The Irresistible Aesthetic of Gun Violence

Media coverage following the Las Vegas mass shooting on 1 Oct 2017 has followed predictable lines of thought. In orderly bipartisan fashion, conversation in the USA has degenerated into self-contained debates about lax gun control, identity politics and the event’s possible connection to international terrorism. Meanwhile, overseas media outlets release bite-sized pieces of news to quickly condemn USA for its lack of common-sense gun laws—civilians should not own guns, flat and simple.

Both the exceptional confidence in one’s own constitution and the constitutional exceptionalism in one’s own confidence are necessary features of American patriotism. Regular mass shootings are indeed symptoms of larger political problems. They are consequences of the way citizens perceive their nation, and changes in the law have to be effected for mass shootings to be prevented. However, media coverage has left a gaping hole in addressing the tragedy—mass shootings are deeply emotional, irrational, and personal.

Such a profoundly traumatic event could have only been executed if the perpetrator were seduced by an equally profound emotion. Political ideology alone is not sufficient to produce the horrors of the Las Vegas shooting. The perpetrator had to have a personal attachment to the act of killing. In other cases of murder, it’s easy for us to identify emotional factors in the crime. Maybe a man was violently jealous and took his insecurities out on his wife. In cases of mass murder, the body count floods the news like a cold and empty statistic, and we end up talking only about gun laws and international terror organisations. There is an aesthetic side to gun violence, and that side is as important in understanding the frequency of mass shootings in the USA. What draws someone to pull the trigger? Why are guns so alluring?

Tragedies Make Beautiful Stories

Violent massacres are unfortunately easy to romanticise into mesmerising stories. If the mass shooting didn’t in fact actually happen, it could have been a meditative chapter in a novel about the decay of the American dream. A gun massacre, by its very nature, harbours elements of mystery and melancholy. The deceased become mere props in a play about the inner workings of the killer’s tormented mind. This is most evident in the popularity of the “lone wolf” label in news coverage. A lone wolf is an animal estranged from a pack, the central character in a movie that steals away from the crowd, me against the world. Audiences in homes around the world cannot help but conjure this mesmerising narrative in their heads when their hear the news about mass shootings. We are inadvertently complicit in elevating the killer as a an anti-hero.

story_arcImage from http://study.com

This story of the lone wolf bears within itself a complete and resolved character arc. It suggests stasis or the everyday in the killer’s life, his rise to insanity, a climax of a bullets and the quiet resolution of death. This goes without saying, but for the killer to fashion himself into an anti-hero, he must decide that the lives of others are not as complex or as colourful as his. His resolution and romantic death triumphs all.

Guns as a Symbol of Agency

Living in the modern world can be disorienting. We are told to celebrate our individualism while being simultaneously reminded of our own anonymity. Cities grow more populous and we live our lives as just another face in the crowd with the proclivity to assert our own agency. We don’t like to feel helpless, we don’t like to feel like a mere statistic, we don’t like to feel like everybody else. Guns function like symbols of rebellion when wielded by an individual with a belligerent existential crisis.

Guns are contraptions that were invented for the explicit purposes of causing physical harm. This sets guns apart from a variety of other weapons. It is an object that houses tremendous power in a sleek black casing, and according to the images defined by entertainment media, guns are non-negotiable accessories for the big hero in a film. Note this iconic exchange in the Indiana Jones movie Raiders of the Lost Ark:

The gun appears as a humourous signal of superiority. Indiana Jones is the only person with real power and agency in the scene because he carries a gun, and everyone else appears to be a degenerate in comparison. The gun sets Jones apart from other characters and it identifies him as the masculine protagonist of the film. If you’re not carrying a gun like Indiana Jones, you risk downgrading yourself to the level of a helpless non-playing character in a videogame.

Guns Are Sensory

Product and user interface designers learn that good design facilitates user input and product feedback. The input: the user performs and action on the object, and the feedback: the object performs an action to inform the user that the user’s action has an effect. For example, you press the end of a pen down to push the nib out, and the pen clicks. The click informs you that the pen now works and this is beneficial to the user. If I press down on a light switch, the switch clicks and the lamp turns on, informing me that the switch has worked for me.

A well-designed product will feature intuitive inlets for user input and outlets for product feedback. The more sensory the input and feedback is, the more satisfying a product is. User input and product feedback can be so psychologically and physically satisfying that actual product usefulness might become irrelevant in the user’s experience; bubblewrap produces a satisfying pop when you push on the individual air pockets, but the action is essentially useless. Similarly, but in a far more extreme scenario, guns can produce the same satisfying pop.

Guns are products that take in minimal user input and literally produce explosive feedback. You pull the trigger on one end and your action translates into a bewildering spectacle. Once again, you feel powerful with a gun in your hand because your moves can decide if the person on the other end lives or dies. In this sense a gun is a like a bicycle; a pedal with your foot can launch you two metres forward.

