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.

What We Stand For

It's very difficult to get a fish to understand that water is wet. Some would say impossible. Especially because the only way to achieve this, really is to hold the fish out of water for a while, but the shock of it makes the experience less than instructive, for the most part.

Looking at the kyriarchy is like that. We've swum in it, breathed it in, and when we are made aware of it for the first time, it makes us acutely uncomfortable. This happens because it is the first time we starkly realise that life isn't fair, that the individual is not as in control of his/her on circumstances as much as we would like to believe. It's also the first time we're made to think about our own privilege and realise that there are things we've gained in life because we belong to the right groups and classes. The first time is never an instructive moment, because it's very difficult to push past the gasping horror and discomfort at it all.

We understand that, and we keep blogging, because hopefully, the more you see these things, the more the discomfort will subside. Ideally, the discomfort will give way into outrage, into an attitude of "What can we do about this?" Before that though, we need to look at some of the assumptions the people who find their way here are making.

With that, I'm now going to respond to a comment made by someone who is still operating from a position within the kyriarchy.

The comment:

Xavier said...

Does Slutwalk plan to take a stand against false rape accusers?
Or are all rape accusations supposed to be viewed as completely true?

The short answer is no.

The long answer, is no, because we don't have to. Before I delve into why we don't have to secure that front, let me turn that question around a little. Do we regularly ask if a stand needs to be taken against people who report being burgled? Who report being robbed? Who report being assaulted? These are all crimes that involve one party aggressing another, yet we dont feel a pressing need to get up in arms about these charges.

Rape, on the other hand, seems to get everybody all fired up.

This persistent attitude that "the bitch is lying" means that the cost for a woman to allege rape is very high. This is particularly true if the case is taken to court, where the accuser's past sexual history is dredged out as a possible defense (to properly see how absurd this is, think of someone being mugged - the person whose wallet was stolen is never asked about the many times they've walked that route with a wallet on their person and then being treated as a liar for it). This is so traumatic that in the UK, 97% of accusers attrition out of their court hearings. Take that statistic, against the well-researched figure that only 5.9% of all rape allegations are false and you see why we don't have to take a stand against false rape accusations. I'll even spell it out for you in case you haven't quite been able to follow along: we currently live in a society where the default is to treat anyone alleging rape as a lying slut. The stand has already been taken. (See also: Rape Culture)

This default stand is harmful and disenfranchises victims of sexual assault. And there are many of them. And they deserve better.

Teh menz, they sure knowz betta!

People wonder why there's no gender equality in Singapore?

Seriously!?!?!? (WARNING: proceed at your own risk.)

Everytime AWARE or anyone speaks up for gender equality, suddenly everyone else has an opinion (cursory survey of TOC's recent published links on Facebook suggests that AWARE's post garnered the most comments) and invariably the Men Rights Activists (MRAs) are bound to come out of the woodwork. Especially for AWARE, someone must see it in hirself to bring up their involvement in The Gay Agenda, for mawd knows why!

Every occasion of a stab at establishing some gender equality, someone else is bound to draw out his list of Greater Priorities to Achieve Real Gender Equalitiez. Every occasion to commemorate or discuss substantively policy push in gender equality, someone is bound to hijack the platform to promote the various ways in which Gender Equality Iz Im/Possiblez. Every occasion is never allowed a brief moment to critically engage the push against the environment in which policies are moulded in Singapore. (Seriously, these people see press releases or news items, then conclude that lobby work is as easy as opening their mawddamn mouths?)

And every time someone speaks of gender equality, someone else will without fail play the National Service card.

I don't mean to speak for anyone, but I doubt any of these farm animals nor our barnyard engineer, nor AWARE, nor the government, nor TOC, nor even the Unaccompanied Ursidae on its most delusional day have all the answers. The good thing is that lobbying work isn't a zero-sum game. We can all get in on the action and tackle the problems of the world from various angles. And you know what? There're far more of these MRAs and People For-Real-Real-Not-For-Play-Play Gender Equality than there are of us who've made it our personal, unpaid mission to push for changes. But never has this Festive Bee Cheng Hiang Spicy Bah Kwa seen any of these vociferous eXXXperts ever get themselves organised to set up the "male version of AWARE"*?

Call this Suckling Pig chao-tar, but he has a few theories for this.

