On Women's Charter: What About the Menz!?

This is the final week Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) is seeking public feedback for the draft Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill 2010. You can download the consultation paper (PDF) that lays out the proposed changes in simple language, or attempt the Amendment Bill (PDF).

Some of the more interesting parts of the proposed amendments are the creation of Children's Development Account where a portion of divorcing parents' shared assets is automatically channelled into for the children involved. Courts will also be empowered variously to crack down on maintenance defaulters. My personal favourite is that "divorcees who are remarrying will be required to declare in the presence of their new spouses, whether they have any maintenance arrears towards their ex-wife or children from their previous marriage(s)."

We on the farm strongly encourage everyone to give MCYS your opinion on changes to the Women's Charter. Now, however, the animals and I are departing from our usual farming duties to present a roundtable discussion we have on the Women's Charter. Gentle readers are free to steal our ideas and submit them officially, because it's very hard for us to explain why farm animals are so concerned about the Charter.

Roundtable Discussion.

Contrary to popular belief of who we are, it is the belief here on the farm that the biggest lacuna in the Amendment Bill is in its maintaining the alimony-only-to-women stance. Last year, Kanwaljit Soin reintroduced the idea of revising the Women's Charter Act to a Family Charter Act [ed: AWARE used to host "Women's Charter to Family Charter" speech transcript here, but not anymore; after the cut, we offer you instead an excerpt of a parliamentary debate by Dr Soin from 1996 when she first introduced the idea], in which maintenance is adjusted to allow husbands to claim maintenance should their wives be the higher earning spouse--I believe it's for shared custody cases.

I think this makes some sense as roles change, and men begin to step up in their caregiving roles. Not to mention, perhaps with such a system in place, we can begin to drop any machoistic shame of being primary care-givers. An adjustment to leave entitlement will also make especial sense for single fathers.

If we focus on the benefit of the children, rather than What About The Menz, there's probably much more that can be done in terms of this bill as well, perhaps latching onto expanding benefits to single parents.

Oh My Goat:
I think there are also men who have some pretty reasonable issues with the Women's Charter. It's not to say that it's unnecessary - it was revolutionary as far as its protection of women was concerned - but there are parts of it that need to evolve with the times.

Maintenance payments, for one, need to be fairer - it doesn't make sense for a father to pay maintenance to a wife (note: not for the child, but for the wife, which is a separate claim altogether) who out-earns him or is more than capable of caring for herself. It was probably unheard of when the Charter was introduced, but it's not so uncommon nowadays.

If you're a husband living a lower middle class sort of existence, your finances are more worse off after a divorce. You frequently find yourself homeless, likely not earning enough to rent another flat and on top of that, you have legal fees and maintenance payments. It's what it is, and yes, men ought to be responsible for their children, but if you're not earning much to start with, it can make you feel like you have the rough end of the deal.

Magical Chicken:
Wholly agree with Oh My Goat. There's no reason whatsoever why gender should become a blanket proxy for financial capacity and contributions, when these are matters which can be reasonably easily assessed by a judge in and of themselves. I was really glad to see Kanwaljit Soin raise this last year. It's actually rather surprising that men (since they are the demographic disadvantaged by the status quo) haven't organised to push for appropriate change themselves. I wonder if there might be some kind of conflict for some men between wanting to support traditional notions of masculinity to shore up their sense of social status, and what's in their actual financial interests. Another example of how patriarchy is an ideology which fucks us all up.

Badly Drawn Pig:
This is why I think the law can take a progressive lead on things. It shouldn't always be a case of the majority, sometimes unaware or unconscious, society setting the pace of things. The law and the government can, in fact, recognise that certain change would be beneficial - I think we've actually got this in practice in many other areas - and effect amendments that would pave the way to mindset changes. A society where legal mechanisms are in place for husbands' receiving maintenance, is a largely different one in which maintenance is afforded only to the wives. We cannot possibly deny the fact that such an arrangement puts ideas in the minds of people, as often is the case such as Rony Tan, who refuses to retract his foul statement on gay people simply because a legal clause is actually in place that in principle criminalises gay men sex.

Poultrygeist:
Like Oh My Goat has said, my primary problem with the Women's Charter is the arbitrary provision requiring a man to maintain his wife, irrespective of the fact that she may have a greater earning capacity. I think the Court now deals with this issue by varying the quantum of maintenance, but I don't think this is enough in the circumstances since the wife will always have the right to apply to Court for maintenance. I think the issue of parity must cut both ways and the law needs to be amended to reflect this.
 
Second, re: maintenance for the child. Legally, both parents are obliged to maintain the child, but perhaps more can be done by the law in a situation where the man's earning capacity is lower than his wife. As Oh My Goat says, there are many fathers out there who feel they've drawn the short straw, especially keeping in mind that care and control of the child usually is awarded to the mother (with the father being granted the right of access) unless there are extenuating circumstances. I would imagine this is really painful in itself.
 
However, it needs to be kept it mind that there is only so much money to go around, especially if the father is earning significantly less, or not at all (as was the case in the article). In these situations, inevitably, maintenance payments are going to be a financial strain, along with legal fees, bills and rent etc. I don't think it's got anything to do with not wanting to help the child - it's not having adequate means to do so, and this is a salient factor which needs to be expressly considered.
 
(But of course with checks to prevent the other side of the coin - recalcitrant fathers who withhold maintenance payments for whatever reason.)

+++
After the cut, read the brilliant parliamentary debate excerpt by the woman who started the ball rolling for all of us, former-NMP and a personal heroine for us on the farm, Dr Kanwaljit Soin; taken from Yawning Bread:

A nation of WTF

I have been roused from my Magical torpor by an unbeatably vile missive from one Sulthan Niaz to, what else, the Straits Times forum. Apparently Singapore is "a nation of spoilt princesses. Lo:

THE Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) seemed to suggest last Thursday ('Singapore still far behind in true gender equality: Aware') that women are free from blame for the declining birth rate in Singapore.

In Singapore, most parents urge their children to excel in studies and focus on their career. Few prepare their children for the rigours of parenthood.

Many households also employ maids. As a result, our boys and girls grow up lacking parenting skills and are clueless about household chores. The boys, however, have responsibilities forced upon them in the form of national service. Not so the girls. They are free to place personal ambition above all else.

And here begins the flight from Reality to some bizarro fantasy world. I wouldn't mind going there for a while, though; it would have been nice to grow up "free to place personal ambition above all else". I am a wistful Chicken.

Many women choose to remain single because they do not see the need or the urgency to get married. They do not need a man to provide for them and they can always depend on their girlfriends for emotional support. As for sex, few see the need to have it regularly.

If it is the case that women don't see any benefit to themselves to getting married - and it's by no means clear that that's true, otherwise I would no longer be bombarded with nauseating and ridiculously stagey wedding photographs on Facebook - then, Sulthan Niaz, it is for the best that they do not marry. If you are suggesting that all women are obliged to marry even at the cost of their own aspirations, then, well, let me put it this way: it's not feminists here who are presenting it as an institution of oppression, but you. You are arguing, in no uncertain terms, that compulsory marriage must be instituted and must come at the cost of women's happiness. You therefore present, in fact, one of the single biggest arguments against women ever valuing the institution of marriage. Congratulations.

