The point: you are proving it

Rarely if ever does this Chicken allow her weary gaze to rest upon the august pages of STOMP. Expecting anything other than vapid nastiness from that churning sewer of hate is rather like hoping to be surprised if you scratch your butthole and then sniff your finger.

And yet what's a bird to do, but gape in horror when the portal decides to blather on in the least informed manner possible about the growing SlutWalk movement?

STOMPer Handsome Boy wonders if this movement is really necessary in Singapore,

It is. For proof, see the rest of your article.

and if it might send out the wrong message to the young.

"Don't rape, and don't be an asshole about rape." WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

But I don't know if this whole SlutWalk thing is necessary or relevant in Singapore, or if it's just another copycat idea by women here who think that just because some women in a Western country is affected by it, they should be too.

Let me get this straight. You can't be bothered to pull your head out of your armpit for two seconds to note that victim-blaming and slut-shaming are alive and well in Singapore - so alive and so well they are legally codified. Instead, it seems to you, it is more likely that women in Sngapore, after years of frolicking joyfully in a perfect feminist paradise, have decided we want to be "affected by" rape culture because... because... because the West is. Hey, who cares about facts when we can simply assume utterly implausible behaviour on the part of women?

Handsome Boy (I hate him just for making me type that name) goes on to worry that

young girls might get the wrong message -- thinking that dressing provocatively is OK.

I'm not saying that it's not all right for women to dress sexy (not naughty)

Yes, these two sentences are included back-to-back. Your guess, my friends, is as good as mine.

"Sexy (not naughty)" is also clearly not at all some arbitrary bullshit standard. How'm I gonna sleep tonight, knowing my clothing choices might not be approved by Handsome Boy?

but if they feel that they have the right to dress the way they like, then it's not fair for them to get upset when men stare at them, because the men can argue that they are free to look at whatever they like too!

You appear to be missing a key basic concept here. You know, the one which involves the bodies in question belonging to the women who are dressing them and not to the men who are behaving like dehumanising jackasses.

Staring at anyone in public with disregard for their comfort is rude. Arguing that women are fair game for rude behaviour, by virtue of being women going about in the world in clothing, is misogynist.

Not content with hosting Handsome Boy's poop, STOMP goes on to post some pictures of mostly headless women (and one bum) and asks us to tell them "which of these you consider 'slutty' or inappropriate and why".

As far as I can see, no one has yet commented that every single picture which objectifies and dehumanises women is inappropriate - in public space in general, and on a post about a women's rights movement in particular. But someone has commented saying:

SlutWalk? Hmm... Mass rape anyone?

...so, you know. STOMP's lovingly cultivated safe house for misogynists serves its purpose once again. And proves even more why SlutWalk is so necessary.

Why not Morrissey?

There's a certain buzz going around outside of our farm regarding former-Smiths musician, Morrissey's racist remark about Chinese people:

Did you see the thing on the news about their treatment of animals and animal welfare? Absolutely horrific. You can't help but feel that the Chinese are a subspecies." (Sauce.)

Here at the barn, we are well aware that everyone farts up once in a while, and hold no illusion -- especially since child rapist Roman Polanski walked free, TWICE -- that even the cutest, most talented, smartest and even most cuddly sorts are saved from being fucked up. Little surprise, hence, that there's very little I care to say about who and what Morrissey is, and why his racism is any more or less egregious than if uttered by mere mortals.

On the other hand, there is much to be said about how fellow concerned life form can deal with famous assholes, much of it brought on by a Guardian commentary by Tom Clark, in which Clark calmly urges Morrissey's fans to "not feel obliged to disown the music we love" and that "nothing Morrissey says or does now would taint my enjoyment of the songs". Obviously the mileage varies between Clark and this male, unfeminist, gay Chinese pig, because I don't see why it's so impossible for offended fans to renounce their loyalty to any artist for the latter's assholicism.

In fact, I think any fan or music lover who gives a flying fuck about making the world a better place has every right to exercise some consumer discretion for an embargo. Here at the farm, we care to do something.

And just why fucking not?

My taking pleasure in one's art rings the latter's cash register, and in Morrissey's case it is precisely because his records are still selling that he feels his artistry will forever save him from truly being held accountable, or being remembered as a racist (apart from a good musician) long past his death. If his being popular from our listening to his music is empowering him to express his racism without contriteness, which is the case, then the obvious key to some humility may very well be in a boycott.

Then Morrissey's music wouldn't live forever. Maybe some day Someone will ask, "Hey, what happened to all the Morrissey songs that you liked?" And you can go, "I stopped listening to them because he turns out to be such a racist asshole that it pains me to even listen to him pluck his guitar." Then maybe when Someone listens to Morrissey on the speakers at your favourite bar, zie will share the racist factoid with hir friends, and they in turn can remind others that this brand of good music is spun from some moral bankruptcy--warning label reads "Enjoy at your own risk."

Personally, I don't have a problem with forgoing some good art for the sake of some humanity. I would rather the holocaust not have occurred and forgo "Schindler's List", than appreciate the impetus for art that Nazism provided. I would rather we didn't live in a kyriarchy and be writing about fluffy bunnies than exercising my writing chops here. Likewise, I would rather a musician not be a racist than have to exercise mental acrobatics over the fact that his racism is somehow an intrinsic part of some very complex, very profound whole, from which good music apparently stems, and which a simpleton like Bacon Bits here will never possess or understand.

Pftt.

Newsflash: greater people have lived without being assholes.

Why not Morrissey? Why not Polanski? Why couldn't Larkin? Why couldn't Churchill even?

The best art simply cannot justify the diminishing of human decency. And if you choose to ignore that, then don't mind if I stop listening to you too.

Reminder: say no to censorship

Recent events like the arrest of Alan Shadrake and the ban on Martyn See's film are reminder of how live the danger of state censorship of dissent remains. Don't forget to sign the Arts Engage paper to show your opposition to these oppressive tactics.