Similar aesthetic principles and image associations were delineated by Italian fascist F. T. Marinetti in his Manifesto for Futurism during the World War I. Futurism was an art movement that gave birth to choppy geometric paintings of war planes and colourful homages to skyscrapers. It centred itself on the celebration of speed, aggression, violence, and technological advancements at a time where these values were of utmost consequence.

 futurism_aeropittura_tato_flying_over_the_coliseum.jpgTato (Guglielmo Sansoni), Flying Over the Coliseum in a Spiral (Spiralling), 1930

In his manifesto, Marinetti writes:

We will sing of great crowds excited by work, by pleasure, and by riot; we will sing of the multicolored, polyphonic tides of revolution in the modern capitals; we will sing of the vibrant nightly fervor of arsenals and shipyards blazing with violent electric moons; greedy railway stations that devour smoke-plumed serpents; factories hung on clouds by the crooked lines of their smoke; bridges that stride the rivers like giant gymnasts, flashing in the sun with a glitter of knives; adventurous steamers that sniff the horizon; deep-chested locomotives whose wheels paw the tracks like the hooves of enormous steel horses bridled by tubing; and the sleek flight of planes whose propellers chatter in the wind like banners and seem to cheer like an enthusiastic crowd.

Gun violence provides killers with a spectacular aesthetic, the “vibrant nightly fervor” so prophesied by Marinetti in one of history’s deadliest periods.

It is difficult to end this article without some semblance of a call to action. That would brand my writing as a bleak resignation to the even bleaker reality of mass shootings in the USA. After all people cannot help but gravitate towards beautifully packaged stories of lone wolves and anti-heroes, especially if, at first, they seem like mere stories. We can however, paint our own pictures and write our own stories about agency, and hopefully awareness is enough to bring our suspended disbelief for stories back down to the reality that human lives matter.

In the words of T. S. Eliot in the poem The Hollow Men, perhaps we will remember that gun massacres end, not with a bang, but a whimper.

 

Advertisements

The Imaginary West (i.e. Cultural Appropriation Is Not Just a White People Sin)

I just saw a post on Facebook about a little white girl in a kimono who faced heavy criticism for hosting a Japanese-themed tea party. I don’t know for sure if it’s a global trend because I don’t have clairvoyant vision of every monitor on earth, but Buzzfeed’s #woke posts and Xiaxue’s recent tirade against “libtards” seem to be indications that the topic of cultural appropriation is picking up speed among the internet savvy.

This post is going to be about said cultural appropriation. I know, the horse has already been beaten to death, but today I’m going to bring another horse out of the stable to beat. No one else knew there was another horse in there (and incidentally, no one could have expected such a long-winded and poorly constructed analogy right at the beginning of a blog post either.)

Okay enough with the beatings and the misplaced equestrian references. Here is my point.

Cultural appropriation isn’t a sin exclusive to the hegemonic West because other cultural spheres have appropriated and misrepresented Western imagery in their own capacities, contributing to the growing cloud of an imaginary West. I’m not familiar with the political or social landscape of South America or Africa and so I have to, regrettably, leave them out of the equation for now. But I am very familiar with Asia, being an Asian myself, and I know this hypothesis isn’t entirely bonkers.

Let me break it down for you:

Cultural appropriation tends to happen when a powerful cultural entity dwarves a less powerful entity. What is power? Power can be drawn from various extensions of influence. For example, an entity is more powerful if its language is more pervasive, its philosophies are believed by the majority, it has greater stores of financial and natural resources, etc. As of right now, academia and journalism are still pre-occupied with investigating and revealing the ramifications of Western colonialism (rightfully so, because these things do need to be discussed if we want to move on from such horrors in a civil manner). But this also means that nobody is freed up to write about cultural appropriation from a different point on the globe. Ironically, the conceptualisation of Western cultural appropriation took place on the sacred grounds of Western academic writing. It was almost as if individual white people (shout out to Linda Nochlin) were atoning for years of European pillaging and plundering. Sociological terms were developed and set against the West, and so it continued.

largerJean-Léon Gérôme, The Snake-charmer, (1870). Cropped image of it appeared as the cover for the Edward Said’s seminal piece on Orientalism. Now the incriminating poster for Western pillaging in the Near East.

This drew our attention away from the fact that Asia is amassing power in the present. To begin with, thanks to India and China, there are more Asians on earth than any other race. According to this infographic, the Chinese family of languages (Mandarin, Cantonese, etc) is more widely spoken than any other language. Seven out of ten of the top spots on the Pisa education ranking went to Asian states (Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, and three Chinese states). China and Japan clinch the second and third spot on the global GDP ranking. Somehow, against the backdrop of WWII and recent political strife, Asia is prospering. There exists a world that’s entirely written in Chinese/Japanese/Vietnamese etc., and in that world, the soil is fertile for cultural appropriation of the West.

I’m not suggesting that things in the East neatly mirror the happenings in the West. This is not an essay about equivalence, nor is it a manifesto to instigate the Asian takeover of the world. Memories of a colonial past/Western superiority still exist in the psyche of Asia. The cultural appropriation of Western imagery in Asia doesn’t ignore or counter those memories. Instead, it processes and transforms conceptions of Western superiority to suit the needs/benefit of Asia, and this process could be damaging to the West.

How does it suit the needs of Asia?