Even when a woman does want to get married, her expectations get in the way. The man must be her 'type'. He must have a great job, good income, be reasonably good-looking and he must also charm her off her feet before she will contemplate marriage.

These frightful harridans, how dare they believe they should marry to get something out of marriage? Clearly, they should marry just because, uhm. Because any man at all has been magnanimous enough to confer legitimacy onto their pathetic female existences - so how dare they want anything like love, or compatibility, or sexual attraction? The unbearable cheek - it's like they think they're people whose feelings and desires actually matter.

Our society glorifies the career woman. Lifestyle and fashion magazines devote pages to tips for the career woman to get ahead. Floors in shopping malls cater exclusively to the needs of these women and credit card and insurance companies vie for their money.

That would explain the predominance of degrading sexual objectification in all that woman-oriented advertising, then. I'm sure the promotions of those things women are relentlessly sold and taught that we require actually further our happiness and well-being instead of trying to drain money out of us by encouraging insecurity and self-hatred. Also, of course this career advantage for women means that businesses all over Singapore and the rest of the feminist-infested world are wholly dominated by women. Of course.

As a result, women are spoilt for choice. Egged on by society, free from national service and reservist obligations and not needing a man, they are totally free to focus exclusively on their careers. Choosing to get married and have children is committing career suicide.

Funny how this "logic" works - so if women did national service and had reservist obligations, we would all be popping them babies out. Absolutely. Err. What?

The conclusion is inevitable. We have raised a nation of 'spoilt princesses' unwilling and unable to handle the rigours of motherhood.

The conclusion is inevitable. You are the most putrid concentration of hatefulness this side of Pluto. Fuck off, and when you've finished fucking off, kindly fuck off again.

No, really?

This Straits Times story carries the headline "Teens pressured to be thin".

In other news, water is wet.

Forgive my snark. It's good that the media is reporting the truth. It's just astonishing that this can remain a revelation, considering that more than half the adult population have themselves been teenage girls at some point. It's almost as if our experiences don't count until they're packaged in some Researchy Research to remove the taint of female subjectivity.

The article itself:

ALMOST nine in 10 American teenage girls say they feel pressured by the fashion and media industries to be skinny and that an unrealistic, unattainable image of beauty has been created, a poll showed on Monday.

The online survey of 1,000 girls aged between 13 and 17 for the Girl Scouts of the USA found that three quarters said they would be more likely to buy clothes that they see on real-size models than on women who are skinny.

But three out of four girls said that fashion is 'really important' to them.

'The fashion industry remains a powerful influence on girls and the way they view themselves and their bodies,' said Kimberlee Salmond, senior researchers at the Girl Scout Research Institute.

'Teenage girls take cues about how they should look from models they see in fashion magazines and on TV and it is something that they struggle to reconcile with when they lookat themselves in the mirror,' she said.

More than 80 per cent of teen girls said they would rather see natural photos of models rather than pictures that had been digitally altered or enhanced. Other top influences on body perceptions, aside from celebrities and models, are peers, friends and parents, the poll showed.

Put a ring on it

Here is Lee Kuan Yew talking to Mark Jacobson of National Geographic, in an interview which showcases a wide array of Lee Kuan Yew's characteristically bizarre opinions. (Special mention must go to the persistent spectre of the "disloyal" Muslim Singaporean, and to the idea that citizens are workhorses who need "spurs" to be put to their "hides".) But what particularly caught my Magical eye is how Lee Kuan Yew channels Beyonce.

All the single ladies, all the single ladies...
If you liked it then you shoulda put a ring on it.

He really can't stand the fact that there are single women running around out there, doing their thing and living their lives without official state assignation to a man. It gets his goat something awful. The idea that a woman might have plans for her life that are more important to her is besides the point: indeed, it's a nuisance. She can't be trusted to know what's good for her.

I’m undergoing physiotherapy because I had a fall on the bicycle, so I’m stuck there for one hour talking to the physiotherapist [...] she was 32-years-old. I said are you married. She said no. I said you shouldn’t leave it too late. She said well, I haven’t found the right person. I said how is that? you are meeting fellow nurses, you better join, you have got a social development unit where you meet men above board, they are looking for spouses, you are looking for spouses and you meet in groups, unless you decide we are friends, and you want to cultivate a closer relation, and she said no, no, no, I'm a Christian, that limits my choice to 20 per cent of the population and we meet in Church.

If someone hasn't found the right person to marry, then they shouldn't be married. It's not a crime, it's not a failing, it's not a problem. It's just what happens. It's also none of your business.

Once the women are educated, they have equal job opportunities, some of them earning as much if not more than men, there is a certain independence of choice. I mean they say what’s the hurry? Singlehood is no burden, my daughter is 55, unmarried, mother has been nagging her when she was in her 30s, she's quite happy. [...] I've got two boys who have got grandchildren but I feel sad for her. Because when my wife is gone and I'm gone, this hotel which keeps her going. She will have to manage it.

She's independent. She's a hugely successful doctor! She's - in his own words - happy! But he has to "feel sad for her" because it's not her - the person - and what she wants out of life that matter: it's whether she fulfils Lee Kuan Yew's master plan for the destiny of female reproductive units.

We can't undo women's education, equal job opportunities. But the whole problem springs as I was talking to this physiotherapist, I said suppose you were not educated to a point where you are independent, your mother and father would have got you matched off. [...] Father and mother will look for another father and mother with an appropriate background, no inherited diseases and similar social affluence and then they marry them off, they get them together and meet and no objections and then you are married. Then you love the man, or you love the woman you marry. But she's educated and she's thinking of a degree in physiotherapy and upgrading herself and so...

As a matter of fact, women don't yet have equal opportunities for social and economic participation (see here and here for starters). But even to the extent we do: these opportunities are part of the basic requirements for humane society. They aren't optional and you shouldn't lament being unable to "undo" them.

You'll note, for example, that he doesn't for a moment speculate about denying all men education and career opportunities so that they might be required to stay at home and bring up the kids of their financially successful wives - even though that might also bring birth rates up. The suggestion that we should solve any problem by deliberately sequestering men at home is ludicrous and unacceptable on its face - and it should be equally so when it applies to women.

When you characterise women's education as some kind of unfortunate historical residue...

When you daydream wistfully about starting over again without it...

When you talk of putting women on conveyor belts heading into arranged marriage and complete financial dependence, and expect the woman you address (who has already stated her desire to choose her own partner and further her career) to respond to this with anything other than complete rejection...

When you do these things, your fantasies are grounded in seeing women as subhuman.

This fetishisation of marriage is degrading enough even before you consider that the state he exalts is one of permanent rapeability for women (to say nothing of society's failure to take seriously other forms of domestic abuse).

Single ladies don't like it. Put a sock in it.

People we love: Ms Tania De Rozario for "Avoid being judgmental with children"

ST Forum publishes something actually REALLY AWESOME. In her response to a recent series (still on-going, I believe) on apparent teenage delinquency, Ms Tania De Rozario writes to dispel the loose and stereotypical correlation of cause and effects.

I wish I'd written it myself: (emphasis mine)

Jan 2, 2010
Avoid being judgmental with children


I REFER to Tuesday's reports, 'Errant parenting helps breed teenage crime' and 'Divorce is start of downward spiral for duo'. As someone from a background of divorced parents, I find the association of teen crimes with divorce offensive.