No You're Racist, and Sexist and I'm AWESOME

You may have noticed a cute new webpage floating around the internets called "I Write Like" (not linking). It's a page with a text box where you have to copy and paste (or compose on the spot) a few paragraphs, press a button and you'll get a something you can paste on your blog or Facebook to let everyone know which famous writer you write like. (In case anyone was wondering, I got Margaret Atwood - YAY! - and Dan Brown - kill me now.)

If you've heard of the website, you may also have caught wind of the kerfuffle around the fact that when it first launched, there weren't any female writers in the database of writers you could resemble. A week or so later, there are now 3 female writers (to 37 male writers) all of whom are lily-white. Now I understand that this is just a silly-for-fun website for people to feel briefly thrilled that their name can be used in the same sentence as a famous (or infamous) author (sorta Nicholas Sparks vis-a-vis Cormac McCarthy style), but representation matters, even in trivial things.

Representation matters because our actions are shaped by our environment. Our environment primes us on levels so far below our consciousness that even if we are asked about our motivations, we come up with narratives that, while consistent with how we view ourselves, have nothing to do with reality. A website that uses only white, initially all-male writers to represent how the internet writes, well, the implicit message isn't even all that subtle there.

So people start to comment. Some people cut and paste female writers' texts into the boxes and lol-sob at the male writers they are called instead. Eventually tea berry-blue wrote to the guy who runs "I Write Like". She describes the disheartening and miss-the-point exchange well, but what I want to talk about specifically is this:

Tea,

Thanks for your reply. I’ve added more writers into the database
recently. But I *absolutely* will not add people into the database due
to their race or gender. I will not search for lists of white, black,
Asian, Hispanic, or any other types of people that you _took care to
differentiate_. All people are equal to me, and equality means not
looking at skin color or different types of chromosomes.

I think the question is closed.

–
Dmitry Chestnykh
I Write Like

In other words, it's the I don't think people are different...and since you seem to, YOU'RE SEXIST and also racist.

Honestly, if everyone was so damn equal, why did you only have one kind of person represented? If everyone was all the same to you, then your sample should have approximated what the sampling of writers out there was really like. Include writers like Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, Amy Tan, Candace Bushnell, George Eliot, A. S. Byatt, Zadie Smith, Helen Fielding, Monica Ali, Stephenie-frikking-Meyer, Jhumpa Lahiri, Miriam Toews, Tamora Pierce, Holly Black...I could go on. That's just off the top of my head and includes a nice sampling of award winning authors, classics, pop fiction, all women, some of colour. NOT THAT HARD. If gender and race were non-issues for this person, then why the glaring omissions?!

It's because it does matter. And I want to make it very clear that I'm not blaming Dmitry Chestnykh for it in the least. Like the rest of us, he grew up in the same damn world we all did. A world in which whiter is better and where men are main characters. I was talking about priming earlier yeah? Well, we've been primed our whole damn lives to not notice that despite the actual diversity of the world around us, the white male is always the assumed default (Tasha Fierce breaks down the assumed default even in activist circles here). A world in which the only people who don't notice race or gender are the only ones who are the default, and therefore are privileged enough not to. It is also, ironically, a world where we are taught that racism and sexism are bad and that you are a bad person if you're racist or sexist. So people are scared to talk about race or gender. First because any time a light is shone on privilege it does get pretty damn uncomfortable. Secondly because it's as though noticing that people are different qualifies you as some sort of reprobate.

But of course everyone notices race. It starts when we're children, mainly because our parents don't talk about it. It's the same for gender too. Noticing it and talking about it and discussing the deleterious effects of it is how we can fight this shit. It's the opposite of being racist or sexist.

Let's recap. We're not all bad people just because we've grown up drinking the Kool Aid. We're not bad people for noticing differences and diversity. It's not racist or sexist or any-other-ist to make an effort not to under-represent entire populations of people. People that exist in this amazingly diverse and challenging world of ours. The same people whose lives are made worse because we are assumed to be uninterested because we're not talking about it. And while it can be awful to get called out, particularly if you already make efforts to not be racist or sexist, listen because we all have something to learn. Don't just fling it back and start name-calling.

Update: Shakesville's SKM Biblio-vore whose blog can be found here did a quick experiment on "I Write Like", plugging authors' actual works into the engine and seeing what comes out. Interesting and insightful!

I'll Be There For You

While you're at school, life is delineated into neat chunks bookended by expectations that need to be met. Assignments and projects with set deadlines, exams to be completed on un-moving dates. Always something to shoot for, always something to move toward. This is piss-poor training for real life, but it's the only training we get.

So I'm not all that surprised that once we leave school and are technically free agents (although if you asked me, I'd assert that true freedom doesn't strictly exist and that our actions are bounded by our circumstances and environments, but that's for another day)we still continue the slow, slightly cyclical grind of trying to get to that next milestone and mark off the next thing on the big to-do list of life. As a result we get on this hamster wheel of mundane routine, an opiate of sorts, locking us into a pat, comfortable life getting us to accept the status quo. Combine this with the undue importance placed on the individual (Barbara Ehrenreich calls this "the cult of the individual" near the end of this illuminating and intoxicatingly animated speech) and what we have is an entire population of people trapped in their single-minded pursuit of the next hurdle. Individually ensconced in the same patterns of thought that got them there in the first place. Embedded deeply in the Matrix (or what we like to refer to around here as the kyriarchy).

Distracted by the small things in front of us, it's damn difficult to look up and see the institutional injustices and when we do see them when they're splashed all over the news in an effort to erase them from our public consciousness *cough* (not that it was really there in the first place - which of us learnt about Operation Coldstore in history class? It should be right there alongside the emergence of Singaporean government. Quite a glaring omission, amongst many others) it's so terrifying and ugly and disheartening that it's easy to bury your head right back down in the sand, re-mire yourself in the day-to-day reaching for the next-thing-in-life.

Many of my friends don't want to talk about the things we talk about on this blog. They don't want to hear that hospitals discriminate against fat people - staff in this example (in the interest of your own mental health you may want to avoid the comments on that) or that being oppressed can cause entire populations to birth pre-term and low birth weight babies. I can't really blame them. Outrage is upsetting and the realization that you as an individual is ineffective against these large institutional forces can really ruin your day, your month or even your year (sorry).