Cultural appropriation goes hand in hand with consumerism, because perceptions of certain cultures spread primarily through consumer products. Consumer products are available even to the lowest common denominators in society. You don’t need an education or a noble upbringing to have access to advertisements and plain ol’ everyday objects. Everyone is a viewer because images are everywhere thanks to consumerism. Asian companies benefit when their branding espouses Western ideals and transforms them to appeal to consumers. This influences Asian perceptions of the West. From here on I’m going to use the specific example of the image of Marie Antoinette and its re-imagination in Japan’s romanticised/glamourised France.

swjKpEFan wallpaper of the 1972–1973 The Rose of Versailles manga series

The Rose of Versailles (or Berusaiyu no Bara) was a popular manga series that started its run in 1972. To the best of my knowledge, the series’ narrative didn’t really rose tint Antoinette’s fate. She ended up guillotined all the same, no head and all. The aesthetic legacy that this manga left behind, however, is arguably more influential towards contemporary perceptions of France.

To the uninitiated, Marie Antoinette was an icon of French excess in the years leading up to the French Revolution. She married into the French monarchy when she was 15, was portrayed in elaborate Rococo paintings in flowing satin and lace, and is most remembered for telling commoners to “eat cake” when the economy was crashing and the commoners were starving. For the record, I don’t think she actually said the cake line, but it is a useful distillation of what she represented to the French public. Wealth, a detachment from the common folk, ignorance, idleness. It’s an ugly facet of French history, and a story that inspires present-day French nationalism.

Today, her portraits are historical documentations of the monarchy’s lavish spending. Rococo paintings are seen as kitschy ghosts of the pre-Revolution past and seem only to be celebrated in cutesy “French-themed” cafes.

vlbmarose3Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun, Marie Antoinette with a Rose, (1783). She won’t be smiling like this any longer. A bit hard to smile without a head.

In The Rose of Versailles, Antoinette’s bouffant hair and equally bouffant bows were resurrected to convey glamour. The new manga Antoinette is adorable, pretty, unabashedly elaborate, romantic and pink. She now sports curly blonde hair instead of the historically accurate powdered white wig. This image of a romantic and rose-scented France pervades East Asian advertising, especially for products marketed toward women.

The manga image of Antoinette lives on in the branding of Isehan’s Heroine Make line of cosmetics. Antoinette’s historical significance is left completely out the picture and she appears as a dismembered aesthetic, a figure that only serves superficial decorative purpose. She has the same 1700s court attire on, but decked out in pink, and it looks like she has gotten a white kitty cat with luscious eyelashes. Note that there is no mention of where this image came from. If we take The Rose of Versailles‘ portrayal to be an intermediary, then the Heroine Make advertisement is the finished product.

10294968_510138862465204_2952821205769443809_oAn advertisement for an Isehan Heroine Make gift set of eye makeup. I don’t know what year this is from but I bought mascara from this brand a few days ago and the packaging looks pretty similar.
laduree-makeup-lm-harajuku-store-blushA delectable assortment of makeup products from Les Merveilleuses de Ladurée. Took this pic from Universal Doll.

Such a transmutation of pre-Revolution French imagery isn’t isolated to manga and Heroine Make cosmetics. It persists insidiously in other companies as well. It’s a pretty widespread phenomenon all over East and Southeast Asia. The above image shows a collection of cosmetics from the brand Les Merveilleuses de Ladurée. Ladurée is itself a macaron brand that originates in France, but these Merveilleuses are a sister brand that only markets itself in Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan. It profits from the appeal of the fictional romantic France.

The Antoinette Café in Singapore adopts the same imagery for its branding. According to its website:

Antoinette invites you to share our joie de vivre in our beautiful surroundings reminiscent of an elegant boudoir with an excess of meticulously crafted cakes, pastries and fine food as the Queen descends on Singapore’s shores. Marie-Antoinette, the last Queen of France who was so often revered for her extravagance and fine taste opens her humble abode and presents a tantalizing treat for the senses both savoury and sweet.

This quintessential Parisian pâtisserie and salon de thé will set the benchmark for the pastry and dessert scene not only in Singapore, but also in the region with her takes on time-honoured French classic desserts. While our restaurant promises a savoury celebration of Chef Pang’s culinary prowess with an excellent selection of classical regional French fare.

Incontestably, L’élégance â la Française at it’s best!

Doesn’t this sound like cultural appropriation to you? It sells the Antoinette lifestyle to an Asian audience. Pink, powdered, perfect.

How on earth could this be detrimental to the West? Doesn’t this reinforce Wester superiority?

Well, a fantasy is a fantasy. It does encourage tourism from East and Southeast Asia. I don’t think Paris would be as popular a tourist destination if we didn’t believe in its supposed inherent romance (their public transport is really shitty and there’s dog poo everywhere). But at the same time, it erases actual struggles in France from the East and Southeast Asian consciousness. When we think France is beautiful and scattered with rose petals, we don’t hear about the centuries old racism against Romani people, we don’t hear that France also has a large black and Arab population, we don’t hear that the current unemployment rate rests at 9.5%, and we don’t care about the Syrian refugee crisis hitting Europe. An airbrushed, culturally appropriative image of Antoinette might indirectly benefit the upper echelons of French society (especially if they are young blonde women with a penchant for pink bows), but it directs our attention away from the real problems. What happens when an excitable Chinese tourist goes to Paris and sees a homeless family? Are they stains on her perfect holiday? France is a complex country. A homeless beggar in Paris is as French as the quaint little cafe next door.