The reason children from 'broken' homes feel 'broken' is that they have been sold the idea there is only one type of home or family structure worth having and anything different is, well, broken.

I have friends who are the products of a variety of family structures: happily married, unhappily married, divorced, separated and so on. None is a criminal.

Many teen criminals come from what you may call 'wholesome' families.

From my observations, if parents want to keep lines of communication open with their children, they must realise their children have a different understanding of the world they inhabit and not be judgemental about things that are essentially non-consequential: the way they dress, the colour they dye their hair, the tattoos and piercings they want.

Is a teenager supposed to be responsible for the fact that in his parents' time, getting a tattoo meant one was a criminal?

If parents don't want their children to deviate, then don't make them feel deviant. No child will drift away from you because you teach him that stealing or killing is wrong.

Children drift away from you when you make them feel like louts for expressing themselves or liking the things they like.

Another fast way to alienate your children is to demonise the company they keep. If you catch a glimpse of your child's friends and become paranoid that he is moving with unwelcome company, invite the friends to dinner. I can tell you as someone deemed a 'weirdo' by many a 'proper' adult - because of my bald head and piercings - that many have found me pleasantly surprising. And those who treated me fairly have been rewarded with respect and a strengthened loyalty to my friends.

Parents should also watch against demonising everything from sex to drinking to smoking. Instead of condemning them as signs of immorality and bad company, they should focus on the harm they can cause the human body. Let your child know you don't want him to suffer pain.

Tania De Rozario (Ms)

Word!

On the point of sex and safety, I just want to point to something else I read that I hope prompts sex educators, concerned friends and family to re-situate their advice should they aim to be in the least relevant to anyone who really needs the info:

Worse yet, today's sex education still bears the scars of abstinence-only. So it's not like we've provided our young with advice they can trust or embrace when they are naked and alone together. Instead of offering a genuine interest in their sexual enjoyment, we begrudgingly acknowledge their sexuality by insisting they put gross-looking and strange-feeling latex galoshes on their penises. (Sauce.)

She sports a "bald head and piercings" (so what?) and she gets it. For that Ms De Rosario is welcome to come play with us and share our delicious treats here at the barn. ^^

2010, so far so good!

Mathia Lee's "Dating strangers safely".

Mathia Lee, previously a volunteer facilitator of AWARE's Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE), was meditating on the recent news report on how "one in five have dated a stranger they met through a social networking site, and one in 10 have been sexually harassed on such sites.”

Lee recounts how the students she taught didn't go out with strangers for fear of their safety. She then goes on to say, quite accurately in my piggish opinion, that almost always the dates we go on are with "near strangers" who at some point may even become "our husbands and wives".

The point is, you have to start somewhere, and being completely paralysed by the bogeymen of online predators simply isn't helpful.

Now, Porkchop here would gladly share some tips, but seeing as how he's practically plant-life in this department, he feels sharing Lee's highly sensible tips on dating strangers safely more useful, and suitable for the initial, "Base-1" hanging-out periods.

You know they're very good because they're relevant to all genders and sexual orientations navigating the initial minefield of love and sex.

I reproduce with minor edits, in brackets, italics, bold and underlined for better organisation:

Advice for Daters

[Group Dates] go out in groups

[Stay Public] stay only in public places

[Travel Public] insist that you can make your way to the date and back home on your own, rather than accepting a ride with [your date] alone in [hir] car. Or else, [ze] can accompany you on public transport.

[Tell Someone] letting someone, preferably your parents, know who you are going out with, and their details/contact no.s (See below.)

[Disclaim to Date] letting your date know that someone knows about him, and is watching out for you

+

Detailing to Someone

[Choose Helper] Tell someone, hopefully your parent/ guardian, but if you're not comfortable then let your classmate, or your best friend know.

[Details] You need to give this friend DETAILS Location of date, contact numbers of date, your parents, etc, start time, end time, etc.

[Disclaim to Date] Your date needs to know your friend has [hir] details; that’s a deterrant

[Set Pumpkin Hour] You need to tell your friend “I intend to be home by 10pm tonight. So if I don’t call you by 11pm, I might be in trouble and you need to get help”

[Establish Response/ Help] Your friend has to be reliable and trustworthy enough to actually try to call you, if you don’t call her/him, and reliable and trustworthy enough to contact your parents/the police, if you actually might be in trouble.

Fall in love with ease of mind, yo! Good luck and have fun now! :)

Public Service Annoucement: "To have self-esteem."

My turkey spectral pal's really awesome and very sad moving tale of her first encounter with pedestrian racism has really put me in such a horrible mood. I'm bowled over by the sort of shitty things parents, guardians and mentors can teach children in the name of love and the latter's self-interest. As I said in the comment section there, I'm reminded of my own experience in having to listen to the sort of bullshit about race and "bad animals" that my elders tried to inculcate in me, which for some reason never really stuck because I was and continue to be doubtful of authority figure and authoritative--and worse, authoritarian--tones.

Unlike many other people, I was always in the company of authority figures who fought a lot with each other, make all sorts of mistakes and cause all forms of hurt behind closed doors. That slightly dysfunctional background led me to understand intuitively that even purported role models are not always right. As my feline friend discovers, older people are not necessarily relevant in their 'wisdom'. By all means respect your elders as you should other people, especially with the common decency that we should accord all human beings (see: Human Rights), but screw that listen to your elders unremittingly bullshit.

This is going to be hard to accept, but even we on the barn makes mistakes for the simple reason that nobody's perfect. (Though, we're still pretty damn close to cutesy perfection, yo!)

So dear searching kid, teenager, jia-buey-tua (literally: eat no big) adult who feels different and alienated from the majority, please find delight in the fact that the sagely ones and even your media bigwigs might be wrong, but that you are capable of change and differing from them. Therein making you a little more real (human or otherwise), and a little more prepared for a life of infinite betterment.

Finally, I dedicate the following clip to Poultrygeist and all the other barnmates for showing us that one can actually wade through all the misogynistic, anti-gay, racist, et al bullshit to come out stronger, wiser and brimming with such admirable self-esteem. This is by yet another American comedienne, Margaret Cho, whom I mostly piggishly love, from her stand-up "Notorious C.H.O." (2002):

And I have a lot of self-esteem, which is amazing 'cause I'm probably somebody who wouldn't necessarily have a lot of self-esteem as I am considered a minority.

And if you are a woman; if you are a person of color; if you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender; if you are a person of size; if you are person of intelligence; if you are a person of integrity, then you are considered a minority in this world.

And it's going to be really hard to find messages of self-love and support anywhere, especially women's and gay men's culture. It's all about how you have to a look certain way, or else you're worthless. You know when you look in the mirror, and you think: Urgh! I'm so ugly! I'm so fat! I'm so old!

Don't you know? That's not your authentic self?

But that is billions upon billions of dollars of advertising, magazines, movies, billboards, all geared to make you feel shitty about yourself, so that you will take your hard-earned money, and spend it at the mall, on some turn-around cream that doesn't turn around shit!

If you don't have self-esteem, you'd hesitate before you do anything in your life.

You'd hesitate to go for the job you really wanna go for.

