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:

Filial piety: fine feelings and hard work

Parenting is hard work. If only the Singapore government were as good at recognising that when making policies that have material consequences for parents, as it is in making sappy videos full of fine feelings.

But that, of course, as Funny Little World explains, is the whole point. This video on filial piety is about displacing political responsibility from the government for collective problems that need (to some extent) collective solutions. It promotes a moralising discourse, about the fine feelings we should all supposedly have about our parents (failing to recognise that they might have been wholly abusive, indeed perhaps specifically notwithstanding any abuse), to avoid questions about society's and the government's welfare obligations, about the fair and appropriate distribution of the hard work of eldercare, as between individuals and the state.

We were all ruminating on this in the Barn, prompting the following wisdom from the Complaining Cow:

The ad plays on people's fears about growing old alone and unassisted, a huge source of insecurity in a country without a social welfare system. The idea that it's possible for elderly people to be abusive is generally unrecognised (even though many people have experienced this firsthand in their own family, from what I've been told -- in particular elderly people abusing each other). Such behaviour is seen as 'demanding' and 'unreasonable' at most, but something to be put up with because the way society functions is stacked up against older people, so family members have to be accommodating.

I was thinking about the ad, where the elderly mother says she wants to move out. Personally, I think I would want to have my own household when I'm old (whether or not I have children), and I wonder, in the context of the fictional ad family, why her moving out would be a bad thing for the family? The family in the ad seems to have no choice but have the grandmother live with them. I'm aware there are all sorts of possible reasons: eg if someone for some reason she can't afford their own home anymore, or needs assistance, or does want to live with their child's family but just suffers occasional fits of pique against them, etc.

But these in turn point to problems like homelessness, access to care for mental/physical disability, general accessibility of our built environment to anyone who's not 100% able-bodied; and MCYS's response to that seems to be: have children now so that they'll provide you with these social services FOC when you need them, 'cause we sure as hell ain't going to. Which fucks over everyone who can't or won't have children, or for whatever reason doesn't want to depend on them.

The Cow also raised questions about the other toxic messages packed away in the ad:

Also: what's up with all the other toxic narratives that are peripheral to the ad's intended message but tightly woven into its fabric?! Eg setting up the woman as the primary caregiver of the family in both generations (it wasn't the man's cooking the grandmother was criticising, was it?), framing relations between the woman and her mother-in-law as adversarial, etc.

My Magical eye alighted upon these items too. Not only does the filial piety conversation attempt to displace collective obligations onto individual households, it also (less overtly) displaces collective obligations onto women, in particular, who are assumed to be the ones who should provide free care work for the sake of family togetherness. The stamps of this assumption are all over the video, which is - funnily enough - entitled "Father and Son". There is no indication of what relationship the woman has with her own parents (presumably this is a nod to the notion that they ought to have bothered to have a useful child, i.e. a son and not a daughter, of their own); in fact, there are no daughter-parent relationships portrayed at all. Not only is the work of cooking done by the woman, but also, at the beginning, she goes off to sort out tasks on behalf of the family, while telling her husband and son to stay with her mother-in-law and with each other. The lesson the boy learns is evident in his question: he asks not about the work involved in caring for his grandmother, but about his father's feelings.

The message here is gendered. The fine feelings of filial piety are for men and boys: but the hard work of elder care, which makes the sustenance of those fine feelings possible, is for women and girls.

If we have to watch videos about fathers and son, I think I prefer this ad:

"Making Room for Love"

A little bird recently sent me this article from 2001, by architectural writer and LGBT activist Dinesh Naidu, on how unmarried people negotiate physical space to express a little loving.

...

Possibly the most important spatial manifestation of mainstream sexuality norms is found in public housing. Despite 'land scarcity', the State actively facilitates the purchase of affordable homes by all young married couples through the provision of cash grants and subsidised public housing. These policies complement the promotion of heterosexuality, marriage and procreation as the norm in Singapore. The State-sponsored marital home provides couples with a relatively permanent and private space of their own. Within the constraints of monogamous marriage, couples are free to indulge in a range of marital relations in their purpose-built and sanctioned space. Indeed, traditional homes have long served as the "locus of heterosexual reproduction and socialisation".[6] Although inherited colonial era statues[7] forbid what we may assume are fairly common sexual practices among married couples, the degree of privacy and sanction provided by the marital home protects husbands and wives from the practical and psychological effects of these laws.