Either:

A, these MRA ideas never gain traction under the banner of equity because they're found to only further reinforce the idea that this is a male-dominated/prized society;

B, these ideas are so rare and specious that they don't find critical mass; or

C, that the people who hold these views care not a bit about gender equality, for they don't believe or want it, even if you were to serve it to them on a silver platter. Often, those who do find the time to get organised, eventually find themselves at A or B, or in the Republican party, I guess.

And here on the farm, we know bullshit when we see, smell, hear it. You people at TOC's thread? You smell just like...

---
NOTE:
* Well, does the men's chapter of AWARE qualify as the "male version of AWARE"? Also, male unfeminist pig has always assumed that the very definition of gender equality means equality for all genders, although granted it's important for specific groups to speak for themselves.

In which I'm pissed off, so welcome This Apocalypse.

It seems after last year's AWARE Saga, people of all Very Concerned Dudely and I'm-A-Woman-But stripes no longer trust Singapore's leading women's rights non-profit organisation to do anything right, including demystify feminism as a holistic belief that benefits EVERYBODY at their own website (the list is affixed after the cut).

Just where do these people come from!?!?!

You get the likes of Professor Derrick Diapermouth poo-pooing all over, mostly to first suggest that OHNOES! Them feminists with their puny minds are wrong about feminism, by using the exact same point that the AWARE bloggers did--that feminism isn't a circumscribed by chauvanism. To wit, here's the lovely AWARE's elementary-level debunking:

Myth: “Feminist” is the female equivalent of “chauvinist”.
Fact: Feminism does not support sexism against either gender. Feminism works towards equality, not female superiority.

The estimable Professor alerts us to the very fallacy of such an assertion, by quoting Wikipedia no doubt because academic rigour has attained at a whole new level of awesomeness, and even offers you a nomenclature that'll better save your feeble minds: (emphasis to my piggish whimsy)

Please get your terms right.

To clarify: Feminism refers to the movement for establishing establishing equal rights and legal protection and gender equality for women, and campaigning for women’s rights and interests (Wikipedia).

The corresponding movement for men’s rights is not male chauvinism, which is sexist, but (progressive) masculism, which campaigns for equal rights and treatment for men, and sees itself as complementary to feminism.

Both movements have the same goal in mind- to change cultural perceptions and legislation which treat either gender unfairly, but are distinguished by their focus on, and campaigning for, one particular gender.

Some interesting issues to consider- conscription, child custody, alimony and child support, domestic abuse of men, and higher incarceration rates and longer sentences for men for the same crime as compared to women.

To wit- feminism is about women’s equality, masculism is about men’s equality, and if you’re interested in true gender equality and sympathetic to legitimate grievances of both males and females, you are a gender egalitarian.

Fancy that. When AWARE feminists seek "equality" for women, you'd think they'll mean to move women up so that they women can be EQUAL to men. Which means, if men are worse off, then in order for women to be equal, they might have to up men's statuses? Like arguing for the revision of the Women's Charter to become a Family's Charter, improvements of which include maintenance of husband should divorcing wives be found fit to make the monthly pay-out? I know our resident Magician has already laid it out for you in a different manner, this might come as a bit shock to many people, but equality here's how equality works:

You < Me ≠ Equal;
You > Me ≠ Equal;
You = Me = Equal.

On top of that, most feminists are hard-pressed to concede that making a Bigger You suffer under the same restrictive logic that a Smaller Me suffers is the way forward. At least "feminazis" at the Barn never. fucking tire of saying. that.

Professor Diapermouth even directs us to this fuck-awesome van diagram to tease out my male-chauvanist mates and the "radical feminists" from Teh Truly Awesome:

(I lie; I added my artistry to the diagram! The real chart is not remotely as pretty as mine, much less "clarifying".)

Gosh, if there's anything that annoys this male, unfeminist, gay asian pig are mansplainers, you know, the ones who always like to tell you, gay, womanly, fat, skinny, thin, yellow, brown, white, *insert facets of your self you relate to*, how you're not really gay, or feminist, or a pig enough. And always, as Twisty notes, "In a tone that suggested so deep a reverence for his own intellect that he’d expect the solar system to explode if he failed to execute this very important takedown on my blog."

But just when you thought it was all over, you meet Sir Fred Sottile-Solate in shiny armour, warning you this:

... Feminism by its very name is a gender specific promotional project. Many women have been duped into believing that there is a basis in gender equality. Many women have been victimized by feminism and in fact are paying the price this very day. Like communism and socialism and fascism, Feminism is an ideology that is based on hate and is doomed to failure. Unfortunately it will leave behind a population only made worse for the effort. I am sorry this is true and wish it weren’t, but truly feminism is a disaster for any good people involved. Only the evil benefit.