You'd hesitate to ask for a raise.

You'd hesitate to call yourself an American. [BDP: please feel free to substitute this with your appropriate nationality.]

You'd hesitate to report a rape.

You'd hesitate to defend yourself when you are discriminated against because of your race, your sexuality, your size, your gender.

You'd hesitate to vote. You'd hesitate to dream.

For us to have self-esteem is truly an act of revolution, and our revolution is long overdue.

XOXO

In Which the Cat Reads Internet Comments (Episode 1)

I was reading a link about feminist children's books that I stumbled on as part of a linkfest from one of the blogs I read. I like children's books and I don't think they get enough credit as good literature (and before you levy the curmudgeon charge, I will say that this is not entirely the fault of best-selling 'Young Adult' swill that floods the public consciousness - but I suppose it is, largely).

I digress. What I meant to be getting at is I expected an entirely uncontroversial article in which a few book recommendations are made and the commenters (who were invited to add to the list) would indeed make their own recommendations, hopefully with some anecdotes about whether it was well-received by the children in their life(ves). A little naive, perhaps.

I should have known that the word "feminist" would bring out the angry, dismissive, reductive hordes, even if all we were discussing were books that somehow subverted the prevalent, pervasive and ultimately restrictive and repressive gender stereotypes.

What a stupid idea. Let kids be kids, and let them find their own way without overly protective parents inflicting PC bollocks on them.

The phrase "PC bollocks" is all you need to know about this poster. The resentment of the fact that his/her privilege is occasionally brought out into the light of day is oozing out of my screen and threatening to void the warranty on my computer. Honestly, this is a plea for allowing the status quo to stand uncontested and I have no patience for that. Anyone who is arguing for a world riddled with intersecting oppressions does not deserve this world (or discourse, really). Also, you know what happens when people "Let kids be kids, and let them find their own way" in this fucked up society of ours? This fucked up shit.

All of these books work on the premise that feminine instincts are bad and that the best thing is if all girls behave like boys. What rubbish. What's so wrong with being feminine? Why would we want to be violent & aggressive? There's a lot of strength in being gentle and kind. It would be best if we had books that showed that you can be whatever type of person that you want to be and that being gentle & kind is a very good thing.

Short response: Graarrgghhh! Piss off you nonce!

Long response: Congratulations! You win the Cat in the Cream's daily missing the point award! Not to mention, the conflation of "feminine instincts" (which is a way of guilting women into mistrusting science and reason as well as blaming them for missteps if I ever saw one) with behaviour qualifies you for the the bonus "Consistency Fail" medal! Feminists do not believe that males are "violent & aggressive". That would be gender stereotyping. Feminists do not do that. Books that emphasize the "strength in being gentle and kind" (and heaven knows there sure are enough of them out there that you hardly have to look at a very short list of books in a newspaper article to find them) do not "[show] that you can be whatever type of person that you want to be" BECAUSE THEY SHOW THAT YOU HAVE TO BE GENTLE AND KIND WHICH IS REALLY JUST ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO BE PASSIVE AND SUBMISSIVE AND PUT OTHERS ABOVE YOURSELF.

I'm pretty sure that's the default message we're giving girls, so I have to wonder why this person had to drop in to defend it at all. Oh wait, I do know. Idiot.

Why do these stories have to be "feminist" and what the hell is "gender studies" for a three year old anyway. Some of these stories just talk about girls doing stuff which don't involve being passive and waiting to be swept away by Prince Charming. That's not feminist that's just neutral.

Wha (sic) teach your daughter that you're already under a patriarchical (sic) yoke from year dot? Good grief, why does anyone want to teach their daughters that men are oppresing (sic) them especially when so many modern laws are so feminist in nature? I'd rather just teach that girls are free to choose to be something other than a princess.

Anyway, good list apart from "Girls Will Be Boys Will Be Girls" which sounds downright confusing for children rather than merely subversive.

Let's being with "That's not feminist, that's just neutral". I bet this person also says things like "we live in a post-feminist world" at parties while card-carrying members of the patriarchichy (heh) nod sagely. It is feminist because the dominant paradigm says otherwise. I'd also like a list of the laws which "are so feminist in nature" - I have a feeling that they actually only meet this person's definition of "neutral".

Exposing children to subverted stereotypes is not "[teaching] your daughter that you're already under a patriarchical (sic) yoke from year dot". The hopeless desperation this describes is a little heart-breaking (it seems to imply, to me at least, that the writer feels defeated by the patriarchy and the patriarchichy). I understand the need to shelter children from the uglier bits of the world, but is trapping them in restrictive categories that brutally punishes transgressions really the way to go about that? The confused query of the following mother says the answer is "no":

What do I do about my son's addiction to pink, and high heels? He's two. I'm assuming he'll grow out of it, but against my better judgement find myself pushing 'boy's' toys on him. He has no interest though, he just wants to read about Princess Poppy (there's a rubbish series of books if there ever was one)

I know I'm preaching to the choir (well, I hope so, at least) when I say that exposing children to examples of all genders going about their lives, doing fantastical things, and in various roles is unequivocally a good thing. It may not strictly be the case in reality, but this is one damn good way to go about changing it.

Maybe one of these days I'll even write about books written for the children's market that have characters who do not fall into gender stereotypes. For now, I'll leave you with this (hardly exhaustive) rant.

People we love: Madhairday for "not a question of compassion, but one of fairness".

Angry Alpaca started this series for famous awesome possums. I'm going to widen the scope to include (extra-)ordinary men, women, somewhere in-between's for their brave acts of kindness that lend some semblance of intelligence and hope back into our lives over-ridden with unremitting hatefulness.

Today, I extend this Awesome Possum mention to reader, Madhairday, who penned an excellent retort in to the Straits Times Forum, in response to The Great Marital Ethicist and Estimable Mindreader of People in Extra-marital Affairs, Mrs Claudia Tan.

Madhairday's reply, I reproduce in full:

I write in response to Mrs Claudia Tan's letter published in the ST forum on 3 December 2009.

I fail to see any causative link in Mrs Tan's assertion that the alignment of the law pertaining to inheritance and the law governing the maintenance of children under the Women's Charter will inexorably result in "encourag[ing] women with little or no moral values to prey on married man for monetary gain". There are two main logical fallacies in this statement. First, Mrs Tan presupposes that women who have children out of wedlock have "little or no moral values". Secondly, the statement is presumptuous in assuming that women "prey" on married men for monetary gain, wholly ignoring the very real possibility of the complicity of a married man in commencing an extramarital affair.

There is no reason that a child should be deprived of maintenance from the father's estate simply by virtue of the fact of being born out of wedlock, especially given that the law mandatorily provides for maintenance to be paid in respect of the same child while the child's biological father is alive. In this regard, arguments for withholding maintenance payments from a mother of children born out of wedlock are baseless. There is an inherent contradiction in Mrs Tan's description of marriage as a "sacred affair". If, as Mrs Tan suggests, marriage is indeed a "sacred" institution, what justification is there for absolving the man the consequences of his infidelity while in the same breath castigating the woman for what in Mrs Tan's view is wanton behaviour? There is none.