While couples who marry can enjoy home ownership, singles are barred from purchasing either new or re-sale public housing until they reach the age of 35, when they may buy re-sale apartments. This policy stems from an avowed promotion of the 'traditional' family unit. As a result, apartments and estates are designed for occupation by such households[8]. In addition to these State-imposed obstacles, Singapore parents often have cultural expectations of their children to reside with and support them, at least until marriage. Private housing is also unaffordable to most people [9] and this fact, compounded with housing policies and parental demands, means that most singles live with their parents at least until they are middle aged, if not beyond. Bachelor pads or apartments shared by singles, common features of middle class single life in other developed cities, remain unrealised types in the Singaporean experience.

These conditions constrict the space available for sexual practices outside of marriage. For unmarried couples who wish to spend some quiet, private time together, and perhaps engage in light petting, the parental home is a problematic venue because of the presence of family members and even maids. These household members can act to discourage or even forbid such activity, which is, ironically, better tolerated in anonymous public settings. In his short story "Evening Under Frangipani"[10], Jeyaretnam depicts the parental approval faced by an inter-racial couple, making the home a hostile area for courtship. Two solutions are presented in the sotry.

First, the couple ritualised their meetings at a small landscaped area: "A few carefully trimmed hibiscus bushes, their leaves variegated shades of green, lined the concrete path which stretched across the path -- no more than a hundred square metres -- of green. Fallen red petals stained the grass. They called it a park, according it dignity and respect because of the importance it had assumed in their routine as meeting point." [11] Here we see how private ritual and the act of naming can be used to create a vital courtship space out of anonymous urban landscape. These practices are also symbolic means of affirming a relationship frowned on by others.

Later in the story, we learn that "... her parents would be away in Malaysia over Saturday night and Elaine and Prakash would have the bungalow all to themselves on Saturday. There would be no need to meet on the crowded malls of ORchard Road, jostling with teenagers on parade... The bungalow all to themselves! A release from the claustrophobia of Singapore courtship, the lack of places away from the watching judging eyes of parents, friends and strangers."[12] The strategy employed here invovles observing family or neighbourhood schedules and patterns in order to discern small windows of opportunity to appropriate ordinarily 'unsafe' spaces for use. As this practice is trangressive, individuals may initially experience feeling guilt or fear (although some might instead / also enjoy the pleasure of forbidden fruit and the thrill of subversion). Unlike the earlier act of symbolic affirmation, this act of hiding denies a couple any sense of legitimacy and pride, and works, however subtly, to shame them. At the same time, the inability of spaces to address real social needs renders them, and their underlying ideology, open to critique. For example, as spatial trangressions become routine, dominant values become exposed as inadequate.

Gay couples face obstacles similar to those mentioned above, but with some important differences. Whereas moderate heterosexual displays of affection are sanctioned in public spaces, gay couples have almost no comparable public spaces to use. Ironically, while the act of bringing to the home or bedroom a 'friend' of the opposite sex tends to attract the notice and possibly disapproval of family and neighbours, such action tends to go unnoticed when the 'friend' is of the same gender. This stems from a lower public awareness of homosexuality. The presumed platonic nature of same-gender relationships can act to mask gay relationships and even facilitate the use of family homes by such couples.

Gay couples also can use the symbolic practices noted earlier. In his study of local gay relationships, Sinn[13] characterised this strategy as the 'symbolic appropriation of objects, spaces as well as time' and reported two cases of this. The first involved a couple who tended a small herb garden together in the home of one while other family members were out. Another example was of a couple who maintained a photo album of shared times together. Given the invisibility and secrecy whcih surround most gay relationships, such small acts, which are easier to conceal, are loaded with significance and become critical to the symbolic affirmation of the relationship, in the absence of familial and societal recognition and validation.

...

[6] Friedman, Alice T., "Not a Muse: the Client's Role at the Rietveld Schroder House" in Diane Agrest, et al (eds) The Sex of Architecture. New York: Henry N. Abrams, Inc, 1996 p218
[7] [Ed: Naidu highlights the recently repealed Singapore Penal Code Section 377, which sanctioned against oral and anal sex that does not lead to vaginal intercourse between a heterosexual unit. Section 377A remains to sanction against fellatio and anal sex between a homosexual male unit.]
[8] It must be noted new typologies such as housing for the elderly ('granny flats') and the recent announcement by Prime Minister Gosh Chock Tong that these flats might be available to singles in the future does signal a move towards accommodating a more diverse range of households.
[9] According to Chua, the State has an ideological commitment to the universal provision of (up to 90% of the population) of public housing in Singapore. This leaves private property developers to cater to the housing needs of the elite top 10-15% of the population. See Chua, Beng-Huat, Political Legitimacy and Housing: Stakeholding in Singapore. London: Routledge, 1996, pp19-20.
[10] Jeyaretnam, Philip, "Evening Under FrangiPani" in First Loves. Singapore: Times Books International, 1987, pp166-199.
[11] Op cit pp168-169.
[12] Op cit p171.
[13] Sinn, Wai Mu Mark, A Different Kind of Love: Gay Relationships in Singapore. Singapore: unpublished National University of Singapore thesis, 1996.