Yet I continue to start these conversations. I subscribe to many, high output blogs that chronicle the march of the kyriarchy on our personal rights and freedoms. I hang out with the rest of the animals on this blog and in between watering sessions, which I must note does include a substantial amount of mirth, and discuss these things at length. I do this because this is how us the individual will affect the changes we want to see. If we get enough people talking about it, enough people upset, enough people aware of the gross injustice perpetuated daily just because that's the way things are then things will change. It will be gradual, halting, frustrating and sometimes seemingly futile. But it's not. I'm a firm atheist, but I do have faith in this.

Don't keep your head down, eyes blinkered to the next expectation you feel you must meet. Look up, look around, get mad, join the movement. Reassess what's important to you. You may benefit from the status quo in some measure. We all do, everyone possesses some privilege in some form (admittedly some more than others) and that's the lure of it. That's the bait in the trap we keep falling for. Ignore it. Unplug from the Matrix. Let's get in some ambulatory robots and talk about the things that matter.

The public is interested

More sober heads than mine have already discussed the pointlessness of the ban on Martyn See's film of Dr Lim Hock Siew, who spoke of his detention without trial for almost 20 years. (Transcript here, film here.) Distributing a film of an elderly, mild-mannered man giving an account of his personal experiences has now become a criminal offence.

Ostensibly this has taken place because the film is "contrary to the public interest". According to the mighty MICA:

The Singapore Government will not allow individuals who have posed a security threat to Singapore's interests in the past to use media platforms such as films to make baseless accusations against the authorities, give a false portrayal of their previous activities in order to exculpate their guilt, and undermine public confidence in the Government in the process.

My main question is, what exactly is the public interest served here?, but in order to ask it, I need to back up a bit and look at some fundamentals. They had this man in custody for almost 20 years, and they did not convict him of any crime. MICA talks about "exculpating guilt", but guilt for what exactly? Even the people who detained him didn't manage to work that one out.

But let's assume (gingerly, trying not to wrinkle our noses at the implausibility of it) that Dr Lim Hock Siew was once a genuine "security threat", supposedly because he had links to supposedly violent Communists or somesuch. If so, what is the public interest in restricting the present day circulation of the film? If detention was justified, let the government justify it; if his account of what happened was false, let the government contradict it. They've got all the records, right? They haven't flushed important paperwork down the toilet somewhere?

If we posit that the government was completely right to detain him, there is no possible harm in sharing this information now. It's not as if there is sensitive, ongoing operational security work against these violent Communist groups, which would be jeopardised by public discussion. (If there ever was.) I mean, yo, newsflash, PAP: the Berlin wall fell 20 years ago. Grab someone off the street and talk to them about "the alienation of labour" or "the internal contradictions of capital" and they will reply leh kong simi? The government cannot seriously be claiming that public discussion of the long-decomposed carcass of a defunct historical "threat" is somehow "against the public interest".

Remember, we've been giving the government the benefit of the doubt here. Even if Dr Lim is spouting total B.S. (and I don't think he is lor), the "public interest" doesn't make any sense, since the government can just whip out their thousands of detailed documents and prove to us, incontrovertibly, that they were right. "Public confidence" would not be "undermined", but strengthened.

And if he's not talking B.S., if the government stuck unconvicted citizens into prison for years on end and it was all about "saving face" and people underwent months of solitary confinement and women were force fed with tubes until they vomited and their vomit was cleaned off the floor with their own pants, might there not be a rather large public interest in the public hearing about it?

The film raises questions which any government should be prepared to answer, like, "Hey, man, why did you lock that guy up? And did you torture him while you were at it? Just, like, wanting to check, you know." And that's the whole point of the ban. It's meant to be a ban on questions. Shut up because we know best, and we don't even have to prove it. By "public interest" they mean the public should not be interested.

Well, I damn well am. And we should all be. Find out as much as you can about the detentions and let's question them until their ears bleed.

Sisters in Solidarity & online petition.

The fiasco that is one fucked-up China One Club evicting Marla Bendini, for no other reason than the fact that she's a transwoman, has led to the form of Sisters in Solidarity (SIS). At the helm of SIS, are Leona Lo and Marla Bendini herself.

Over the last week, SIS has organised themselves to form a Facebook group, set up their blog, organised a press conference, put together a social enterprise for transwomen, and have gotten a written and an online petition running.

This pig salutes the women behind SIS for all the work they've done in the short span of time, and I sincerely hope the SIS engine grows and keeps trucking!

For now, we encourage our readers to lend their names to the online petition. The petition is simply crafted, decrying the many instances of discrimination based on the sex expressed on their identity cards, their failure to pass as some stereotypical imagination of what a woman should look like (newsflash: a lot of ciswomen won't pass that test too, you assholes). And because they're transwomen, people think being rude is okay, or that being treated as second-class citizens undeserving of fair investigations is justifiable.

We agree with the petition: stop discriminating against transwomen, regardless of whether or not they've undergone sexual reassignment or if you think they can pass off as some fictitious ideal of what women should be, and if you insist on being discriminatory, then at least have the very courtesy to be open about it.

And if you won't be open about it, don't worry, we're onto you assholes and wholly intend to name you and shame you as and when you rear your ugly head. Because, this is the we'll know where all your fellow assholes congregate, thus can avoid Teh Stupid altogether.

Sign the petition now!

(Sisters in Solidarity petition aims to garner 1000 signatures. After which, the petition will be sent to various "nightspot and club operators" accordingly.)

China One outright discrimination against transgender Marla Bendini.

This needs circulation: China One club in the Clarke Quay area is another fucked-up institution.

Marla is an artist and pole-dancing performer who happens also to be a transwoman. China One had engaged her dance troupe for a gig, but mid-way through preparations, Marla was asked to leave the establishment without reason. Upon further query, the General Manager, who ordered her removal, claimed that she should know the reason for her removal. It harks back to a prior episode where she was asked to leave the club because her being trans is "is simply not their THING".

Well, China One, you're a fucking douche, and you should know why. We hope this gives you PR hell because it is simply not our thing otherwise.