The law as it currently stands rightfully recognises the need for a father to provide for his children, whether born in or out of wedlock. This is not a question of any assumed "monetary gain" for the mother. The Courts weigh any requests for maintenance in a balanced and fair manner, the well-being of the child being the paramount consideration. There is, as the Court of Appeal has recognised, a pressing need to align the law on inheritance as relates to children born out of wedlock with the Women's Charter in order to erase the logical lacuna which persists between both. It is not a question of compassion, but one of fairness. (Source)

Bravo, mate! You should come live on the barn with us!

I also relay comments from the rest of my barnmates on Claudia Tan's note:

Oh My Goat: "I think anyone who has such a virulent stand on someone else's private lives and what they do in their bedroom is definitely perverted in some fashion. IT'S JUST NOT NATURAL!"

Angry "Just Misunderstood" Alpaca: "Plus, you realise that [Claudia Tan] never once blames the dood, because they just happen to "fall prey to lust". It is as if men walk around blindly only to suddenly realise that they've accidentally stuck their penis into another woman's vagina. Oops!"

Cat in the Cream: "No, it's that they trip and fall into a woman, and then right themselves and trip and right themselves...

"And it's totes women's fault for wearing skirts and not keeping their ankles together. Because if we wore pants and shackles, men could trip over whatever they liked, but would not be able to, uh, dock."

No worries there, my friend

In the Straits Times Forum, Marcus Foo worries that "'consent' [will] trump what society perceives as morally bad behaviour":

I REFER to Mr Alvin Chen's letter last Monday, 'Give courts more sentencing discretion'. This was in response to Mr Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy's letter, 'Decriminalise consensual underage sex' (Nov 13).

Allowing 'consent' to trump what society perceives as morally bad behaviour is to undermine society's right to enforce its moral determinations. This was an issue that Lord Patrick Devlin addressed his mind to in his essay, The Enforcement Of Morals.

He speaks, of course, of the current hot topic of kiddies bonking (on which see also Badly Drawn Pig and my all-important Magical reminder to adults, "Don't fuck children.")

Marcus is bothered by the possibility that our society prizes sexual consent too highly, to the extent that morally dubious practices will be sanctified in its name.

But he really needn't fret. A large strand of Singaporean society fails entirely to grasp the idea that the flesh of the Magical Chicken is to be directed by the will of the Magical Chicken alone. This incomprehension expresses itself not only in Marcus Foo's inability to describe the puzzling and unreal concept of "consent" without quotation marks, but also in our Penal Code.

Mostly the Penal Code quite sensibly tells adults not to fuck children, but it makes some exceptions to this, which the No To Rape blog lays out in lawyerspeak with nifty bolding:

(1) Section 376A(4), which grants immunity from this offence when a girl under the age of 16 says “yes” to sex with her husband.

(2) Section 376A(5), which grants immunity from this offence, even in situations where a 13-, 14- or 15-year-old girl has said “no” to her husband.

Get that? It's okay to fuck your 13 year old wife with consent. It's also okay to fuck your 13 year old wife without consent. In other words, consent means fuck-all.

Far from consent "trumping" morally bad behaviour, what we see here is the almighty and unquestionable right of the husbandly penis to access the wifely vagina trumping any idea of consent. A mere weeping girl-child won't stop a man from having his due.

So Marcus Foo needn't worry that bodily autonomy is anywhere but in its rightful, subordinate place in Singapore.

What he really should worry about is his own tendency to write torturously overlong sentences like this:

Alternatively, if one can show that as a matter of statistical probability, sexual activity at this age results in an aversion to deepening the commitment of a relationship via the institution of marriage, or that it affects an individual's psyche in the perception of the value of commitment, then in so far as the institution of marriage or the value of commitment is regarded as a moral good that society embraces, one could also find oneself somewhat persuaded that the law should remain.

Not only do I vigorously withhold my consent from this painful contortion of the English language, I also deem it morally bad.

You won't be needing that

Just before the MARUAH Open House to which my porcine friend alludes below, at the same venue, MARUAH is also hosting a session on the education of children with disabilities:

At this stage, we hope to garner support for children with physical disabilities to be included in Singapore’s Compulsory Education Act. This is also in line with the Convention on the Rights of Children, which Singapore is a signatory party. We also hope to gather comments and feedback on special education in Singapore.

Facilitator: Ms Braema MathiAgenda for the Focus Group discussion:

1. Presentation of MARUAH’s paper on Compulsory Education for Children with Disabilities
2. Feedback from the participants on the paper
3. Any other issues or concerns of the participants

We are looking for the following Focus Group participants:

a) Any individuals with disabilities (physical and/or intellectual)
b) Parents of children with disabilities (physical and/or intellectual)
c) Educators of children with disabilities
d) Educators of non-disabled children
e) Members of VWOs focused on individuals with disabilities
f) Any other concerned individuals with experience in this area

Compulsory education is intended to ensure every child who falls within its purview is equipped with some of the basic skills and knowledge needed for them to participate in society. This Magical Chicken finds it difficult to comprehend why children with disabilities shouldn't have the same right to education as other children, and for the same purpose.

Those deadly pincers

The Magical observation has previously been made that Family Valuez and Porn Nation are close allies in the war of Bullshit against humanity, and in particular against women.

The battles in this conflict, and other combatants, sometimes take unexpected forms. Consider this case from Zambia:

The trial of a news editor in Zambia, accused of distributing obscene material, is coming to an end. Chansa Kabwela says she sent photos of a woman giving birth without medical help to senior government officials to highlight the effects of a nurses' strike. [...]

So far, it has amounted to a succession of trembling ministerial secretaries expressing their humiliation and shock that a woman in childbirth, the most private moment of her life, had been photographed.

Shock, not over the fact that she had given birth in a hospital car park. Or that her baby had suffocated. But that the pictures had been seen by men - an absolute taboo.

This is not to say the photographs are not terrible. When I saw them, it took me several seconds to focus, as though my brain was refusing to process the images.

The most graphic shows a woman from the waist down, lying on a plastic sheet, with the bloodied torso of a baby between her thighs. The head is still inside her.

This is what Zambia's President, Rupiah Banda, declared pornographic, when he called for the photographer to be arrested. [...]

Fred Mmembe is the editor-in-chief of The Post newspaper. He hates the government and his paper shouts it loud and clear.

Stage whispers hint that he is the real target.

On the one hand, the idea that pictures of a woman giving birth are "obscene" or "pornographic" is unmitigated bullshit. You can only consider these visual images obscene, in the sense that traditional obscenity law means the term, if you consider the female body obscene - if, addled by dietary and atmospheric sexism, you are unable to look upon the vulva without reading it as sex.

The vulva is not sex. It is sometimes used by the woman to whom it belongs, in sex. But it is not, itself, sex.

So the dehumanising characterisation of pictures of childbirth as necessitating suppression because somehow of prurient interest and corrupting tendency is an anti-woman act, performed by a government - a familiar entity in the pantheon of oppressors - seemingly in order to suppress criticism of women's healthcare and the state of healthcare workers' rights. This is not intuitively difficult to grasp as potential institutional misogyny.

But wait a minute. On the other hand, these bold governmental critics, with their noble aims of spreading awareness of a vital political issue, and asserting their freedom of speech against the heavy arms of the state: surely they don't hate women too?

