Archive for the ‘women and feminism’ Category

The singapore woman…sigh

June 19, 2007

A friend sent me these. My wife at times just refuses to make a decision and then when I do on her behalf she turns around and becomes upset. Is it just the singapore women syndrome or it’s generally the case with women? Drives me nuts… Here are the three dreaded words

Men: What to have for dinner?
Women: Whatever..
Men: Why not we have steamboat?
Women: Don’t want la, eat steamboat later got pimples in my face
Men: Alright, why not we have Si Chuan cuisine
Women: Yesterday eat Si Chuan, today eat again?
Men: Hmm….. then I suggest we have seafood
Women: Seafood no good la, later I got diarrhea
Men: Then what you suggest?
Women : Whatever..
Men: So what should we do now?
Women: Anything
Men: How about watching a movie? Long time we havn’t watch a movie
Women: Watching movie no good la, waste time only
Men: How about we go bowling, do some exercises?
Women: Exercise on such hot day? You not feel tired meh?
Men: Then find a café and have a drink
Women: Drinking coffee will affect my sleep
Men: Then what you suggest?
Women: Anything

I don’t know
Men: Then we just go home lo
Women: Oh I don’t know
Men: Let’s take a bus
Women: Bus is dirty and crowded. Don’t want la
Men: Ok we will take taxi then
Women: Not worth it la… for such a short distance
Men: Alright, then we walk lo. Take a slow walk
Women: How to walk with empty stomach?
Men: Then what you suggest?
Women: I don’t know 
Men: Let’s have dinner first
Women: Whatever
Men: Eat what?
Women: Anything
(Man looks around… for a pillar to bang his head on….)

The problem with the western idea of emancipation

May 9, 2007

The issue of gender neutrality as one of the many expressions of the western idea of human rights necessarily negates the need for the existence of separate feminist movement. The fact that such a gender specific right finds its need to exist is one of technical irrelevance considering the fact that western ideological pragmatism holds itself to be as essentially egalitarian. The equality of the sexes, as it exists today as an absolute right ignores biological ideals and realities and is too simplistic in it’s assmptions of the nature and origin of the human self. The application of such principles is thus flawed as pragmatic realities are too complex for science to ever answer without making sweeping assumptions to make a theory stick. The scientific revolution has thus far only dug up way much more questions than it had found answers to ontological questions. Now there is so much more educated guesses masquerading as sure knowledge than ever before. This was the case with the theory of evolution and the “science” behind body-language.

Coming back, if secular philosophy goes in the direction in embracing an unqualified gender neutrality policy as being the right way towards equalising the practical inequalities of life, there is no need for a feminist movement to be given any regard.

Firstly, they have absolutely no regard for the freedom of expression of others against them while they rant and rave about the eveils of men.

Secondly they believe that they are living in a vacuum where they see their rights as absolute and cannot be compromised under any circumstances despite the reality that the right of one is only relative to the right of everyone else. They even think that abortion as their sole unalienable right. (An example of an absolute right) It’s absurd.

Thirdly they believe thier crap philosophy to be emancipation of themselves when they were exactly made in the caricature of men’s base desires.  A hollow ornament devoid of any worth in true feminist quintessence. An exact opposite of emancipation.

The fact that the feminist movement still finds a need to exist ostensibly to address the inequalities against women vis-a-vis their male counterparts speaks of a failure of the western idea of gender equality. I see it as something that is fundamentally flawed.

It failed to recognise the uniqueness of the genders and the resulting difference as manifested in the way we live cannot be addressed as a flaw but rightfully to be celebrated as something beautiful. As such this male-female difference cannot be addressed by universal application of absolute standards – such as women’s rights – simply because the differences should not be seen as flaws in the first place. That is the first flaw of the western idea of gender equality. The values espoused by such a movement has produced sexual permissiveness and it’s associated immoralities in society at an unprecedented scale. It’s downright ugly. The quintessence of feminine beauty  together with it’s identity thus is lost in raw display of aggressive sexuality that is uncharacteristic of the female species.

The right to have sex as a woman pleases and the right to express her sexuality publically, unrestrained by any sense of morality has essentially robbed the woman of her womanhood. She has become, in the eyes of her beholder nothing more than raw meat. A being with no soul – as the evolutionist would have us believe. This not only robs her of her identity in gender but also robs men of their masculine identity. As these identities are relative only to each other, it becomes necessary that such a distiction exists – not only as manifested in their physical appearance but also in thier psychological make up.

The treatment of women as according to their biological role and make-up should not be seen as something of an anthema. The very flaw starts with the initial assumptions. The fact of this popular western idea of gender equality coming on as an issue of human rights is thus absolute nonsense. It imposes a one dimensional application of standards on complex realities without any regard for seeking why such differences exist. The creationally discriminated human being (as male and female) is an enigmatic natural phenomenon and we only have an inkling as to why that is the case – and even then we are not sure. No-pseudo science should dare explain that (read : the theory of evolution)

The thing about any theory that claims to have an explaination for everything from beginning to end is so darn ridiculous that it should be treated with suspicion. If the explanation for life, as complex and diverse as it is, was so simple that any person with a half a brain cell could understand it, then there is something fundamentally wrong with the way it was hatched.

Surely we cannot give monkeys equal status with humans because we fancy that they are our evolutionary ancestors! But we are bound to treat them with compassion and kindness because we share this small planet with them. But it would be absurd to apply absolute standards of right and wrong in the treatment of animals.

Equality and justice in this sense means being discriminate in our regard for others. Not the crude application of principles in a perfunctory fashion as the western way of thinking would like us to have. To discriminate in our regard for women is not flawed so long it is kind and compassionate.