And oh, by the way, FUCK. YOU.

Feel free to send love letters to them, and to save you the trouble of visiting their website:

China One
Block 3E River Valley Road
#02-01 Clarke Quay
Singapore 179024

Tel: +65-6339 0280
Email: info@chinaone.com.sg

Marla's letter I reproduce in full:

CHINAONE OUTRIGHT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRANSGENDER MARLA BENDINI
29 Apr 2010 at 03:30
CHINAONE
April 29, 2010

Acro Poleformers from Acro Polates, the pole fitness studio I train at, are performing at ChinaOne this evening. I was there with other performers as well as the studio director, Suzie Wong, and award-winning Pole Dance performer and instructor from Australia, Suzie Q. Things were going as planned and the performers did a great job during the 1st half of the performance.

Just before the 2nd half of the performance started, a bouncer came up to me and said that the manager wants to speak to me and wanted me to follow him outside the club. I obliged, even though the manager should come over and speak to me personally instead of having me escorted outside at his beck and call. I waited outside for a few minutes. but the said manager did not show up so I walked back into the club, even though the bouncer tried to stop me and said that I'm not allowed to enter.

When I was inside, I told that Suzie Wong and the performers that the club management wants me to leave and that I am not welcomed in the club. Suzie Wong explained to them that I am part of the group invited and we are here to support the performance. The bouncers was adamant that I leave and I am not welcomed. I told them that I do not want to create any trouble and I will wait outside.

I was greeted with a heated argument between the club managers upon stepping out. As it turns out, the manager was Lawrence (See story below). He was yelling at his colleagues and staff who "let her (Me) in". They explained to him that I was part of the guestlist and he was hissing with anger that no one informed him that they were letting guests in without his acknowledgment. I guess if he held all that power to who enters and who leaves, he should be working as a bouncer or a door host, not sit in his office counting his paycheck. So all this yelling and argument happened right in front of the club entrance, I was standing there and Suzie Wong came out soon after to see how I was doing. Lawrence, the GM, turned to me and started yelling at me saying that I should not step into ChinaOne again and he has told me so before. I asked why is he yelling. Suzie stepped in at this point and said she would not proceed on with the show because this is disrespectful. Finally, we agreed that this was between the management and I left the club to wait for them to finish the pole dance performance. The girls came down soon after and were noticeably upset about the situation.

I am very thankful and touched that my friends stood up for me. Even Suzie Wong, who was running a business, was prepared to give up this gig because of the way the management treated me due to my gender.

I love you girls- Suzie W, Suzie Q, Eunice, Karen & Kat and the rest of the girls who left earlier after the 1st half of the show.


**

September 4, 2009

I don't go to ChinaOne anymore because the management approached my transsexual friend while I was getting drinks at the bar. They told her to ask me to leave. They had no idea she was a transsexual as well. When I asked why, they were reluctant to give the reason. I asked to see the manager because none of the bouncers knew how to handle the situation because they were just acting on orders.

The General Manager, Lawrence, finally came out and said "I should know it myself."
He was rude and indignant as if I've done something shameful. I was not about to be pulled out of a club like that and have people trample all over me. I asked again why I should be asked to leave the club without a valid reason. Lawrence, the GM, replied again that he does not want to get into this and I should know the reason why. He was shifty and was almost hissing at me.

He wanted to check my ID, and again, I said if they gave me a reason, I would gladly give them my ID. He continued to evade my question and said "I should know why". I refused to leave without a valid reason- I've been there on many occasions and it is simply ridiculous to ask me to leave like so.

Finally, Lawrence (GM) gave up and said "OK, Not everybody knows you're a man."
To which, I promptly replied, "So what's the problem here?"
He said "This is simply not their THING"

I questioned their establishment- I am here to drink and enjoy myself, whatever ''THING"' ChinaOne is into seems to venture more than just a pub/club scene. I demanded a full refund of me and my friend's expenditure that night and left.

He finally apologised and said it is not his policy but the upper management. I said he is the General Manager and he should respect us and make changes to this 'unwritten' rule.

So here's to clubs and bars who think they can just discriminate transgenders on the premise that they are trying to run a 'respectable business'- we are fabulous and consider it an honour we fancy your club and choose to take our gorgeousness there.

Marla, we at the barn stand with you, and thank you again for shedding light on another disgusting establishment.

Please join Leona Lo and others in taking a stand against these flagrant (and subtle) discriminations against transgender people. Join the Facebook group and let's get organised!

Pinkdot 2010!!!

O.MAI.DOG!

15 MAY 2010, YO!

Chickenifesto

Is it not crystal clear, then, comrades, that all the evils of this life of ours spring from the tyranny of human beings? Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our labour would be our own. Almost overnight we could become rich and free. What then must we do? Why, work night and day, body and soul, for the overthrow of the human race! That is my message to you, comrades: Rebellion! I do not know when that Rebellion will come, it might be in a week or in a hundred years, but I know, as surely as I see this straw beneath my feet, that sooner or later justice will be done. Fix your eyes on that, comrades, throughout the short remainder of your lives! And above all, pass on this message of mine to those who come after you, so that future generations shall carry on the struggle until it is victorious.

And remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity, perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are comrades.

So said Old Major, in George Orwell's Animal Farm.

My feathers, you will have surmised, are often ruffled. Observation through the Magical eye too frequently yields grounds for dissatisfaction.

More than once I have been told that my criticisms are "too negative", or that unless a 15000-point plan alternative addressing every minute contingency is proferred, a criticism is invalid for being insufficiently "constructive".

My instinct in many cases is to dismiss this, and I think this instinct is fair (if also fowl). There is little to be gained by spraying perfume over a photograph of bullshit; nor is there any need, to justify shovelling the bullshit aside, to recommend something else to put in its place. If you are being a Jerkface, I feel no obligation to suggest alternative means of shoring up your own soulsucking ego: everything will be improved if you just stop being a Jerkface. (Who would have thought?)

But. I will allow that bullshit is not always freestanding. Often it is mixed into the bricks and foundations of our achievements; we set off in the happy if delusional belief that we are doing some good. And maybe we are even doing some good, with our bullshit, for some people: just at the hideously unfair expense of others.