One issue which appears to have gone largely unreported in major newspapers is whether the woman whose suffering was to be the subject of this burning crusade for justice actually consented to the pictures being taken, or to their subsequent circulation.

If this was done against her will or without consultation, what the world has witnessed is the objectifying exploitation of her body, in a private moment, for a political cause. However well-intended that cause may be in principle, this Magical Chicken cannot help but wonder if it is making gains at the expense of a woman's dignity, or by positioning her as a pawn.

Unfairly terminated for being pregnant?

Just to quickly follow up on Poultrygeist's post on unfair job termination of pregnant mothers, there're some important points from the accompanying articles to note should any woman find herself in such a position.

(Please revisit Poultrygeist's post to see that you unfortunately have to be eligible for protection under the Employment Act first: be from "a managerial or an executive position who is in receipt of a salary not exceeding $2,500 a month (excluding overtime payments, bonus payments, annual wage supplements, productivity incentive payments and any allowance however described)".)

Advice from Straits Times:

If a woman loses her job while she is pregnant, she can file a complaint with the Labour Relations and Welfare Division of the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) by making an e-appointment through its website or write in to MOM by fax, email or mail. An officer then fixes an interview.

- If she lost her job during the protection period as specified in the law, MOM conducts an inquiry. If the company is not able to show any just cause for the dismissal, it may be asked to reinstate or compensate the employee.

- If the woman was dismissed outside the protection period, she can still complain to MOM, which then conducts a conciliation meeting between employer and employee to help solve the the dispute.

(To lodge a complaint with MOM or for more information, call 6438 5122)

("The New Rules," Straits Times, 8 Nov 2009.)

Labour Relations and Welfare Division, MOM: mom_lrd@mom.gov.sg

Online appointment for Consultation on Employment Act: http://app.etools.mom.gov.sg/appointment.aspx (you can find this link under MOM > Workplace Relations and Standards > Employment Standards > e-Services and Forms.)

Importantly, please note that to launch a complaint, a termination letter is necessary. Apparently, the deadline to complain with MOM is "within one month of their notification of dismissal".

So starting from the day you are asked to leave, you have one month to get the termination letter (if you haven't received one already) in order to have MOM take up the case with your employer.

If you do not fall under the definition for eligibility, we on the farm advise that you contact MOM immediately and seek their advice anyway.

+++

ETA:

If you're queasy about going straight to MCYS, or wish for a legal opinion, you may wish to contact AWARE or Law Society of Singapore Pro Bono Services Office.

AWARE:
1800-774-5935 (Mon-Fri, 1500hrs to 2130hrs)
helpline@aware.org.sg
AWARE also runs a free monthly legal clinic that will possibly give you some advice--every second Thursday of the month.

Law Society of Singapore:
6536-0650 (Mon-Fri, 0900hrs to 1745hrs)
ProBonoServices@lawsoc.org.sg
There's also a whole list of legal aid clinics that you can find at the Community Legal Clinic.

the lady doth protest too much?

This article had this phantasmal feathered fowl gobbling with indignation.

We at the Barnyard Chorus and/or our partners (including, but not limited to) the porcine (badly drawn or otherwise), bovine, feline and canine may at some point make the decision to have some babies. This is of course the personal choice of each Animal. This Turkey may or may not be a figment of your imagination (or a terror that flaps in the night - whichever you prefer) but it feels that this is a most pertinent and systemic lacuna which needs to be addressed immediately.

Actually, this Phantom Fowl sees two levels of indirect discrimination here, one not as visible as the other.

1. Termination of employment when pregnant

Prior to the new baby bonus scheme coming into effect, many people voiced their concerns that the additional cost to the employer (i.e. longer maternity leave) under the new measures would adversely affect working women who were pregnant. The law as it currently stands is as follows (taken from the Employment Act, Chapter 91):

"Right to benefit unaffected by notice of dismissal given without sufficient cause

84.—(1) Without prejudice to sections 81 and 84A, no notice of dismissal given without sufficient cause by an employer to a female employee which —

(a) if given before 31st October 2008, is given —

(i) within a period of 3 months preceding the estimated delivery date for her confinement (as certified by a medical practitioner); or
(ii) within a period of 3 months preceding the date of her confinement; or

(b) if given on or after 31st October 2008, is given —
(i) within a period of 6 months preceding the estimated delivery date for her confinement (as certified by a medical practitioner); or
(ii) within a period of 6 months preceding the date of her confinement,

shall have the effect of depriving her of any payment to which, but for that notice, she would have been entitled or would, on or before the date of her confinement, have become entitled to under this Part. " (underlining mine)

Essentially, before 31 October 2008, you could be given a notice of dismissal at any time for whatever reason until the end of your 6th month of pregnancy and not be entitled to claim any maternity benefits. This has since been revised in Section 84(1)(b). As it stands, on or after 31 October 2008, if a woman is given a notice of dismissal (for whatever reason) within the first 3 months of pregnancy, she would not be entitled to claim any maternity benefits.

But this necessarily begs the question - what would constitute "sufficient cause"? Would it not be simple to make an allegation of poor performance? Unlike the UK or say, Canada both of which have a procedure for redress for instances of both direct and indirect forms of discrimination via an independent Employment Tribunal, I believe (and please correct me if i'm wrong) that the only recourse women in Singapore have when faced with this situation is to send a complaint to the Ministry of Manpower which will then investigate the matter [summary available on MOM's website - props for covering single mothers though, yay!]

Regardless, I do not believe this is sufficient as no information is given to help the aggrieved person determine what constitutes an unfair dismissal.

My second issue is this:

2. Who is covered by the Employment Act?

Only people who are covered under the Employment Act have the above recourse if their employment has been unjustifiably terminated. Taken from Section 2 of the Employment Act (Chapter 91):


"employee" means a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service with an employer and includes a workman, and any officer or employee of the Government included in a category, class or description of such officers or employees declared by the President to be employees for the purposes of this Act or any provision thereof, but does not include —
(a) any seaman;
(b) any domestic worker;
(c) subject to subsection (2), any person employed in a managerial or an executive position; and
(d) any person belonging to any other class of persons whom the Minister may, from time to time by notification in the Gazette, declare not to be employees for the purposes of this Act;"
(underlining mine)

And what does sub-section (2) say?

"(2) Any person employed in a managerial or an executive position who is in receipt of a salary not exceeding $2,500 a month (excluding overtime payments, bonus payments, annual wage supplements, productivity incentive payments and any allowance however described), or such other amount as may be prescribed by the Minister, shall be regarded as an employee for the purposes of —

(a) sections 20, 20A, 21, 22, 23 (read with section 10 or 11, as the case may be), 24, 25 and 34 and Parts XII to XVI (read with the Second and Third Schedules); and
(b) such other provisions of this Act as the Minister may, by regulations, specify,

and those provisions shall apply in relation to that person subject to such modification as may be prescribed. "
(once again, underlining mine)

What recourse do women, who find themselves in a situation where they have been terminated due to pregnancy but are in executive and/or managerial positions, earning more than $2,500 monthly have? According to the article, 75% of complaints received by MOM were from women who work in Small and Medium Enterprises. This fowl does wonder about who the remaining 25% were.