I hate to pit my dudely speak-from-privilege card against yours, but no, Fred, I'm afraid you're wrong on this, but for no other reason than that I can selectively string my words together to formulate something that escapes educated, reasoned assessment, generalising only to make it sound like your beliefs are that of a misogynist seeking to have women return to a time when their bodies are properties of their husbands, fathers or brothers.

A time when women have not even a conception of legal force to protect them from rape, or that there can even be a day--after a long time of their being equal providers--where they can be remunerated for the labour they put in, save that money under their own name, and not need the company of men in order to go to the shop to buy fucking groceries so that, ohmygod, she doesn't starve, because, ohfuck, she's human!!!

Which means she possesses emotions, wants, desires, aspirations, dreams, feels pain when hit, feels hungry when starved, and feels hopeless when people around tell her that she should stick it because she's just doesn't deserve anything because there's always this other guy, this other kid, this other fertilised or unfertilised ovum, or this other very important, malodorous logic brewing in your head that justifies her not getting something you'll putatively accord some abstract dude.

I'm sure all the women, children some women have to bring up, are really, really upset that this false hate-inspired movement called feminism for all this. I'm sure they're all fucking bawling their eyes out that they're eating the food they have on the table while thinking hateful thoughts about you, which they bought with the hateful money they received from the wages they've worked for by hating on you, and all these tears form a river because it's so fucking frustrating to finally, or at least not all cases, be able to say "no" to unwanted bodily contact which might or might not be related to why they hate you.

Boohoo, dear Sir.Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

Frankly, I've never seen a rosier image of apocalypse--I say bring it!

P/S - AWARE bloggers, please write to us if you're interested in guest-blogging or cross-blogging with us to discuss why suddenly so many people feel obligated to explain what feminism and AWARE's agenda is for AWARE. Don't worry, we can even pretend that we didn't orchestrate this discussion and that it just so happens that we're on the same page! Maybe my mom will appear at some point to femmeplain that she did not impart any skills in passive-aggressive stunts.

+++

Rony Tan and The State - 5 - "An openly pluralist, secularist, human-rights based challenge"

Really agree with this Oh My Goat - that someone really needed to push him hard to retract the statement, and it's unfortunate that it was the ISD rather than others in civic society, as would happen in a "free world". Ideally there would have been - in addition to blog posts, which there are - protests, pickets, strongly worded letters from a variety of faith and interfaith and secularist organisations published in the papers, disputing editorials in rival newspapers discussing the very nuances like those in your email etc., collectively leading to a social consensus so strong that people would hesitate to be obnoxious in the way he has, while continuing to make strong criticisms of hateful attitudes and practices whether they take a religious or non-religious form.

The reason why we have none of that is the ISA/PAP state control generally, and that ironically also creates the need for the ISD/PAP to step in, but their involvement inhibits the development of the environment that wouldn't need them... It's woeful really.

I agree with Poultrygeist that mandating prosecution wouldn't be great... I just think the healthy endpoint isn't one that's reached via the ISD.

What I think is going on here is a colonial strategy in a domestic context - divide and rule. The government is interested in a clear sectarian division between communities defined along racial/religious lines partly for ideological reasons (i.e. LKY's weird racialism)...

...but partly also because this means they can achieve this "surface harmony" you refer to, without the destabilising effect of difficult questions that arise from minorities-within-minorities (like someone criticising their own religious "community"), or groups like women, LGBTQ people, the poor etc. who have shared interests between "communities". Successful challenges to "communities" by these individuals and groups would also legitimate other challenges to interests that the government has in avoiding welfarist obligations. It is in their interests to palm welfare off onto religious "charity", and have participation in ritual ("spirituality" without social content) replace political engagement. Possibly this is also why welfare, where it exists, is often supported by the state along "community" lines (and in Singapore also by continually trying to enforce a vision of morality whereby the "family" has all the obligations to support those in need), to avoid the issues of state obligations to individuals qua individuals, which would pose a much more direct challenge to their economic and political control. Give each religious/racial "community" leader their fiefdom and they'll keep their own house in order, allowing the government elite to continue with their profits.