Naidu, Dinesh. "Making Room for Love," Singapore Architect, 212. Dec 2001. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Architects, pp98-100.

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!

Physician, heal thyself

This Magical Chicken was idly perusing the Media Development Authority's free-to-air radio programme code, as one does every now and then, when her avian eyes settled on the following paragraphs:

3.1 Broadcasters should bear in mind the importance of the family as the basic unit of society in Singapore. The sanctity of marriage should be respected, and divorce should not be treated casually or in a frivolous manner. Adultery, cohabitation and promiscuity should not be endorsed, glamorised or encouraged.

3.2 Information, themes or subplots on lifestyles such as homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexualism, transsexualism, transvestism, paedophilia and incest should be treated with utmost caution. Their treatment should not in any way promote, justify or glamorise such lifestyles. Explicit dialogue or information concerning the above topics should not be broadcast.

Followed immediately by this:

3.3 Programmes should not make careless references to any class or group of persons as being inherently inferior. Programmes should not encourage or in any way discriminate against any section of the community on account of gender, age, disability or occupational status.

Ah.

Well, there's no contradiction in that at all, now, is there?

Physician, heal thyself.

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."

"If your marriage is fucked up, it's because you fucked it."

Oh Holy Jeshua Christ! What the bug-eating-Rafflesia is with so much male-cow dropping of patronising condescension from institutions (you cleared up nothing because nothing's been "misperceived", but thanks for making it pointedly clear how you know we see the road to hell you pave with your good intentions; see Redux tackled by brilliant Leona Lo) and a sympathetic married woman!?

Is this, as Complaining Cow says, "wing-nut week at the ST Forum editor's desk"?

I'm in no mood to get further upset after yesterday's hogwash parading as magnanimity (as reader, Madhairday, notes in the comment section, "the HONOUR of the tolerance [Jerkface] has bestowed upon us lower beings") and if people don't see what's essentially wrong with the positions they hold, I think we're just going to have to pretend to agree to disagree, but silently know that my Magical friend is onto them and in all its infinite and magical wisdom sees them for the "nasty, contemptuous assclown" that they are.

To ease tensions, I'll let the wonderful comedienne, Wanda Sykes, share some incisive humour on the seemingly delicate institution of marriage and--by its extension--Traditional Family Valuez. The very illusions of problems brought on by people whose complex lives have led them down different, yet functional and surprisingly mostly happy (if not for your constant shitting on them) paths from your "classicist" structures.

From her 2006 "Sick and Tired" stand-up comedy show:

If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then don't bother marrying somebody of the same sex. How does someone else's marriage affect your marriage? If your marriage is fucked up, it's because you fucked it.

Are straight couples in marriage counsel now; "we just ain't been working together since Bill and Ted hooked up. We just can't get along."

I don't know. "We got to protect marriage", that's what they say. "We got to protect marriage." I don't think same-sex couples, I don't think they're the biggest threat to marriage. I think the biggest threat to marriage is divorce.

That's what fucked up my marriage.

So if they're so concerned about preserving marriage, and the sanctity of marriage, they want to protect marriage, what they should is ban divorce. Make marriage like the mafia; once you're in, you're in.

...

What is the fear? What are people afraid of? What you're scared that gay marriage is going to be better than your marriage?

"Look at them happy-ass gays..."

You're scared your wives will nag you and stuff like, "Honey, honey, look at Bill and Ted. Oh my god, I love those guys. They sat on that porch for hours and talk. I run into them all the time at the mall, I see them shopping. I mean they spend a lot of quality time together. I wish we could do that. I wish we could be a little more like Bill and Ted."

[In husband tone] "Really? Well, maybe if you let me fuck you in your ass a couple of times, that could be me and you right there, baby--we could have that."

Just so it's out there

Like I said, I liked Harvey Neo's letter. I also agree with his assessment that in reality, few people would voluntarily opt to face all the practical disadvantages associated with being a single parent or a gay person in the world as currently socially arranged.

But just so it's out there:

Even if homosexuality were entirely "a choice" and even it were true that people in fact actively seek to bring up children without a partner or spouse--

I don't give a flying monkey's butt.