*The Poultrygeist accepts all responsibility for this slightly disjointed post and the overwhelming legalese contained herein. Whoops!

Winging it

Let me tell you a secret: even the most Magical of all Chickens would have been a fluffy wee chick once. And long before my adult plumage appeared, I knew I really liked them Roosters. (Yeah, yeah, I'll save you the trouble of saying it - this Magical Chicken was into Cocks.)

Children, as Badly Drawn Pig so ably expounds, have sexualities. And sometimes they will explore them. This shouldn't be alarming. Many people find that life is a lot better when they enjoy a little friendly human contact which helps them get off every now and then.

So I second my porcine friend's call to give children some room in which to experiment with one another without having their sexualities judged, even as I repeat my urgent advice to adults ("Don't fuck children").

Children do not benefit from condemnation for having and acting on sexual feelings. They benefit from the information, skills and social environment that will encourage them to make the decisions that best serve their interests. They should know:

the health risks associated with sexual activity, including the possibility of unwanted pregnancy;

that many people experience sexuality as something private and emotionally significant, and that they may be one of them;

that they should be able to relax and live in and from their bodies so they know what they enjoy and what they don't, and feel confident in saying "no" to anything which doesn't suit them;

that sexual activity with another human being requires paying attention to that person's needs and desires, and communication and trust are important.

And they should not feel tainted by the process of figuring themselves out. Sometimes you try something and it doesn't work for you. You move on, and you don't do it again. No fundamental tear has appeared in the fabric of the universe.

Freaking out about sexuality because it is sexual may, ironically, lead to more of the teen sexual activity that so horrifies the defenders of Family Valuez. Their portrayals of sex communicate something brutal, dirty, and compulsive, best regulated in the confines of heterosexual marriage, and even then as a kind of dreary duty by wives who must satisfy their husbands' "urges" (a distinctly erotically unappealing word). Any sexual contact other than some piston-like penetration seems not to be imaginable.

It's hard to understand why, in this vision of sex, anyone would genuinely, positively, healthily want to do it. And if you don't know why you might say "yes" (except that you absolutely mustn't until you get married and then you absolutely always must), it becomes difficult to weigh this up against the reasons to say "no".

There's a hair's breadth between Family Valuez and porn culture:

Conform to seXXXay visions of womanhood for social approval. Ensure you look modest for divine approval. Get as many notches on your belt as you can, "score", to prove your manliness. Real men save it for marriage. Don't have sex because it makes you a dirty slut. Don't reject sexual advances because that makes you a frigid prude.

It is wrong to assume you can only swap one set of commands for the other. In fact, the two are mutually supporting. We should drop the command approach altogether - stop slut-shaming, and decry sexual objectification wherever we can. Boys and girls who are secure in their own individuality, sexualities and self-worth, who are taught that their feelings and autonomy as well as those of their sexual partners matter, will be confident in saying "no".

Rather than mapping out the True Path to Enlightenment and chaining others to it, I humbly recommend winging it, and creating for children the space (and giving them the appropriate navigational skills) to do the same.

"It's basically kids having sex".

Nov 1, 2009
Straits Times
When teens have sex...
Such cases involving teens who are in love are hard to prosecute, says Attorney-General
By Shuli Sudderuddin

SHOULD teens in love be prosecuted if they have underage sex?

There is no easy answer here.

Other cases involving underage sex — for example, when one party is an adult — may have a clear-cut answer, but teen cases are hard to prosecute, said Attorney-General Walter Woon.

“It’s basically kids having sex.What do you do if the couple think they’re in love? It’s less easy if the girl consents,” he noted.

[...]

Professor Woon listed four types of underage sex.

The first is when the perpetrator is an adult and the victim does not consent; the second, when the perpetrator is an adult and the victim consents; and the third, when the perpetrator is under 18 and the victim does not consent.

But it is the fourth type — when both participants are underage and have consensual sex — that is complicated. Prof Woon referred to this type as ‘Category 4’ cases.

Since both parties are young and in a consensual relationship, taking them to court can be traumatic for everyone involved.

He cited the case of a 15-year-old boy who got his underage girlfriend pregnant. “The problem is, do we send the boy to jail? What good would that do?” said Prof Woon.

He said that in the case of a relationship that is consensual or long- term, the law usually leans towards warning, as opposed to prosecuting, offenders.

“You need to balance this against the outrage that the girl’s family may feel. They may feel humiliated and taken advantage of, and may ask why we are being so lenient with this fellow.”

He said it is very hard to make rules to deal with such cases as each must be looked at individually.

Prof Woon noted that the law is a “blunt instrument” as it forces the boy to think twice and take responsibility for his actions — by making sex with a girl under 14 illegal and indefensible.

He said: “It is not easy and this is where the non-governmental organisations, the community services play a part. The judges cannot do very much by themselves. Sending them to jail per se will not make them reflect on their lives. That is the last thing that is going to happen. But good or ill, this is the framework that we have.”

(Full article.)

This underage sex thing is indeed complicated.

If a minor has sex with an adult, the adult likely lands in prison. If an underage girl has sex with an underage boy, the boy gets reformative training and probation. (I'm not up-to-speed with the laws of Singapore in this area, but I believe that a boy younger than the girl will nevertheless end up in hotter soup.)

I wholly support maintaining our statutory rape laws between adult and minor, and I do also agree that the law needs reform on consensual sex between consensual minors. So here, I applaud Attorney General, Professor Walter Woon's enlightened view that "It's basically kids having sex".

(I take my hat off, Dear Sir.)

In terms of adult-minor sex, I echo Magical Chicken generally: adults, please "don't fuck children". Their innocence is theirs to own and develop in cadence with their peers, not with or for you. Regardless of whether or not a minor is always offering his/her daisies and asks to take the adult's sunflowers, it is an adult responsibility to avoid all that deflowering. Society and this male unfeminist pig, in fact, expects the adult to not only understand the problem but also lead by example, or at the very least exercise some restraint.

So if an adult decides to breach the law, then you prove yourself irresponsible and incapable of dealing with the greaters freedoms afforded to you. Ergo, should arguably be put out of circulation for a while.

Capish?

The way our current law has been framed is that people below 16 have the least life experience, education, maturity, etc to make an informed *enough* decision to do right or wrong about somethings. That compassionate stance is, I think, great. They are also rightly deemed most susceptible to influence by someone older, given the nature of our very limiting and limited older-(often adult)-mentor/ young-mentee socialising at that age. These young people are therefore afforded the least political and rights and access, which is why we cede a lot of proxy to parents and guardians. It also explains why we do not trust our young'ns to, for example, drive, carry arms, or *consent* to sex.

Statutory rape laws begin from the place where minors cannot even give any real consent, which also means that they cannot really initiate sex as well. Yet in this folly olympics between an underage boy and underage girl, it is often the boy held culpable. There're reasons for this bias like biological consequences (e.g. pregnancy) that have very severe consequnces for women--harking back to their health and our institutional control over their bodies, although I suspect much of it stems from people's unholy obsession with women's virginity. For most scenarios, I highly doubt crucifying the boy (or girl) will improve anything.