Of course their problem is that they're feeding (with financial support and legitimacy) the very same factions that will inevitably give rise to challenges to their own power, so they have to rap them on the knuckles with the ISD every now and then. But they won't be able to do this forever - and there is the danger the PAP itself will be assimilated into fundamentalism or increasingly pressured to give way to it on substantive matters, which amounts to the same thing - and if we want to avoid theocracy (creeping or sudden) an openly pluralist, secularist, human-rights based challenge needs to be cultivated pronto.

Rony Tan and the State - 4 - "A national narrative of harmony and stability"

I've been thinking about this in terms of the government preference for a national narrative of harmony and stability, rather than diversity and non-violence. I think it was Cat in the Cream who pointed out during our conversation that to the ISD, what they were doing was indeed clamping down and enforcing harmony/stability to arrest any possible slide down the slope to non-violence. And either Badly Drawn Pig or The Terrierist who noted that many old-guard politicians remember the days when dissent was followed by violence, and the new generation that'll take over has been schooled in and become comfortable in this framework of justifications for policing public discourse.

When the system is set up to enforce surface harmony rather than allow people and groups who disagree to express themselves up to the point of violence or incitement thereof, then people like Rony Tan's followers muttering about their preacher being a persecuted martyr, and people like Oh My Goat wondering whether she'll suffer any backlash from criticizing a religious practice, even one that might originate from a faith should she belong to. Or do people just buy into the prevention-is-better-than-cure approach?

Rony Tan and The State - 3 - "Valid criticism of religious or religion-adjacent practices"

This isn't the first time I've heard this anti-Buddhism, anti-Taoism spiel. I've heard it at least once before during a talk in school specifically aimed at how homosexuality is an abhorrence. It's probably a lot more common than we may realise for some churches to disparage other religions in their efforts to convince their flock that they have chosen the right path.

I think it was a good thing that he was asked to retract his statements. That was a massive amount of misinformation he was spreading to his flock. In a free world, there would be other ideas to counter this Rony Tan's hateful crap. But I'm not sure all members of his flock seek them out. In that context, it was probably right to make him say "I'm being irresponsible and I should have never said that. That was blatant misinformation on my part."

However, I feel uncomfortable about the "upsetting religious sensitivity" angle. Spreading falsehoods about a religion is one thing. I think valid criticism of religious or religion-adjacent practices must certainly be permitted, yes? I don't think religious beliefs should be considered sufficient in and of themselves to confer legitimacy on suspect practices.

Rony Tan and the State - 2 - "Things will get much, much messier"

We don't have any anti-discrimination laws expressly spelled out (even the wording of our constitution is aspirational on this issue, and does not set out examples of what discrimination etc is). Which is why they've used the Sedition Act.

I guess I don't have an issue against invoking the Sedition Act, because I find the notion that religions be allowed to preach against each other to be fundamentally flawed. But then, I also don't believe in an absolutist concept of truth - which is the basis for such hateful speech anyway: [insert religious text here] says [insert subject of hate speech here] is wrong and therefore it is wrong.

I think it's frightening that people in positions of power are allowed to preach whatever they want regarding the incontrovertible truth of religious ideology with a view to influencing a group of people. Personally, I believe this lays foundations for extremism.

To be honest, I was completely offended by the WAY in which he belittled Taoism (and the concept of karma and the chanting), as if fancying himself some kind of stand up comedian. It was irresponsible and pretty hateful. And given that he has no grasp/understanding of Taoism, on what basis is he making these comments?

I think the reason we don't have anti-discrimination laws is because they don't want to get rid of the discretion not to prosecute. The ISD basically forced him to capitulate and retract all his hateful crap and apologise thereby appeasing the groups he maligned, as well as keeping the Christians' persecution complex at bay. I'm pretty sure the ISD called up Derek Hong during the AWARE issue, because I don't think he apologised out of the goodness of his heart or anything. I don't think the ISD is attacking the freedom of association or religion in this regard - I think they're saying "Look here, you can preach but stay out of purporting to be an expert on other religions kthxbye". While it does seem paternalistic, I think it might actually be a better alternative to prosecuting this guy, as would be the case if we had anti-discrimination laws (even then, who's to say the ISD won't be involved? Usually they don't trumpet their involvement - this was an anomaly!)

Just my view on things lah, I think if you start prosecuting people for irresponsible proselytising things will get much, much messier.

Rony Tan and the State - 1 - "The enemy of my enemy"

This is slightly tricky one for me.