So? Now what?

I’m not proposing that we persecute everyone equally and that we impose some sort of tariff on cultural exchange. It’s inevitable that ideas mix and meld together to produce a new melange of values. That’s how cultures evolve in the first place, and that’s how populations communicate across borders.

What I do propose, however, is that we read a little more, ask a few more questions, and try our best to glean a more accurate picture of any culture we are considering. Humanity is complex and nothing is as simple as an image.

Peace in the Face of Anxiety

innocent.jpg

Francis Bacon. Study after Velaquez’s portrait of Pope Innocent X, detail. (1953). Incidentally this is also how I feel when I’m experiencing a panic attack.

 

This post is for people who are currently enduring frequent panic attacks and/or an anxiety disorder. I’m waiting for the tide of my own disorder to pass (and as the public health system would have it, I’m also waiting an eternity for my first therapy session), and I figured that it would be purposeful for me to share some tips for coping. One panicked person to another.

Welcome to the Panic Club. I know you didn’t think this would be happening to you. Mental illness is a poorly inserted plot device in soap operas. You read about it on the can in a feel-good Facebook post, sandwiched between pictures of cat memes. It doesn’t feel like something that would become your reality. But now it is. And it won’t let you forget it because your every waking moment is spent trembling or in anticipation of trembling. Personally, I never realised how slow time could pass until panic attacks entered my life and stretched every second thin. On my worst days I would look at the clock and descend into yet another attack because it was only 12:47PM and I already exhausted my list of “Relaxing and Distracting Activities”.

Chances are that you have always been a high-performing go-getter. You are used to swallowing and dealing with exorbitant amounts of stress, and this makes your panic attacks all the more unexpected. But this is what happens when you put too much on your plate—it breaks. After this, it’s really difficult to maintain any sort of image of yourself when you cannot even satisfy the minimum for being a functioning human. The first step to recovery is pretty simple. You have to swallow your pride and accept that you need to recover, because you have an illness.

 

Don’t beat yourself up over your attacks.

The panic attacks will already beat you up for you. An anxiety disorder is an illness in all sense of the word. It comes with symptoms, treatment protocols, prevention techniques, and is well-documented in medical journals. You’re not weak, you’re not crazy or abnormal, you’re not failing at living. You’re ill. A particularly bad case of the flu would also set you back in your work. Anxiety disorders are exceedingly common. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, anxiety disorders affect 18% of the population in USA. That’s about one in five, and you are that one in five. No biggie.

Self-compassion is more important than self-esteem.

How you feel and how you live your life shouldn’t be dependent on how you value yourself. You can be confident about your appearance, your talents, your intelligence etc., but the fact is that these things falter. Sometimes you’re not confident. You have lousy days and there are moments where experienced musicians miss a note. What is important then is that you be kind to yourself and offer yourself the time and space to rest. It’s okay if you make mistakes, it’s okay if you don’t know who you are anymore. All you have to do is breathe and relax. Let yourself recover. Let yourself cry. Make yourself a hot cup of tea. Make some fancy au naturel bread spread to decorate your morning toast. Do soothing things to cheer yourself up. If you’ve always been working hard and you’re at your breaking point, then don’t work for a day. Take a break.

Start by doing things badly.

I got this from this article and it has helped me tremendously in my own recovery. Anything worth doing is worth doing badly. If you’re afraid of tasks and new activities, then you don’t have to turn the dial up all the way. Start where you’re comfortable, and sometimes that means doing a shitty job at a worthwhile task. Let yourself transition into unfamiliar territory. Warm yourself up to failing. Fumble around with the basics. You can only go up from there and eventually, you’ll be doing a fine job.

You are not alone.

Put your pride aside and confide in your loved ones. Be as open as you can about your mental illness because it’s not anything to be ashamed of, and you need all the help you can get. If you haven’t spoken to your mum in years, now is the time to ask for help. If you feel a panic attack coming on in a conversation, let your friends know and excuse yourself from the table. You don’t have to go through this alone. You’d be surprised at how kind even strangers can be. People can recognise humanity in other people. They will see that you need help, and they will offer you wet wipes, a bag to puke in, a space to sit down etc.

Surround yourself with reminders of love.

Change the wallpaper on all your devices to pictures of happy times, pictures of your dog, your flowers, your mum, your partner, a toy from your childhood. Put items with personal significance near where you will be most of the time (your bed, probably). Find your class rings, friendship bracelets, birthday cards, posters, teddy bears and mix tapes and put them in visible places around the room. Make a playlist of songs that remind you of your friends. It’s easy to forget how beautiful your life is when you’re down with an anxiety disorder because panic attacks cloud your immediate senses. You can resist that if your immediate environment contradicts what your attacks are telling your mind. Remember: you are loved and you love so many others.

Cry. Be vulnerable.