I think folly of youth should be treated as exactly that: the folly of youth, in all its celebrations and lamentations. Young people aren't impervious to love, sexual impulses or curiosity. Regardless of what our laws and schools tell them, they're going to fall in love, and some of them are going to touch each other's flowers. Instead of automatically exerting reformative action--suggesting therein that there's something essentially wrong in love at a young age, I think we should encourage them to learn and grow into their adult responsibilities. This will mean that we don't also expect them to turn within seconds from an immature 15 year-old, whose understanding of his/her sexual rights is deemed a legal folly, into a responsible young 16 year-old adult, whose still arguably youthful folly is suddenly and magically worthy of the greater weight of our laws.

This means two things, I think.

Firstly, the law can introduce an age relativity clause allowing, for example, the compassion to be accorded to nuanced pairings. This means that consensual sex between two young people of the same or even a year age gap, are not automatically thrown the litany of reformative action. Although, I will not profess to know what action, if any, they should face; perhaps they need to be sent for all sorts of medical tests to check for diseases or a bud, and then be nagged at for very, very long about the importance of being safe and planning for their future. I really don't know, but I'll revisit this after I've contemplated about it longer.

Secondly, this also forces young people to learn what consent really means. It's deeply regretful that a lot of internet discussions surrounding No To Rape proves that even adults have a hard time grasping the concept of consent. Non-consent or incapacitated, forced or groomed consent by someone else of stronger influence will always be considered rape, which first needs to be investigated, proven and brought to our courts accordingly.

Young people's sexuality education courses, then, can begin from a place where students are not treated as complete imbeciles who have not heard of Teh Interwebz or are unable to give consent responsibly. It can then be programmed to argue the different possibilities, such as contraceptives, other models of sexual engagement/ expressions of love, and even abstinence by their own merits. Averting the sweep-under-carpet hushing that underage sex is just illegal, this then allows us to focus always that respecting mutual-consent, our right to bodily safety and hopes for the future as imperatives, which is a more meaningful if we don't begin first with threats. Hopefully, these young people, who are going to one day be in all sorts of acrobatic positions anyway, will then function in a more enlightened and safer place.

Let's be honest, our 'strong Asian values and culture' of frowning upon sex, emphasis on abstinence, and what-have-you are simply not working. Kids are not only increasingly having sex, but also starting at far earlier ages because every new generation of kids are much more sophisticated than the last--to the chagrin of lot of irrelevant Good 'Ole Days loving elders. This is not to say that, I think, all young people should and will get into an orgy--I have faith a lot of them have other better things to do. The least we, as adult humans and animals, can do is begin to realign ourselves, and see what sorts of new frameworks and lessons we can learn from the young people, and share what relevant experience we have with them.

This male unfeminist pig knows all this is going to sound like an unimaginable, family-wrecking, far-liberal, amoral vision, and that a lot of human beings are all going to go, "We don't want to listen to your pigheaded ideas, because we're not animals!" Well, I can sympathise that it's difficult to be human-headed, otherwise we wouldn't all be suffering from global warming today.

Okay, not a good rebuttal, but please, can just try?

+++
Help: If you are a young person who needs solid advice on your sexual needs, I recommend the non-judgey, neutral and much more enlightened, professional services of AWARE, and especially for gay youths, Oogachaga.

(Speaking for me only. I thank Magical Chicken for the discussions we've previoously had at the barnhouse for some ideas expressed here.)

Marriage will save your soul!

www.nataliedee.com

Listen up single mothers of Kelantan! Were you left in lurch by your previous husband or maybe he's even dead? Are you now poor and unable to support your family as well? Have no fear, for the Malaysian government is here!

According to The Star, when asked on how the government plans to reduce the number of divorce cases and provide support for single mothers, one brilliant suggestion was put forward:

Kelantan Women, Family and Health committee chairman Wan Ubaidah Omar suggested that awards be given to assemblymen for marrying single mothers should they decide to take another wife.

Her suggestion drew support from backbenchers -- all of them men -- who started thumping their palms on the table at the Kelantan State Assembly on Wednesday.

She said the assemblymen could increase their quota to help single mothers with young children and it would help greatly if the assemblymen assisted by marrying them.

Yes. What would we do about these silly women who have no source of income and drain the state of RM2 million a year? Instead of helping these women become self-reliant and providing a support system for them, how about we sell them off to men like chattel instead?

In turn, the men who marry these burdens of the state would be honoured for their magnanimous hearts and made to look like role models! Hurrah hurrah!

Malaysian blogger Tropic Temper said it best when she wrote:

These women are in trouble because men had children by them and then walked out and refused to pay child support. So do we believe in going after these men to pay their debts? Nope. We think the wife should find herself another magnificent specimen of manhood - someone who will marry her if you pay him enough.

And before you use this as a platform to go on an anti-Malaysian bashing, may I remind you that our little red dot of an island isn't much better. Here, single mothers are punished by the government for spreading their legs without having a ring on their finger.

The best example? Single women currently only have two months of maternity leave which paid for by the employer compared to the four months that married mothers receive. Why? Because the third and fourth months are paid for by the government. As part of the Marriage and Parenthood Package, the other two months are supposed to be "an incentive for married couples".

So sluts like single mothers don't qualify, geddit?

In explaining the government's position of not extending the baby bonus to single unwed mothers, Mrs Yu-Foo (Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports) said, "The Marriage and Parenthood Package is not a financial assistance scheme for children. The government cannot and should not be the surrogate father."

The government will instead focus on encouraging more Singaporeans to settle down and get married.

Yes, let's ignore the real situation of Singaporeans to push for an idealised future of the 'father-mother-1.2kids' system that may or may not happen instead.

What bullshit.

Don't fuck children

Is this so hard to grasp?

COURT proceedings to decide on sentencing for a 37-year-old tutor, convicted of allowing a nine-year-old boy to perform oral sex on him on five occasions, took an unusual turn yesterday.

The focus turned to the boy, as details emerged in court about his fixation with sex and how he had made advances to his tutor.

The tutor's lawyer, Mr Denis Tan, gave a disturbing picture of a child who harboured sexual fantasies, performed lewd acts and exposed himself to others.

Arguing that the case was not a typical one in which a predatory adult victimises a child, Mr Tan fought for his client to be placed on probation.

The prosecution did not dispute that the child had issues with sex.

A government child psychiatrist who saw the boy said he had a 'definitive mindset' about sexual matters and showed 'hyper-sexualised behaviour'.

The law doesn't say, "Adults, don't initiate fucking with children." It says, "Adults, don't fuck children."

A child may be able to perform physical acts without understanding their significance, or without being emotionally mature enough to assess their consequences. There is also a significant differential in social status between and adult and a child, who is legally and economically dependent, substantially less socially experienced, politically relatively powerless, and who has been conditioned all his or her life to think of adults - particularly those in a childcare or educational position - as authority figures. For these reasons, the burden must be on adults to prevent any sexual activity between them and children, to avoid the manipulation or exploitation of children's vulnerabilities.

This is not a difficult burden to meet. Just don't fuck the child. If the child tries to fuck you, refuse to participate. Push them away. Nine-year-old's tend not to be champion heavyweight wrestlers.

Unless the boy in question physically held this man down and forced the act upon him, the man is responsible for what happened: a "predatory adult [victimising] a child".

Don't fuck children. Regardless of how they behave. Whether they are boys or girls. And however rich and famous you are. Just don't do it.