And there's always the fear of change, the creeping worry that perhaps things will end up as they did with Old Major, a rousing vision of a better day, only to find it all acting out in new forms of tyranny. What, we ask, frightened - used only to being frightened - if dismantling one power structure just creates room for others? Better play safe lah.

To this I ask: safe for whom? It's not at all safe for those who are currently marginalised. And the positive vision you require is implicit in the demands for change. Simple requests for roofs over heads, for the pedestrian banality of ordinary love (and even more ordinary broken hearts), for the chance to put in a regular day's work with regular risks and imperfections, for the occasional night out, for space to get on with one's choices and one's life without being vilified.

The positive vision pursued is made up of no more and no less than quotidian dreams of personal happiness. A solid majority of people want this. If we stop getting in their way for stupid reasons, they will strive to achieve it, just as water seeks its level. Which is more than enough reason to say viva la revolution.

Blog For Choice: Trust Women

I remember being about seven and asking my mum if abortion counted as murder. I don't know where I had first heard the word abortion and was probably really fuzzy about the concept (as you would imagine a seven year old to be) but I know the question was sparked due to a Sunday School lesson on the Ten Commandments. The Sunday school teacher was trying to impress upon us that even if we didn't think we were sinning, we well could be. She used the typical examples of a white lie, she asked if we ever wanted a friend's stickers (OMG guys, do you remember sticker books in primary school? No? Just me?) really badly, she even asked what we did with the rest of our Sundays once we got home from church (although she never really explained what keeping the Sabbath holy entailed...just implied heavily that watching TV wasn't part of the deal).

So it got me thinking. Which other commandments could be violated by otherwise well-meaning people? What about the one about not killing - does it extend to animals? Does it extend to plants? I started thinking about whether it was ambiguous when it came to people, and that must be how I chanced upon abortion.

My mother lit up like a tree on Christmas and enthusiastically took the opportunity to explain that yes, abortion is murder. That god (it was capital-G God back then) was clear on not killing people, and babies even in the mother's womb were people. Not satisfied that her answer was comprehensive enough, she then started telling me about the IUD and how it prevents tiny babies from holding on to the mother's womb (no, seriously, she even mimed grippy motions with her hands at this point) and how that was abortion too. She told me that there was a couple at church (a well-respected couple that I admired quite a bit at the time) who used the device, and that's why their only son was in a wheelchair - as punishment for all the little babies they killed with the IUD.

I'm gonna pause here for a bit so you can appreciate just how fucked up that was.

As amazingly ableist and scientifically inaccurate that was, it was my first introduction to abortion (and contraception, really). I understood that it was wrong, and that there were no circumstances under which it was ok. My mom took the opportunity over the years to use abortion as a method of slut shaming. She told me about how my dad's colleague's wife procured an abortion because the due date conflicted with a planned trip to Japan (and why those godless people were cursed with only one child). She told me tales of classmates who had abortions every other month while bitterly discussing how they were popular anyway and were quite mean to her. She told me these stories with an aim to impress upon me how the world has a dirty, unseemly underbelly, how even people who appear good HAVE ABORTIONS and therefore ARE MURDERERS. Sort of like this:

Slowly, after each of these narratives, after each consequence and moral was revealed, I began to realize that underpinning all of these fables was the throbbing drumbeat that to be a good woman all the choices you make must be externally transparent - that onlookers will be judging you for what you do and blaming your misfortunes on your transgressions. And the worst, the absolute worst action you can do is to kill your "baby" because there is nothing in the world that can justify MURDER. Because there is no one in the world who would give you the benefit of the doubt, who trusts you to make the right decision for yourself and your family. Because if you have an abortion, you are automatically discredited as an active, responsible agent.

Because the world at large does not trust women.

I trust women. I trust that decisions are not made lightly. I trust that women are the only people who can know everything about their individual circumstance and with the information they have can be trusted to make the best call for their lives at the time they have to make it. I trust women and that's why despite my mother's best efforts, I am pro-choice.

OverEasy: "Let's reduce women to their body parts"

I am late in putting this up, but our sharp reader, Dysgrace, wrote in to highlight a rather questionable event organised by a popular (so I hear) watering hole occurring this evening:

(For a larger version, see the original, or our copy.)Dysgrace puts it to us simply:

feast your eyes on this brilliant idea from OverEasy. it's one of those 'let's reduce women to their body parts, objectify them, and then compare them while pretending to celebrate all body types' things. hah. in one's cups. more like poisoned chalice, can?

The animals on this farm are undecided on what sorts of action can be taken against OverEasy for their lousy marketing. While the common vote is to boycott the establishment, Angry Alpaca keenly reminds everyone that OverEasy is linked to a whole chain of other joints, such as The Loof, Timbre chain, Butter Factory Club, etc, so if we wish to hurt them monetarily, alcoholics out there may not have many popular options to quench their thirst.

So I recommend Cat in the Cream's strategy instead: bring your double-d friends there, and drink them out of profiteering. Building on that, you can also give them a good earful AFTER you get your bottle. Please feel free to puke all over the establishment as well.

(H/T Dysgrace.)

***
ETA - Complaining Cow informs me that I got it wrong. Lo and Behold Group runs OverEasy, and they're primarily in charge of Loof, OverEasy (in partnership with Butter Factory), White Rabbit and The Shack (previously KM8). (More info here.) I apologise for any confusion caused. (Sorry, Timbre!)

Do something: Earthquake Haiti

(Via MrBrown)

Seriously, Singapore government, I know you've had a tough year in 2009, what with dipping into the reserves and everything. But a sum of US$50,000 for Haiti and the victims of the earthquake?

NOT COOL.

As MrBrown succinctly puts it:

100,000 estimated deaths. US$50,000 from our generous government. That's 50 cents for every dead soul. US currency, ok? So it is almost a dollar Singapore money for the Haitians.

Why ah? GIC lost too many hundreds of millions in that Manhattan project ah?

I have two words for you, Singapore Gahmen: Cheap Bastards.