Don’t hold anything in. If you are nauseated, go puke. If you’re welling up inside, just burst into tears and cry until you run dry. If your stomach feels queasy, go sit on the toilet and leave when you’re no longer upset. If you feel like running out of a room, get up and run (avoid roads though, our goal is to keep you alive too). This illness will take a toll on your body. But don’t fight it if you desperately need some release. This is the result of years of pent up frustration. You need to let it go.

You are a surfer, ride the waves.

If your panic attacks develop into a prolonged anxiety disorder (characterised by anticipatory panic attacks, which is a fancy term for panic attacks that you ironically get because you are so terrified of getting panic attacks), you will be experiencing waves of attacks. You drift in and out of them and you never quite catch a break. The more you fight the attacks, the more anxious you will be about consciously staying strong and getting better faster. It doesn’t help and it’s unnecessary. Basically the only thing you have to do is breathe and not die. A good friend of mine who has been with this affliction longer than I have gave me this piece of advice—imagine you’re a surfer and ride the waves. At this point in your disorder, you’ve already been through many attacks. You’re like an expert on them. You’re a seasoned panicker. You already know the symptoms. Treat the attacks like an old friend. Let them come and they will go.

Life can be scary but give yourself the time to figure things out.

My anxieties were centred around vague and abstract fears of uncertainty. I had just graduated from university and I couldn’t understand what my identity or life was outside the context of school. I didn’t know how to be a good human being because I only knew how to be a good student. I didn’t know how to measure success. I was so confused and thrown out of whack that I couldn’t complete simple tasks like brushing my teeth. It all felt meaningless. Not in a depressed kinda way but almost in a logical kinda way. It really felt like there was nothing left for me to do. Perhaps you feel that way too, and if you do, your job now is to keep yourself alive until you figure out the next step. Think about previous moments in your life when you felt lost. You eventually found something worth dedicating your time to, and there was a period of comfort and belonging prior to the panic attacks. You will find such comfort again at some point in the future. Until then, let’s just eat and sleep and keep ourselves breathing. Do it for your loved ones.

 

Write things down.

Words bring clarity to the fuzziest of thoughts. When you feel well enough to sit up and do simple activities, consider keeping a journal of your experiences with anxiety. Note when your attacks occur and jot your feelings down so you can track your triggers. Attacks often happen without obvious or rational triggers (e.g. I got an attack because my curtains weren’t closed all the way and I couldn’t make a decision about leaving them that way). It helps to have a record to narrow the possible causes. This makes managing your attacks easier and it also provides an outlet for some release. Do certain foods make you more susceptible to attacks? What time do they occur? Do the nights comfort or agitate you? You will have a few clues if you track your recovery.

 

morning-sun.jpg

Edward Hopper. Morning Sun. (1952).

The Scheduling Club and Some Thoughts on Graduating

***Disclaimer: Look away if you’re not from Yale-NUS. If you aren’t from here this post will just be a sappy mess of boring nothing. ***

So I just came back from the Scheduling Club’s last performance. I’m trying to get used to doing all the last things around campus. I finally got my ass to go to the gym (thanks Josh for making me promise you, and thanks Annette for teaching me the wrong way to use the rowing machine thing). Someone recently asked me if I could sing for the upcoming formal dinner and I said okay because it’s probably going to be the last time for me to get over my crippling stage fright issues. Very soon I’m going to be having my last meal in the dining hall, and I’m going to put my last cardboard box on a taxi with too much citrus Air Wick spray.

I don’t feel ready for all this.

And I can’t believe I just heard the Scheduling Club sing for the last time. I won’t hear that combination of voices again. That’s it. Things begin and things end and the present won’t stop becoming the past. It’s so baffling how you can be totally immersed in something when it’s happening, and then in the next instant, that something is completely inaccessible.

I can remember very clearly their first performance in the RC4 multi-purpose hall. It was raining and the water somehow leaked into a circuit and triggered the fire alarm. They were in the middle of singing Imogen Heap’s “Hide and Seek” and I remember thinking “hey isn’t that the chorus from that Jason Derulo song”. (Incidentally that’s quite reflective of the type of basic ass person I was back then.) Thank goodness we are no longer in a building that triggers the fire alarm when it rains. But then again I kinda wish we were.

 

 

Is Xiaxue Transphobic? What Does All This Even Mean?

I’ve been meaning to write about this since two weeks ago but thankfully I waited because a textbook case of the issue I’m about to describe just unfolded in the local Twittersphere (which is more like a Twitter knitting circle). This issue’s kinda complicated so it’ll be good if you can read this in a quiet spot with a notebook, a vaporising analgesic ointment of your choice and an open mind.

Ok enough teasing, here we go.

PART I: What just happened? What is this about?

Xiaxue just landed herself in the eye of a #progressive-teen-identity-politics-hate storm and allegations of transphobia have been pouring on the blogger since she tweeted about K Pop group Monsta X.

This is the tweet in question:

screen-shot-2017-02-26-at-12-59-57-pm

She made this comment after encountering Monsta X fanatics at the airport. No prizes if you can guess what the specific offending term was (it’s “trannies”).

There are a few other tweets which have been identified as problematic.

