The Woman’s Charter is not prefect. No doubt it brings equality in SOME aspects, it disadvantages the male in others. For me, I would rather have a charter that protects the ‘weaker’ spouse, regardless of gender. That, imo, would be true equality.
Agree with Ryvyan that the comments are appalling.
-
I believe the original comments were meant to give the men a leg up under the pretext of equality. Gender equity is NEVER going to happen for a number of reasons, and as rightly pointed out by Ryvyan, the biological aspect of child-bearing is one of them. That is why Nature has a habit of balancing things out by what it endows on each of us.
-
Some may argue that since the woman can compete and hold her own against the men, she therefore deserves to have to bigger portion tilted towards her on the balance scale. However, before we jump the gun, we too have to consider other factors which may tilt the scale back to equality.
-
We begin with a woman who is biologically endowed to give birth where the man cannot. On the other hand, we have the man endowed with better brute strength compared with the woman, to do chores which otherwise the woman would find difficult to do.
-
We have equal level of intelligence for both genders, even as a woman is gifted with better areas of management like those in the domestic arena and other maternalistic qualities, while the man is gifted with general abilities like changing the light bulb and clearing the choked pipes.
-
Depending on the value one places on these qualities, there can be further argument on which has more value than the other, but we are not here to do this suffice to say that both sets of genders have their own sets of qualities peculiar to them. There is no ‘better than’.
-
Once we strive for equality based on the ‘better than’ argument, then we will be in for trouble. We have to strive for equality based on what we are endowed with, the soft virtues of women and the hard virtues of men. Both genders have to recognized each others’ qualities and accept them for what they are.
-
It is foolish for a woman to try and compete with the man on brute strength, as it will be foolish for the man to compete with the woman on soft skills. Both can never hope to be equal to the other by such competition since both are uniquely different.
-
So, for us to argue for equality, we have to harmonize both qualities and argue that both have to work alongside each other, rather than against each other. This way, we show that both the man and woman have to lean on each other and where benefits are provided for, whether at work or by state constitution, both genders have to be given the same sets of benefits for it to be of any use.
-
Equality is based on the premise that men and women are created for each other and therefore it is essentially important for both to harmonize what is uniquely endowed upon each gender.
@Zhou
I strongly agree with you.
In the words of Ryvyan, “Wake up and smell the equality we are screaming for.”
This issue of fighting for gender equality has been going on for a long time. However, I’ve yet to hear a woman fight for her right to serve the nation.
Isn’t that the greatest inequality ever?
Wake up, gather together, and fight for the right to serve 2 years of NS just like any other Singaporean men.
Any stance (beleif) that reinforces gender is divisive and till that is transcended one can go on whining, complaining, crowing, espousing and nothing is ever going to really be seen as equitable.
When one can see the other as a human being first then who needs Aware or what have you.
Self-serving and the will to power is the reality lah!
I think the writer, Corrina and Ryvan is confused between gender equality, equal social responsibility and time management.
If you argue based on equal social responsibilities, I have no qualms in supporting that notion.
But if you argue based on gender equality, on what platform are you arguing on?
Jobs? Family? Law? National Service?
As rightly pointed out by some posters, there can never be 100% gender equality due to our biological differences and social norms.
Since the article is about gender equality on family. Aren’t having a family a choice between the 2 partners? Isn’t it about the sacrifices one makes for the other? If the workplace is not pro-family, so what?
We do hear stories of mum and dads that put in 16 to 18 hours of work per day, but yet never fail to spend every free time with their family. So why can’t we emulate their admirable qualities?
Or are we too pampered now, and cry out for policies to help us manage our time with our families?
@Ryvyan
I agree with you on your point about Jackson. Females do not have the basic responsibility as a child-bearer. I also agree that the Women’s Charter is supposed to outline the rights of women. However, the problem with it is that it only highlights the rights of women, but not men. I do not advocate the repealment of the Women’s Charter, However, I feel that a Men’s Charter, or something equivalent, is necessary. Otherwise, only women are protected by the law, however, men would only be protected by culture, without any concrete protection by the law.
Also, cite some examples of legislations that are against women, or as you put it, not women-friendly.