So to make up for our government's pitiful donation, please donate donate donate. (And preferably something more than our government's 'generous' donation of S$1 per person.)

One of the channels to do so is through the Singapore Red Cross, which has said that it will channel any donations made to help the quake victims in Haiti to the International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies.

According to their website, donations can be made via:

1) Cheque donations
Donations via cheque can be sent to the Singapore Red Cross @ 15 Penang Lane, Singapore 238486. Please include name, contact details and “Earthquake Haiti” at the back of the cheque.

2) Walk-in donations
Donors may make their cash/cheque donations at the Singapore Red Cross @ 15 Penang Lane (near Dhoby Gaut MRT Station) during its office hours, Mondays to Fridays from 9am to 5.30pm.

For more information on the IFRC relief operation on Earthquake Haiti, please visit www.ifrc.org or the SRC at www.redcross.org.sg

(If you have more information on other charities that are working in Haiti now, please post it in the comments below and I will update it on the blog.)

And here's a song about Haiti by the awesum Arcade Fire. Régine Chassagne, who sings in this song, has roots in Haiti as her family migrated to Canada during the dictatorship of Jean-Claude Duvalier.

Public Consensus Does Not a Fact Make

In the new year (HAPPY 2010 EVERYONE!) let's try to remember that despite all the wishy-washyness of the past decade that there are things that are right and there are things that are wrong and that we have the tools to distinguish between them.

From the blog Bioephemera comes a lovely reminder that science is not a democracy and that the wisdom of uneducated hordes can and does wreak havoc on real people. A related point is that the status quo as determined by those who buy into oppressive stereotypes too leads to real world harm.

It's a brand spanking new year, and for those who are miscounting, a brand new decade. Take care out there and be nice to each other ok?

You never know who's listening!

Singapore transgender writer and activist, Leona Lo, picked up a letter we'd published earlier on Velvet Underground's apparent blanket ban of transgender women. (Lo's commenter, Nurra Mahat, corroborates that "Velvet has NEVER been a TG friendly place, unless your IC says you’re female AND (the big AND) passable.") Shortly after that, we learn that just shortly before Christmas, another transwoman was barred from Zouk, further corroborating that something shitty is happening at that place.

I very much want to recommend Lo's "quick response tips" for transwomen to seek trans-friendly venues, document places that discriminate, and report the latter accordingly. In short:

(1) Check beforehand on their policy for a fuss-free night;

(2) Use your mobile phone's video camera to document mistreatment;

(3) Share with the media.

We at the barn are particularly aware of the paucity of getting minority people to come out to openly share their stories about offending people and organisations, often as Lo points out, "for fear of attracting “trouble”". So I encourage Point 4:

(4) Tell anyone who'd listen! Write in to the papers, write in to the management, write in to Leona Lo, one of the social media websites, or one of the LGBTQ blogs, or even to us so that we can air the experience. The more fodder we receive, the more people read about it, the stronger it is for us to build a case of holding people accountable.

Don't be too quick to discount the power that your voice will provide, and what bad press circulating about can drive people to salvage.

When The Online Citizen did a feature on the abject state of migrant worker housing, the effort was made by individuals and groups to air the issue and write in to relevant bodies, seeking accountability. What came out of these efforts is this:



Even when we at our small barn wrote about the racy 'APEC' event, our reader wrote in and it became a racy APPEC event.

Pressure works! Companies are in it for the money, and bad publicity, or worse, health, environmental and manpower incursions are definitely not good for business. Clients and developers can be encouraged to award tender to companies that boast better housing amenities that do not bring the projects into disrepute, which eventually affects sales. Patrons can askew clubs that discriminate for clubs that don't.

I hate to tie the worth of minority rights to economics, but it seems when faced with the wall of The Bottomline, appealing to people's money minds might be a helpful, additional strategy.

Also, I want to agree with Mark that perhaps firms are not always as heartless or as aware as they seem. While I have my suspicion that they will take the easy out by providing the minimal or ignoring the problem, I think there's very little harm in approaching them in good faith.

Besides, it saves us all more heartburn, and you never know who's listening!

+++
If you haven't signed this petition: Petition to Improve Foreign Workers' Housing.

Short Answer: Yes, Long Answer: No.

A very wise man who I constantly regret having lost contact with once cautioned me that if I ever felt like I completely understood something, I assuredly did not. He said to visualize the knowledge you have as the area of a circle. Circumscribing that circle is everything you are aware of not knowing and beyond that are things you know so little about that they may as well be non-existent (to you, anyways). The larger your area of knowledge, then, the deeper your understanding of what is left to understand.

Adding to the idea that a narrow worldview gives one a sense of having all the answers is a recent study (aptly titled "Unskilled and Unaware of it" [link]) documents how those who are more unskilled, concurrently lack the skills to properly evaluate themselves. From the abstract:

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it[...]Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

In other words, this problem is not insurmountable. The more you know, the more you know you don't and the less of an idiot you will appear in the process.

So the point I'm trying to make (and I will admit it has taken me some time to get here) is that if you feel like you have some prescriptive advice that will completely revolutionize a movement or if you think you have an overarching theory of something (see: xkcd:Revolutionary) you probably don't and it would be worth hanging around a little more to educate yourself by listening to the people who have been at it longer than you have. Yes, occassionally it's true that it takes a fresh perspective...but incredibly rarely and it's the height of hubris to just assume that you've struck upon it.

This is particularly important as it applies to being an activist and an ally. Having your consciousness raised is typically such a mind-blowing experience that it is tempting to think that you now understand all about oppression and how it works in the world, afterall if you understand systemic racism/sexism/ableism/enter-ism-here, then you understand systemic everything right? Now that you can spot misogynist tropes in adverstising you can also see how racial stereotypes are used as shorthand for all manner of unflattering things and how transphobia is used to police the gender binary and and and and and and...

...and how could you possibly if you've just heard about all these issues? Let's not forget that we were all raised in this world, this kyriarchy, that up until we were made aware of these issues in the first place we accepted the status quo as right and true. That undoing that will take much more than a single a-ha moment. Don't forget that we live in a world where this bullshit is largely accepted at face value despite the frankly towering absurdity of it being even remotely true.