For example:

screen-shot-2017-02-26-at-1-44-06-pm

Given Xiaxue’s trademark devil-may-care tactlessness and her penchant for tossing social media molotov cocktails, it was only a matter of time before she would become embroiled in identity politics. The ground is fertile after the tension left behind by the ugly 2016 USA presidential elections. People within the US are participating in large organised protests to voice their discontent with the Trump administration, and people on the periphery are invested in their own battles in other corners of the globe. Just two weeks ago fashion model Karlie Kloss was berated for participating in a Vogue editorial which perpetuated cultural appropriation. The photoshoot was set in an exoticised vision of Japan and Kloss was costumed in derivatives of traditional Japanese dress. The Oscar-nominated musical La La Land is also under the radar for featuring an all-straight cast in a movie about show business. I think Xiaxue herself anticipated that she would be going through her own episode soon; she recently spoke out about hypocrisy on the internet and the indiscriminate use of accusatory terms like “racist” in a YouTube video. It seems like the progressive left has indeed gone rabid, and even public figures with a track record for supporting leftist causes are not spared (Xiaxue has spoken out against homophobia and has been an avid supporter of the local Pink Dot movement, and Karlie Kloss set up a coding scholarship for young girls to pursue a career in the male-dominated field of computer engineering).

Right now Xiaxue is facing the wrath of both K Pop fans and #woke teenagers, and that really is quite the combination. In the last day or so, she has received accusations of transphobia and virulent attacks on her 4-year-old son Dash. (It was really quite disgusting to see so many people deride her for perpetuating harmful ideas and in the same breath they drag her toddler son into the storm but that’s another story for another day.)

Transphobia, cultural appropriation, racism, sexism, homophobia. These are now internet age buzzwords. I don’t deny that these words carry a lot of weight and are useful descriptors for larger systems of entrenched discrimination in academic discourse, but most people are not formally educated on the nuances and complexities of these terms. These words transform into convenient, one-dimensional cusses on the tongues of the uninitiated. What do these terms really mean? What does it mean to be transphobic, and what do we do with the knowledge of someone’s alleged transphobia?

PART II: System VS the Individual

None of the issues that these buzzwords reference are simple. They’re all confusing, tangly messes, and they’re made worse because there are personal ramifications on the most vulnerable strata in society.

Take for example sexism. Sexism isn’t a one-way assault from the oppressive male onto the subjugated female. In many households, mothers transfer gendered expectations onto their own daughters. They ask their daughters to cover up before heading out, they expect fellow women to be more ladylike, they let their sons play outside while the girls stay home to prepare dinner. Men are also victims of sexism; male rape victims self-censor because of the emasculating stigma attached to victimhood, their role as parents is undervalued, people are less empathetic towards divorced fathers in custody battles, etc. Feminists argue among themselves if the hijab (Muslim headdress) is the embodied symbol of patriarchy, and there is no clear answer.

In the case of transphobia, there are 2 points to note. First, the term “tranny” has been unapologetically adopted by individuals within the trans community and it has positive connotations in older generations of activists. Take for example our local comedian Kumar. He has carved a career from performing stand-up comedy in drag, and he regularly makes self-deprecating jokes about being a “tranny” or a “bapok”. The term has been reclaimed in adversity to reinforce solidarity within the trans community (we also see this phenomenon with the N word in African-American circles). This complicates the term’s usage. It’s been normalised for some people, but remains offensive to others.


This is a great short video about his road to fame and about the personal sacrifices he made to be the trash-talking Kumar on stage.

Second, the mathematical divide between terms like “homosexual”, “queer”, “drag” and “trans” is a relatively new phenomenon and not everyone is familiar with the semantics. Take for example the 1969 Stonewall riots. The New York City riots are considered by many to be the galvanising movement for gay activism in the USA, and the Stonewall Inn housed a gathering of all sorts of “abnormal” folk. Transvestites, trans people, cis homosexual men, lesbians and other individuals were fed up with the way they’ve been violently treated by the authorities and there was backlash. Distinct categories were not a thing back then. Back when the movement was in its infancy, it was a hodgepodge of social misfits fighting for fair treatment. I think present-day definitions of “gender” and “biological sex” stem from Judith Butler’s seminal text on gender performativity, and in that text she analyses drag performances as an embodied reaction towards male-female sexual difference, but that’s really esoteric knowledge and we can’t expect most people to know that. This sort of knowledge is available at approximately $22,000 a year at an exclusive university. In any case, it’s really confusing to bring up these complicated terms in a heated debate because most people won’t understand the distinctions.

What’s my point? My point is that these problems are complicated, systemic, and larger than any individual. Transgressive acts are not isolated choices in the lives of a few blame-worthy public figures. They are already embedded in culture and racism, sexism etc manifest in many different ways in our day-to-day lives. People can be placidly and passively complicit in perpetuating harmful stereotypes without even knowing it. I’m not saying that we should toss all our progressive ideals out the window and start singing the kumbaya when we think someone is being unfair to a minority group, but I’m saying that lone individuals are not responsible for the crushing weight of systemic discrimination. We need to give everyone a chance to understand the nuances of these issues. What are we doing when we jump the gun and call someone racist/transphobic/etc? We’re missing a valuable opportunity for progressive dialogue, and no one will leave the conversation wiser.