On the one hand, I have no issue with anti-discrimination laws that spell out protection against hate-speech, or mete out greater penalty for hate-related crimes. As we here at the Barn ARGUE. ALL. THE. TIME, spouting and hearing shit unchallenged is the very reason people feel justified to hate, which ultimately underpins all the violence and harassment we face at hand. As Sparky notes on the puzzlement that the mothership of Focus on the Family expressed when they found out that their teachings were being propped up as the intellectual apparatus that motivated Uganda's deathly anti-homosexuality bill:

And, as we've seen before with Rick Warren, the Family and others who are up to their evil eyes in this particular vileness, they are now all shocked, SHOCKED, that their hate filled words could have encouraged such an awful awful thing.

Even accepting their protests as sincere (and I really really don't, because it's beyond belief that someone can espouse such hatred and then be shocked at the result), even accepting that they never ever imagined this could happen - well, what did they expect? How can they be shocked that constantly attacking gays, accusing us of preying on children, of trying to destroy society, leads to persecution?

...

Hatred does not come from a vacuum. The violent do not appear out of thin air. There is no mystery behind those that attack and hurt and kill us.

It comes from us, our society, our leaders, our culture, our language and our very selves. We have value - but that will never be acknowledged - that will never be truly BELIEVED - while there are so many voices that devalue us.

Hate will never stop until we stop saying, in a hundred ways, every day that hate is ok.

And so long as we keep saying hate is ok, we are responsible when that hatred leads to ruined lives.

On that count, I'm angered by what Pastor Tan has said and continues to say.

On the other hand, I do think invoking the Sedition Act and invoking police action as most foul, and I don't like how this has played out for Pastor Tan too.

As a free-thinker who has had personal investments in various faith in the past, I don't actually think it's wrong of religions to preach against each other, since fundamentally each more or less already believes itself humanity's answer to attaining peace. But I also do not think that arguing the superiority or rightness of one's religions needs precludes also arguing against violence or intolerance of any sort at the same time. People should be entitled to believe shit, preaching and saying shit should be challenged. But is the Act really the right sort of "challenge" to be up against?

I'm of the belief that the Act is crafted and employed more to force EVERYONE into acquiesce under a rather troubling paternalistic rule. If anything, the Act poses more problems for liberals attaining freedom, often in service of preventing a punishing spectre of civil war, race/religion inspired riot, etc. Using this legislative pressure tactic to demand an already fearful culture to cede more freedoms, often beginning with the attainment of a voice to speak, I think, is plain awful for all. I am not entirely naïve to believe that I live in a problem-free country where people are so mild that emotional and physical abuse is not enacted on some LGBTQ person everyday, but I simply don't think moving the masses into a darker age by keeping shit under wrap is the way to go.

Not discounting that Rony Tan was indeed an asshat for holding and saying those things (I'm not even entirely convinced by his apologies), and in another time and space perhaps warrants penalty, but I think in this scenario, and strictly for this Singaporean context, his strongest detractors are just using tools of a greater enemy to inflict wounds on another enemy. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and I'd much rather not have to succumb to employing a strategy meant to hurt me as well on another person.

The equal-opportunist, fight-fire-with-fire, schadenfreude-lite approach to this worries me. In the same way it frightens me that some people's solution to the denigrative objectification of women is in the objectification of men, or the parallel of attempts to outlaw militant Islamic extremism by banning the Muslim veil. Ultimately piling on shit on more people doesn't make the already hurt hurt less, what it does instead is present a net increase in the amount of shit on a net increase in the number of victims.

So count me in on calling out Pastor Tan on his disinformation, but please count me out of rallying for State embargo. The last thing I need is for him to be or feel remotely martyred.

Preamble: The misadventures of Rony Tan.

The animals at the Barn took time away from farm duties to attend an on-going roundtable discussion on the subject of Rony Tan, the governmental actions that have either already been taken, or are currently lobbied against him, and whether we think he should be allowed the right to think and speak how ever controversially he wishes on how ever sensitive, highly politicised a topic. Proceedings are being put together as posts and will be published over the weekend. This is a preamble.

How does one begin?

RONY. FUCKTART. TAN.

That's the founding senior pastor of Lighthouse Evangelism Church who's been making headlines over the last two weeks. He quickly established himself as a bonafide asshole who aggrieved the Taoist and Buddhist communities in Singapore when videos of his rather unpalatable sermons surfaced on the internet. The sucker punch, however, came in the form of an extremely public invitation from our lovely Internal Security Department (ISD) for Pastor Tan to join them for tea and scones. All this ended in removal of said videos, apologies, woeful sermon of regret, and other double-taking that all ran rather openly. Now his words on gay people are haunting him, as two film-makers have lodged a police report against him, ostensibly in hope of invoking aspects of the Sedition Act even if the Act is written to only protect racial and religious harmony. He has since come out to stand by and defend his position on homosexuality, "I’ve said nothing wrong, you know. Like I said, my stand is with the average person and the Government."

