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

Me and My Friend

Tomorrow is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. MARUAH has organised a bunch of events in observance of this day and in promotion of the human rights of persons with disabilities. Get yourself to some of them.

Go Harvey, go Harvey, go Harvey Ne-o, go!

To temper my previous unremitting harshness toward Straits Times Forum letter writers, here is a Magical shout-out to Harvey Neo: a draught of hope in a desert of hatefulness.

The Archbishop John Chew - the holy text of whose church speaks again and again of compassion and kindness - could take a leaf from Harvey Neo's book.

If there is to be any consensus on 'mainstream values', it must be built on respect, empathy, compassion and tolerance. The family should reflect such values and not be used to draw divisive lines.

(Interested watchers should note that Chew has previously promoted an anti-gay stance as part of the ongoing conflict among international Anglican leaders. Back in 2006, controversy arose over the "Kigali communiqué" from Anglican churches in the Global South. To save your having to wade through the masses of circumlocutory bullshit in that text, basically Chew and his allies threatened to take their toys and go home unless other Anglican churches adopted anti-gay poses. But the document gave the impression of being endorsed by at least one church that later disavowed support of it: a statement on this by Archbishop Ndungane of the Church of Southern Africa was met by a somewhat watery response signed off by Chew. It all became pretty big news. So this guy isn't just a stinker on the domestic stage.)

Maids these days

Perhaps unwilling to allow Madam Patricia Koh to enjoy all the glory, Straits Times Forum letter writer Lim Guan Wee weighs in on The Trouble With Maids These Days:

I have gambled and lost money with two errant maids and an irresponsible agency. My first maid made use of me to extend her stay in Singapore. She was a transfer maid the agency highly recommended to me.

As it was my first time hiring a maid, I foolishly accepted her without investigating the real reason she had stopped working for her previous employer. To my horror, besides failing in her duties to look after my mother, she asked for a transfer after she had fulfilled her two months.

To add insult to injury, she had secretly applied to a new agent. So she had made use of the old agent and me to tide over the two months. In the short span of two months, she also managed to network with other Indonesian maids in the neighbourhood to recruit them to sign up with her new agent. [...]

The two maids belong to the savvier generation of street-smart maids and are highly networked. Their mantra is: 'Not happy? Transfer'.

I mean, it's just appalling, isn't it? The way they behave, it's like they think they're ordinary employees, people or something, looking around for the best deal, and the work placement and agency relationship that suits them best. Instead of compliant slaves unable to exercise any options, having to accept anything we throw at them. If only they could go back to being desperate and without recourse - ignorant of their rights and too frightened to stand up for their own interests. It was so much better when everyone knew their place.