The feminist movement as it exists today and the people who buy their crap philosophy are no better than the monkeys from where the secular materialist think we come from.

If Feminism is about Equality I don’t want to Know the meaning of Bigotry

May 8, 2007

I have always regarded the feminist movement with amusement with it’s over sensitivity to a perceived “male-dominated” society. At first it was seeking equality with their male counterparts. Now it basically means getting ahead at all costs.

In Singapore (as with other developed “third-world” countries) women enjoy unprecedented privileges that men do not. Some examples of the privileges that are enshrined in Law are 

1) Females are spared the gallows for any offence that carries the death sentence. The funny thing about this is that the feminists who have been fighting for equality do not fight for their right to death penalty – this would ensure their equal status here because the law here (as elsewhere in the so-called developed world) despite trying to seem gender neutral is in fact gender specific in meting out justice.

2) Men here have no say if their women decide to abort their baby.  – Women here have been fighting for men to share the burden of houshold chores and child-rearing. We have not come to child bearing part yet – and I’m afraid we are not far off that time either. But I find the thought rather frightening as to what would women do if men could be biologically modified to bear children. Globalisation means the homogenisation of cultures and societies – but the western concept of gender homogenisation is a vulgarity that robs humanity of it’s distinct sacred identity.

But coming back, if they find that men should have equal share of the burden and responsibility of child-rearing and house-husbandry, then it follows that men have the right of say in an abortion decision in the first place. Equality here means half the right – and this is only fair considering the husband’s “contribution” to the pregnancy. It is manifestly unfair that the men have no say in an abortion decision by their women and yet are expected to share the responsibility in raising the baby. The responsibilty expected does not entail a privilege which renders the whole argument for equal sharing household responsibilities moot and thus discriminatory.

3) According to the woman’s charter a guy is expected to father another mans child that his wife bore even if there is conclusive medical evidence to the contrary. So long they were married, are living together or had access to each other, the law will treat the child as the legitimate child of the husband without qualification and notwithstanding any forensic/scientific evidence to the contrary . While this may be an issue of the protection of the larger interests of children who are deemed as victims of their parents actions, it does not address the issue of preserving the integrity of the family unit in it’s true sense. I for one would have found it absolutely undignifying to have fathered someone else’s child coming from my wife’s tummy! Of course it may form a valid ground for divorce but the law does not recognise the father’s right to father his own offspring

 All these laws are not just specific to Singapore. While we have made changes to our law with regards to recognition of women as being equals to men, we have ignored the rights of men being equal to women as human beings. We have brought it to absurd levels and right now we have a bunch of militant women educated in the west trying to outstrip covered muslim women whom they believed to be “oppressed” in the name of equality. What chutzpah of bigotry.

It may be interesting to note that legal discrimination against women existed in the common law system that followed forth from Church laws in the medieval times. Women basically had no legal identity to start with to be considered as human beings. They can’t own things, they can’t inherit, they can’t sue among a lot of other “cant’s”. And this was way before the coming of Islam. It took a continent wide rennaisance in Christian Europe that was disillusioned with the increasingly heavy-handed Church establishment and a few major errors in their cosmological assumptions to recognise women as being in equal status with men by Law. The underlying secular ideolgy behind the rennaisance movement sought to sort of “equalise” society by taking away the man-woman distinction in humanity. And then it moved on to reconise homosexuals and lesbians as legitimate way of life.

The absurd direction of this thinking is exposed now as we are also “equalised” with monkeys. And all these are coming in as an intellectual revolution.

So it does not matter if you have a penis or a vagina (or even if you seek or wish to have a penis or a vagina), you will be regared equally by the law. A fancy package for an absurd ideology. And this was the same reason why racism and Aparthied was abolished 200 years ago. It just did not stand in line with current mode of thinking. But racism is a habit that would never go away.

Now we are not discriminated by the colour of our skin but we are discriminated by the way we think and feel that is not in line with western secular materialism. The underlying bigotry in all this is that if we don’t think like these guys we are bigots. So this bigotry manifests itself as nationalism, freedom, democracy, human rights, animal rights among others to rightfully denude others of their right to think as they want. And by the way nationalism is just another fancy name for tribalism. It seeks to divide rather than unite. Whether one likes it or not, this is one of the core reasons for the American-led war in Iraq – an underlying hatred of the muslim identity and it’s apparent and manifested expressions.

For equality to truely happen – the veiled muslim girl should be allowed to wear her scarf. I find it exceptionally absurd that a man screwing another man is allowed to openly exist with state approval and the denial of which is regarded as discriminatory while a veiled muslim women is castigated and ostracised and this is totally legitimate. It does not take much to realise as to which is more repugnant.

The practical truth of the effect of the so-called “enlightenment” is far from this desired equality of humanity. An equality that blatantly disregards natural biological ideals that gave men and women different identities and united them beautifully in procreation.

The necessary biological difference was essentially subsumed in an absurd all-embracing raw equality policy that made no distinction and had no respect for the distinctly unique male-female identity and the special status of humans in this earth. The feminist movement (as with the gay-lesbian movements and the pseudo-scientific “we-came-from-the-monkeys” movement) primarily emanated from the secular movement of the west. These were imposed upon all other cutures of the world as legitimate and fair. This cannot be further from the truth.

The secular western thinking was diametrically in opposition with eastern thinking – and still is – and thank god the majority of the world is still straight.

Whoever said “common sense is anything but common” knew what he was saying.  Secular materialism – while it may have opened many an inroads into humanity’s intellectual development (and there is no gainsaying that) – as it is regarded these days, is flawed in it’s ideological and philosophical direction.