Here are some choice quotes that I've managed to dig up so that you can have a rough idea of what was uttered:

On religion; responding to a parishioner, Rita's experience with Buddhism:

[4:51 onwards]

Ok, now, here I pause again to, you know, let you all know that, when we talk about religions; false religions, we are not just talking about a set of teachings. We are talking about the spiritual world. we are talking about satan and his demons,coming into people's mind and dropping ideas like that, to get us away from ...

When rita was seriously, you know, in this religion, the demonic power would supernaturally put some ideas in her mind, and the same demonic power, you cannot see, put the same kind of thoughts into the Tibetan monk. So when they check up the facts, it's the same. It dazzles us. but if you were to look behind the scene, it is a cheap david copperfield trick, nothing more, nothing more, you understand? So conclusion, there's no truth in reincarnation.

...

When Buddha was dying, do you know what he said to his disciples? "I'm still searching for the way..."

[Grunts to suggest last breath, then steps forward.]

And Jesus comes, "I am the way." (Source)

On homosexuality:

What Pastor Rony Tan of Lighthouse Evangelism thinks about gays and lesbians from Kenneth Tan on Vimeo.

Don’t believe all those loud-mouthed gay people who tell you they are born this way... If we don’t warn people against this, then there will be more and more homosexuals... Many of these people will be harrassing and seducing young boys, and they in turn will become homosexuals... Half the world will be homosexual! Proper sex means life — it propagates life. Lesbianism and homosexuality simply mean death and barrenness... If you allow [homosexuality], next time people will want to get married to monkeys. And they will want rights. They’ll want to apply for HDB. With a donkey or a monkey or a dog and so on. It’s very pathetic. (Source)

You can see why animals and people alike have gotten prettttty upset with him. Yet, should we play Volitaire and defend his right to speak even if we gravely disagree with him?

Lest you too are the curious sort, you can view copies of the videos pertaining to religious insult here. Pastor Tan has beseeched that copies of the video be taken down as well, but I personally find this forced erasure/ amnesia of mistakes frankly stupid. I'm glad copies are floating around so that we can be constantly reminded of how horrible he was, even if those who took offense have since forgiven him.

Addenda and Clarifications

[Ed - This post may be read in conjunction with "BREAKING: More women say: I deserve justice by my own terms, I'm worth it." and "Investigating and prosecuting sexual offences".]

Having done some holiday pondering and mental pontification, this turkey feels that perhaps some clarifications are in order to better understand the posts below on accusations of sexual offences and the procedures which are subsequently followed (particularly in light of the comments on the posts below).

What the ST article does not make clear (and these are woeful omissions) is that:

(1) an accusation per se is not tantamount to a conviction;

(2) an accusation does not inexorably lead to prosecution;

(3) in the context of a nightclub (i.e. dark, all-round diminished faculties due to inebriation, two total strangers etc) does not provide conducive conditions for fact-finding and evidence-gathering.

In relation to (3), what the article glaringly fails to point out is the potential for abuse by both parties - both the alleged offender as well as the alleged victim. The article's primary failure is its angle - that there is a "trend" of evil, wanton, trollopy women whose sole motivation in accusing men of molest/OM is to recover some form of compensation.

In mainly interviewing lawyers who have represented these alleged offenders, the article ends up painting these men as wholly innocent. But what has been omitted is this: there possibly has been no fact-finding; no completed investigations. At this stage, one cannot decide guilt or innocence. There simply is no proof, which is the problem of nightclubs, and other situations where the evidence boils down to Him vs. Her.

(And more importantly, the cardinal principle of legal ethics: a lawyer must always act in his/her client's best interests. That is to say, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a lawyer will assume and profess the innocence of his/her client.)

And therein lies the conundrum (as contained in the soundbite from Prof. Hor appended at the end of the article). The fact that the men coughed up money proves nothing - it sheds no light on their actual motivations. At the end of the day, I do feel that the likelihood that the composition was to avoid prosecution is at least equal to the likelihood of the victims not wishing to re-live the incident.

But perhaps, what could (and perhaps would?) tilt the balance is that at the end of the day, character evidence against the female victim is admissible, and will be duly considered.

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.