Even if all gay people were able to effortlessly choose only heterosexual relationships on the turn of a dime, they shouldn't have to.

Even if hordes of women were enthusiastically collecting bucketloads of sperm to impregnate themselves with turkey basters (due apologies to The Poultrygeist) and then swearing never to get married, that in itself has no bearing on their fitness as parents or their worth as human beings.

Stop treating people like shit. (I'm talking to you, Jerkface.) Not just because societal discrimination means that they're "so poor thing" (although, in fact, they are). The point is, even if you were the only nasty, contemptuous assclown they had to face in the entire world, or even if they could easily avoid all expressions of nasty, contemptuous assclownery by acceding to the nasty, contemptuous assclown demands, it is - surprisingly - wrong to be a nasty, contemptuous assclown to begin with.

Acknowledging hate is fine but don't suppress

As I was waking up from my drunken stupor from last night, Oh My Goat brought the newspapers in to share with the rest of the barn mates today's helping of hatefulness, as brought to you by a certain Bernard Tan.

I reproduce in full:

ST Forum
Dec 3, 2009
ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES
Respect is fine but don't glorify

I REFER to Tuesday's letter by Mr Harvey Neo, 'Respect those outside traditional family'.

I agree with his view that people with alternative views and lifestyles should be treated with respect, empathy, compassion and tolerance. However, I also share the concerns of the Anglican Church of Singapore regarding the increasing trend to glorify lifestyles alternative to the traditional family. I am not an Anglican but the church's concerns resonate with me - and I believe they resonate with the silent majority of Singapore.

In my workplace, I work with and I have hired gays and single parents, and I am entirely blind to their lifestyle choices. I have good friends who are gay. To me, their lifestyle is a personal choice and has no bearing whatsoever on their character and the work that they do.

However, I draw the line if I am expected to somehow 'celebrate' and support their lifestyle. I draw the line if I am regarded as a bigot or a lesser human being if I do not approve of the alternative lifestyle.

While a single parent can justifiably be proud to have brought up her child despite her single parenthood, I do not think single parenthood in itself is anything to be proud of or celebrated. In the same vein, gays are entitled to their views and lifestyle, and they should not be subjected to any pressure to conform or, worse, somehow convert to be 'normal' heterosexuals. But in my view, they are not entitled to expect non-gays to celebrate and approve of their lifestyle.

I think the line is crossed when respect, empathy, compassion and tolerance are not regarded as sufficient any more; and the silent majority are expected to actively endorse and approve alternative lifestyles. The silent majority are entitled to their views and should not be vilified for supporting traditional family values.

Bernard Tan

Reasonable homo sapiens and livestock will probably miss the finer points of Mr Tan's swiney piece of writing, as the poetry of unfeminist pigheadedness is famously elusive to decode. Thankfully, gentle readers, this badly drawn, male unfeminist pig is here to put an authoritative interpretation for your erudition.

To wit:

Acknowledging hate is fine but don't suppress

I agree with Mr Harvey Neo that the single mothers, gay people and other minority types suffer discrimination, and in fact I have all the "respect, compassion and tolerance" towards browbeating them. But like the Archbishop, I think we must publicly glorify our hate for struggling minorities. By "we", I extend my hating rights to fellow tribesmen beyond the cloister walls of the church, to every other comfortable, privileged, mainstream inhabitant of our society who have so much political, social and media representation that we are constantly spoken for without any active inputs.

I have gays and single parents at my work place because I don't want to come across as a real jerk. I even have friends who are gays because they don't know how much of jerk I really am. To me, it would be better if they weren't around at all, but it's really hard to find good help thesedays and they've somehow proven themselves to be much more useful than I'd like to admit.

However, I draw the line at extending any of the rights, protection and aid--afforded to my fellow mainstream counterparts--to gays and single parents. I also draw the line at admitting that I'm a great, big, gigantic, smelly asshole AND a lesser human being as I do not feel the slightest remorse for my behaving badly.

While a single parent can justifiably be deluded into feeling proud for coping despite our pedestrian and institutional hate, I think single parenthood in itself should be outrightly denounced. In the same vein, gays are entitled to fall in love, and they should not be subjected to any pressure to undergo conversion programmes, only because they don't actually work since there's nothing inherently wrong with being gay. But in my view, it's a real pity that we, the privileged masses have to put up with all these people being around at all.

I think the line is crossed when my right to hate them openly is being curbed, and that we are expected to actively stop being complete shitheads. We are entitled to our hate, and should not be frowned upon for exercising our mythical traditional family value of hating people different from us.

Jerkface Much