I want to stop for a moment and explicitly state that I do not think I know everything or that I am in some hallowed position where I can see all that I do not know about and am therefore the perfect activist and ally. All I want, really is for all of us (often me included) to try and be better allies by listening and participating in the communities we are vested in supporting. To de-centre ourselves, to remove ourselves from the James Cameron's Avatar version of activism (where it is you, the privileged who should lead the poor oppressed people to victory). Tami (from What Tami Said) has an excellent post up about how to be a good ally which is very worth reading and essentially boils down to the point I'm trying to make - it's not all about you, listening and being still is vital, and if you think you have something just absolutely revolutionary to say, by all means share it (afterall, that's what participating in a community means) but have the wherewithal to be gracious when you aren't well received, with the attitude that you may not know best.

I think sometimes, even the best of us, with the most noble of intentions, needs reminding.

Play it again, Sam

There're some aggressively fauxgressive stink bombs being dropped in the comments at Leona Lo's blog.

You may recall Most Insightful Blogger Sam Ho, who previously came by the barn to express his deep concern that clubs might make less money if they stopped being nasty to trans people. (Maybe they would. Boo fucking hoo.)

Sam asked Leona to seek submissions and responses from trans people in service of some website project he's working on, to "debunk (damaging/hurtful/insensitive) myths people hold of folks who are LGBT". In response to this, Samantha, who is trans, kindly offers her perspective.

Get this - an actual member of the actual community you seek to help, giving you her take! She's talking from a lifetime of experience with an issue you, as a straight cis man, can only ever really know second-hand. This is a good opportunity to learn and improve your project. Right? Right???

Wrong.

Sam engages nothing at all Samantha says, instead choosing to lecture her on Reel Praktikull Activistyism. The first step to doing this is talk over others:

categories to me and you are meaningless. but to think like that isolates us from the business of making change.

Actually, Samantha didn't say anything about categories being meaningless. In fact, she begins by specifically questioning this point. But good job on erasing her actual point of view and substituting your imaginary one.

The second step is to have no bloody idea what you're talking about:

i don’t think we’re employing the gay/straight dichotomy in our thinkstraight campaign. since categories tend to fuck us up, we should fuck them back (in the academic sense). in having the queer-straight alliance, “queer” and “straight” do not mean what they are. for instance, “straight” represents cisgender/sexed persons who identify as heterosexual. and “queer” also encompasses people who are questioning, as well as people who know live in their correct gender and who identify transsexuality as a phase they have long left; not all post-op transsexuals acknowledge their trans past, so they can identify as “straight” and/or “queer”.

Let me parse that for you. Sam isn't "employing the gay/straight dichotomy" because he's saying that all people who aren't cis and straight are "queer": i.e. the word is divided into cis-and-straight-folks and everyone else is this great big queery lump, no matter how they choose to define or describe themselves.

No matter that a gay cis woman has a different social situation from a straight trans man who has a different social situation from a bisexual cis man who has a different social situation from a questioning trans woman.

No, they're all Not Like Sam, so they're this uniform porridgelike audience to whom he can pontificate without knowing his elbow from his asshole.

Let me highlight this sentence for you again, because it's so mind-bogglingly ignorant:

not all post-op transsexuals acknowledge their trans past, so they can identify as “straight” and/or “queer”

Most Insightful Sam, the reason why ALL trans people (regardless of what's between their legs) can identify as "straight" or "queer" or having any other sexual orientation imaginable is because whether you're trans has nothing to do with your sexual orientation. Whether you "acknowledge your trans past" (whatever that means) has bugger all (no pun intended) to do with whether you are straight or gay. They are totally different issues. As Samantha tried to tell you from the beginning.

Sam isn't just ignorant and wrong. We're all ignorant and wrong sometimes. But Sam is also breathtakingly arrogantly wrong, and patronising.

activism now is not about bulldozing or being hotheaded, but about making change with friendship and smiles, and not taking everything so seriously and personally.

I like "friendship and smiles" as much as the next person, but when people are murdered and excluded on the basis of a form of discrimination that will never ever come within a galaxy's length of your experience, telling them not to take it "seriously and personally" is the height of callousness.

The final word must go to Edward Flaherty:

You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.

Indeed.

People we love: Molly Meek

An inspiration to this farmland fowl, Molly Meek is the original furry dissident. In The Importance of Being Bitchy she calls for less mealy-mouthed, status-quo-reinforcing pseudo-balance in favour of more full-blooded animal spirit.

What do we have then? We have vocal activists and opposition politicians (though not that many of them). We also have those who, interpellated by the State’s seductive call, fancy themselves balanced, rational, constructive critics who, more often than not (and I think they might lash their constructive whips on me here) spout wishy-washy pseudo-criticisms and are on stand-by 24/7 to cane those whom they deem unreasonable, i.e truly political. “You must be fair to the PAP. Not everything they do is wrong.” These are the people who believe that when you have a kilogram of criticism, you must balance it with a kilogram of praise and acknowledgement of good work. (Admittedly, this is an exaggeration, but do I not have the right to use hyperbolic language to make a point, however imbalanced and unfair it is?)

What we need are Political Uber-bitches. And what they need is some real space in which to exist, not an abyss in which they are constantly hurled prescriptions of sedatives to cure them of their perceived excesses.

In bold is a perfect description of the people who make me want to punch walls. (Disclaimer: no walls were harmed in the making of this post.) Their obstructionism is only ever placed in the way of those who are trying to make things better. Never is it directed at those silent and invisible but nevertheless tangible and forceful - even violent - forces that keep the burdens of prejudice, abuse and deprivation where they are.

"It is a good aim in theory, but your methods are bad," they utter from a reclining position on a sedan chair, never raising so much as a little finger in service of any allegedly superior methods to promote the aims they supposedly support.

Kudos to Molly for turning those sharp feline eyes onto this.

Ban of transgender women at local clubs.