 

PART III: Nobody is a villain in their own story.

Everyone operates on reason given the information and resources available to them, and no one is a one-dimensional evil villain. This is why even the blatantly racist don’t consider themselves racists—it’s never as simple as someone hating someone on pure account of their race.

If you’re a white person and you’ve spent your entire life in a desolate midwest town away from people of other races, and everyone around you relies on Facebook clickbait and Fox news for information about the coastal cities, then of course you’re going to think black people are thugs. You don’t know any black person but thank god you don’t because they seem really dangerous, and you’re afraid. The TV keeps showing violent images of Black Lives Matter protests and businesses are going up in flames. When a white police officer, someone you’ve been taught to admire, shoots a suspicious-looking black man, what are you going to believe?

You’re not going to believe that you’re racist. You’re going to believe that you’re a reasonable, rational person who wants your family protected from hoodlums. You don’t think black people are bad because they’re black, but you are wary of them because you associate them with crime.

Here’s another example that’s a hot topic for debate: victim-blaming in rape cases.

Two things are simultaneously true:

  1. Many parents are worried sick about finding their daughter bruised and battered after rape. They will do everything they can to prevent that, and it seems to them that dressing conservatively will help, so they enforce it on their daughters.
  2. Statistically, rape cases have little correlation with a woman’s outfit because most perpetrators of rape are not strangers with straying eyes. Rapists select and groom vulnerable women/girls they are entrusted with. Controlling a woman’s attire does not help to prevent rape, and it takes away a woman’s agency over her own body.

Does this make parents the enemy? Are they deplorable sexists for controlling their daughter’s attire? Or are they expressing their concern and using the information they have to protect their family?

 

PART IV: What now?

In case it isn’t immediately obvious, I take left-leaning political stances and I have had the privilege of studying these issues at length in a comfortable academic environment (my own final research paper is about the polemical female image in selfie representations and writing this blog post constitutes procrastination). I am not advocating for racism or sexism etc to be overlooked.

To be clear about my purposes, these are my main ideas:

  1. Social problems are big and complex and they operate like systems. They are not the fault of individuals. It is not fair to blame a single person for something so big and complex, especially if they cannot understand.
  2. It is frustrating to listen to someone with a conclusion different from yours, but there will be greater progress if we make room for conversation.
  3. At the end of the day, people fight for the things they care about. People are not fundamentally good or fundamentally evil. They act on the things they truly believe in.

How do we make room for conversation? I don’t usually default to crusty men from the 1600s for advice because they were wrong about a lot of things, but here we can take a leaf from Blaise Pascal’s book:

When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.

Ok, I hope this has been helpful for you.

Surrendering Your Cards in the Patriarchy Game

The Women’s March on January 21 followed defiantly after Trump’s inauguration. What began as a nationwide grassroots movement for women’s rights grew into an international protest for a hodgepodge of liberal/leftist values; people paraded signs to call an end to police brutality, to champion equal rights for racial minorities, and to recognise the urgency of using sustainable energy sources. It was called the Women’s March and the name suggests a pretty straightforward fight for gender equality, but as usual, things got kinda messy because they involved diverse collectives of people. A woman wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat was reportedly kicked out of the protest. The Women’s March clearly happened on Democrat terrain, and was hostile towards the participation of Conservative-leaning women. (I think the bipartisan system in America has the tendency to polarise people and create pools for extremism on either end, but that’s a story for another day.)

According to the exit polls from the presidential election, 53% of all white women who voted placed their vote for Donald Trump. This lays in stark contrast with the 94% of black women who voted for Hillary Clinton. That’s nearly all of them.

Here’s a photograph from the Women’s March that illustrates that perfectly.

636209669899784796-image1-1

In the picture, Angela Peoples is holding the sign “Don’t forget: White Women Voted for Trump” and nonchalantly sucking on a lollipop. Behind her, almost as if composed and spray-painted by Banksy, stand three oblivious white women. Conveniently enough one of them looks like she’s taking a selfie, and we all know that’s the gestural cue for solipsism, don’t we. Also, it really doesn’t help that, taken out of context, the pink pussy hats make them look like ridiculous caricatures. Feminism is messy. Women disagree amongst themselves about what feminism should do, and some outrightly reject feminism.

Feminism is defined as the movement for the social, economic and political equality of the sexes, and the women at the Women’s march were protesting for different types of feminisms. After all, equality is not something you can qualify on certain terms. Does equality mean we are treated identically? Does it mean we earn the same amount of money? What about equal happiness, and how do we measure that?

And what is this blog post about exactly?

It’s about why feminism is contentious even amongst the supposed beneficiaries of the movement (women). If we’re all individuals with unique vantage points within a complex hierarchy and we’re all acting in self-interest to a significant extent, then life is like a card game where the stakes are high. We don’t want to play the most obvious hand, we don’t want to show anyone what we’ve been dealt, and some of us play beneath the table.

Let’s take another look at the definition for feminism:

Feminism is defined as the movement for the social, economic and political equality of the sexes.

