Skip to main content

Aware Confirms Feminism is about Feminists telling Women what to do, not what women want to do? Part 2

As discussed at length at a2ed.com with Solo Bear, I really don't see how Aware speaks for feminism as a whole.

One should be aware of the existence of a whole host of feminisms - anarcha feminism, radical marxist, black, libertarian, etc., and the singaporean variant, Confucian feminism (termed as such by myself for its oversights when it comes to the interests of women whom aren't a part of the racially-defined 'majority whats!'

Jack's wife may have chosen to forgive the bloke for his hump & dump tendencies, but the issue here should not be if Aware has a right to get involved, but if women who put up with such infidelities do so as perspectival victims of a preceding patriarchal status quo.

Anyway, with regards to the women whom, a la margarine, spread with little resistance for Jack, I have to wonder after the degree to which celeb-worship contributed to it all. In that, the congregation of fans ought to engage in a bout of critical introspection. The grossly insensible overvaluation of the 'star' tends to open up a whole can of vulnerabilities amongst the populace, and which, in this case, seems to include Jack's harem.

All this, 'you cannot tell me what to do, therefore, you're imposing' is so typically Confucian and juvenile, i.e. being averse to 'foreign interference in internal affairs', turning away in the face of contradiction/challenge/novel ideas(as do most Chinese), 'you're not singaporean so you comments on local affairs are discountable' etc. Wake up and smell the parallels that draws its lines from a generic penchant for cultural introversion and self-absorption.

I'd rather focus on the points made as opposed to spending my time debating whose business it is and isn't. Isn't that just another way of discounting information?


[the above was placed as a comment at the 'solo bear's' site]


a2ed

Comments

  1. Dear Ed,

    "I really don't see how Aware speaks for feminism as a whole."

    Indeed and neither do I.

    "Jack's wife may have chosen to forgive the bloke for his hump & dump tendencies, but the issue here should not be if Aware has a right to get involved..."

    I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that AWARE does not need to get involved here. However they do have the right to speak on the issue or any other issues for the matter although I do not always agree with what they say either. Speaking in general here, a woman has the right to forgive her partner or husband for their wrongdoings, and it should be her choice. If she does not see herself as a victim, we should also refrain from labeling her as one in due respect of her decision. I think you might agree probably agree with me on this point. (Hehee feel free to tell me if you don't though!)

    There are many women who believe themselves to be feminists, and they start telling other women what to do and that to me, is not necessarily feminism. In fact, to live life by purely subscribing to a particular label and doing things for the sake of living up to the label they slap upon themselves is just quite silly. I am all for people sharing their opinions with others but it should all be objective, and ideally not lead to become something like "You should do this because..." even though the other party may not agree.

    Of course as human beings, sometimes to be able to refrain from being pushy (to each his/ her definition) can be difficult but we should all try to remind ourselves not to be so. I think the effort will be appreciated.

    Personally, while I do respect the fact that AWARE does have some sort of a presence and standing in civil society here due to the effort made to research on and trying to educate women about their rights all these years, we should not look towards one organisation as the absolute voice of feminism here in Singapore because that will certainly give a rather misleading impression with regards to what feminism is all about.

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry, just to clarify because I was thinking faster than I type and had left something out by carelessness.

    "I am all for people sharing their opinions with others but it should all be objective, and ideally not lead to become something like "You should do this because..." even though the other party may not agree."

    Should read:

    I am all for people sharing their opinions with others but it should all be objective and ideally not lead to become something like "You should do this because..." in action (rather than mere words) that forces another to follow the advise even though the other party may not agree.

    ReplyDelete
  3. .
    Hi Rachel,

    Actually, I am all for respecting choice so long as it isn't based on one having gotten used to being 2nd class citizens. Can you imagine if we respected the choice of those slaves whom had become used to living under the whip of the slave-master, or women whom were used to a patriarchal state of affairs.

    In any democratic advance, there will always be a conflict between its pioneers, and those whom have gotten used to the status quo, i.e. like non-chinese ethnic groups in singapore being accustomed to their 3rd class status and a2ed.com being the only site to truly appreciate and take issue with this fact.

    To be honest, i'm not interested in the 'agreement' of the other, unless they resist on the basis of reason. And, 'it's my choice', is not reasonable enough unless it can be proved that such a choice is not based on one's having gotten used to an inequitable status quo. We must be careful not to 'respect the choice of another' if that simultaneously refers to the maintenance of in inegalitarian status quo.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...respecting choice so long as it isn't based on one having gotten used to being 2nd class citizens..."

    Rather authoritarian...
    Whether a person chooses freedom over happiness or happiness over freedom is his/her own decision.

    Of what use is democracy if people can't even be happy with their decisions?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Some historical vision is required here.

    Much of that which people are currently 'happy' with is a result of the authoritarianism of the past.

    Over time, with the formation of a culture of coping, and the reduction or development of the human persona over a few generations, 'happiness' can result.i.e. 'little things please belittled minds'. But whether democracy has been achieved is another matter altogether.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  6. A rather condescending tone. Hardly characteristic of someone who will put democracy into practice.

    I can come up with this phrase..."Democracy is about democrats telling people (or other elected governments) what to do, not what people (or other elected governments) want to do."

    ReplyDelete
  7. .
    CM,

    You ought to focus on the points forwarded despite the tone you might be inclined to attribute to it.
    .

    ReplyDelete
  8. My point is that you have shown... "Democracy is about democrats telling people (or other elected governments) what to do, not what people (or other elected governments) want to do." Same for the feminists.

    In addition, everyone has their own history, and influences during their growing up years. Therefore your ideal about "respectable choice" does not make sense.

    Given your definition of what choices are "respectable", you are no less authoritarian than a dictator.
    I'm not a democracy advocate and I identify well with authoritarianism. So, yes, I know authoritarian when I see one.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No ideal, democratic or otherwise, can be brought about without 'authoritarianism', and especially where there is conflict between what we are accustomed to and what is new. If you take a look back at history, much of what is taken for granted and deemed acceptable was not by various sectors in the past.

    Anyway, the issue is not if I'm or the perspective is authoritarian, what matters if the point is valid. The allegation of 'authoritarian' is not an argument. What would be interesting is why authoritarianism in this context would be inappropriate.
    .

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

ed racially harassed by police at Changi Airport

Well, V (singaporean chinese girl working in the UK....and now back for the holidays) kept bugging the crap out of me to write about this experience....so here goes.

I arrived in singapore on the 15th of Jan in the evening via SQ with V.  I got to the baggage retrieval belt first and quite immediately got the attention of the customs police standing at the checkpoint near the entrance to the arrival hall.  Well, never mind. 

The Story