Reader Mark wrote to us with an unpublished letter to the Straits Time Forum written by his friend, SM. The letter seeks clarification from the people at Zouk on an apparent blanket ban on transgender women at the establishment's Velvet Underground: (dated 21 Jul 2009)

Last Friday night, my friends and went clubbing at Zouk's Velvet Underground. However, arriving at the club's entrance, I was shocked to learn that my transgender friend was not allowed into one of Singapore's most well-known clubs.

Upon clarification with the bouncer, it was explained that a policy of disallowing all transgender patrons applies, although only to Velvet.

These patrons are still welcome to merry-making in the other parts of the greater establishment, including the main Zouk club, Phuture and Winebar.

I would very much like to know why Velvet Underground has such a blatantly discriminatory blanket ban in place, that denies entry to a whole class of people.

A bar-ban may be an entertainment spot's prerogative, but it is usually applied individually to patrons who have without mitigating factors incurred serious transgressions that disrupt the enjoyment or prove to be a threat to the safety of patrons, staff or the environment.

Does Velvet Underground mean to suggest that all transgender people are disruptive or threatening simply by existing or being present? This belief has no justification. Zouk should know this from direct experience since transgender people are, under its own policy, able to access the rest of the club.

Also, by what criteria does Velvet Underground determine whether a potential patron is transgender?

SM

In his letter to us, Mark relates that he knows of "another big club frequented by Caucasian expatriates, at CHIJMES" that has a similar discriminatory policy in place. His understanding is that these bans have been argued to be "purely for the pecuniary benefit of their shareholders, and that it was within their power to exclude any (class of) people they deem unsavory."

Exclusionary policies are fine if indeed "unsavory" people are banned individually as SM points out above. The problem with a blanket ban, however, is a matter of ignorantly playing to stereotypes that are difficult to justify or in fact enforce. It is the case for race in a predominantly White countries, race in early education, race on the dumbbox, reasons for adultery and children of wedlock, what makes a feminist, and fat people.

In this case, Mark notes:

Firstly, all transwomen are necessarily made out to be sex workers [by the ban], when obviously this isn't the case.

Practically speaking, clubs have no real way of excluding other sex workers of any gender, except by doing it the good old traditional way--when someone gets reported, they ban the individual.

Just as how clubs can't exclude all cis sex workers, there's no real way the bouncers are capable of excluding all transwomen just by looks. This means that the management really only excludes better-known transwomen, or/and any (trans)woman who does or doesn't fit certain bills.

I make especial note on "certain bills" to maybe mean what transphobic feminist, Julie Bindel calls “fuck-me-boots and birds-nest hair”?

We at the barn are very disturbed by this, and fully agree that this needs to be aired. Not only so that, as Mark hopes, "everyone who gives a damn might consider bringing their buying power to more inclusive venues", but also that we can avoid places where the likely intolerant types maybe concentrate.

Voice Out. I encourage concerned readers to write in to Zouk to demand they change their policies: email them at zoukclub@zoukclub.com, or call them at (+65) 6738 2988.

Tell Us More. If anyone else knows of other non-inclusive venues, please write to us (email address on the side) so that we can compile a list.

Thanks to Mark and SM for bringing this to the table! You're welcome to party in the barn with us any day!!!

People We Love: M Ravi & the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign.

Our Barnyard Engineer had a month ago highlighted an interview between Singapore Democratic Party and AWARE founding member, Constance Singam, from the SDP's "Let's Talk" series with Chia Li Tik. This time, SDP speaks with a personal hero of mine, M Ravi, a human rights lawyer who's probably the frontrunner in championing against mandatory death penalty in the Singapore legal system.

On-going is a fight against the death sentencing of drug mule Yong Vui Kong, 21, who three years ago was caught at the causeway between Malaysia and Singapore. Yong, a Malaysian, was sentenced to death because Singapore has insanely strict laws regarding drug trafficking. (Seriously, a 17 year old doesn't even possess voting rights, but the court thinks it's okay to put one on the road to the gallows!?) He was actually supposed to be hanged last Friday, but Ravi has come out to successfully argue for Yong's case to be open to appeal--Yong had initially waived thinking he would should just face unchallenged realities--and will represent Yong during the appeal. It's also important to note that Ravi was not Yong's original lawyer.

From the interview, Ravi comments on the key problem with the mandatory death sentence in Singapore:

The starting point here is not just death penalty per se. What we are dealing with here in Singapore is mandatory death sentence. That is the judge, who is passing the death sentence, cannot look into the extenuating circumstances of the individual when there are mitigating circumstances which are available, where he can set aside the death sentence and offer life imprisonment. So that takes away the vital essence of judicial making, which is discretion. And that discretion is unfortunately given to the President, who has hardly given any clemency for the umpteenth years that we know.

And on how Ravi was spurred into his work in the area of human rights and the death penalty:

There was one day I received a call from Mr JB Jeyaretnam. He felt so aggrieved on account of his client, you could hear the outrage of his voice over the phone. He said this particular case, which involves the death penalty involving a 22 year-old Malaysian boy, had already run its course. Meaning it has gone to the Court of Appeal, it has already reached the clemency stage, and clemency was already denied. The courts just said, look we can't reopen the case because the matter is already concluded, the court does not have the power to reopen the case which has run its course. To which I asked the CJ [Chief Justice], are you then saying that an innocent man can be hanged in Singapore just because of procedural matters? That means you can't reopen the case even if the man is innocent? The Chief Justice just replied, "Yes, the answer is yes." When I looked at that reply, it just shook my conscience beyond belief.

Please watch the rest of the interview to hear Ravi speak on why drugs shouldn't be given the death penalty, the problem with check and balances between the "three arms of the state", and on the Singapore Law Society, and the need for lawyers to speak up.

Lastly, follow also activist, Rachel Zeng's, heartwrenching account of Yong's final meeting his mother behind a glass panel because apparently death row inmates are deemed undeserving human touch from their loved ones by our prisons. Zeng, artist Seelan Palay, and art educator Lucy Davis are all members of the Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign, the very good people who brought us the World Day Against the Death Penalty Forum.

I humbly extend my Awesome Possum salute to all of them, and wish Yong the best in his fight against the death penalty.