Because feminism is a movement, it is inherently political. Maybe it shouldn’t be politicised because that rubs people the wrong way, but it already has been, because it’s an outward declaration of resistance, an active step in a defiant direction. When you support and subscribe to the values of feminism, it necessitates that you lay down your cards and surrender your weapons in the power play of social hierarchy. You have to bring everyone’s attention to the rules of the game, you have to admit that you’re losing and could be easily finished, or sometimes, you’re winning and you have to admit that you cheated.

Because I’m an erudite individual and I go to a fancy schmancy liberal arts college, this is the opportune moment for me to quote from a revered film classic. You know that film Django Unchained? Leonardo DiCaprio played the racist slave-owner who made his captives fight each other to their violent deaths. In reference to the slaves he controlled, DiCaprio was like “Why don’t they kill us?” He’s been owning slaves for decades and the slaves never acted against their cruel masters. If they really wanted to kill him one of them could just slit DiCaprio’s throat with a razor while shaving him. DiCaprio explained this all away with white supremacist ideas about the anatomy of the human brain, but the real answer is that sometimes, a movement that may benefit a collective of people may severely disadvantage an individual. If one brave slave slits the throat of his owner, it’s not enough to overturn the whole system of slavery. This one slave would probably be beaten to death as punishment, his story will be remembered as one of insolence from a lesser breed of human, and the American landscape remains largely unchanged.

Ok back to feminism. How exactly would outwardly supporting feminism disadvantage a woman? What does it look like when you surrender your cards?

Here are a few specific examples:

  1. You have to admit that you don’t look attractive naturally and you need a whole arsenal of beauty products to look beautiful. Nope, women aren’t beautiful creatures, we’re not mysterious seductresses. There’s no “something” about women. It’s all been a masquerade (read: “Film and the Masquerade” by Mary Ann Doane), and one to the tune of a 95-billion-dollar cosmetics industry. We’re not pristine princesses; sometimes we get explosive diarrhoea from cheap barbecues, sometimes we pick out our wedgies when no one’s looking, we get in-grown hairs on our armpits and we get yeast infections. When we shed our chicken cutlets, our spanx, our eyelash extensions and our Benefit Porefessional Primer, what’s left? If you’ve been depending on your looks to get you what you want, then what will happen to you once the secret’s out?
  2. You have to admit that you’ve been smart all along, but you’ve elected not to use your brain. You’ve been silently observing everyone and taking in information, and you’re a legitimate threat to the people around you. If you’ve settled with a wealthy husband, people will grow suspicious of you. You’ll look like a gold-digger, and in comparison to the other women who toughed it out in their careers, you’ll look lazy and unimportant. You’ve been intelligent all along, but you chose to do nothing with your smarts. This is a long-standing argument against the sort of values that emerged during Second Wave feminism. To many, it really doesn’t seem like feminism liberates women because women no longer feel like they can choose domestic work without judgment.
  3. If you’re middle-aged and married, it would be terrifying to look back on your life and realise that it’s been a series of unreciprocated sacrifices. Your brothers went to school but you didn’t, you settled down with the first man who could conjure a diamond ring, and you spent the rest of your life being someone’s wife and someone’s mother, never your own person. You put food out on the table and someone says it’s too salty, and after dinner, you clear the table alone. You’re already 50, what are you going to do now? Is it too late?
  4. Ladies get let into clubs for free because we’re not the customers, we’re the product. Men go to clubs for the holy trinity: booze, good music and sexy women. How are you going to rationalise your decisions to yourself now that you’ve found out? How many drinks will you let guys buy you, how many kisses are they going to steal, before you feel like you’ve betrayed yourself?
  5. And finally, my personal favourite: when you show your feminist streak, you’ll be a public loser. You’re admitting that you don’t like the way you’ve been treated, you’re a victim, and you’re broadcasting your insecurities. You don’t like your body, you are deathly afraid of ageing, you didn’t do anything when a man groped you on the bus. These things are deeply personal, and we don’t even want to speak about these things in regular conversations, let alone on blazing banners.

When you’re a feminist, you’re unattractive. You’re whiny and loud and your appearance is mere artifice. The patriarchal rules that bind women in an unspoken oath to their attractiveness, are the same rules that are broken when one identifies as a feminist.

Sexism is not absolute. It’s not a simple polarity, it’s not a lopsided black-and-white ying-yang. It’s a tangly mess of social conventions and restrictions that we learn to navigate from a  young age. Women have learnt to keep their mouths shut and to sit pretty. We check our partners’ phones when they’re not looking, we let the men get drunk first, we go to the toilet to adjust our bras and clean up our eyeliner. Some women are getting ahead in the game, and I understand why they don’t want to quit.

If you’re waiting for the paragraph where I steer the debate in a different direction and convince you all to be feminists anyway, it’s not going to happen. Don’t be mistaken, I still think that feminism is important and I’m going to fight very hard for it, but I also understand why so many women are intimidated. This a blog post for them, and a post for everyone else to understand why this issue is so complex. When it comes down to it, it really is a man’s world out there, and the sane and smart thing for women to do is to stay out of the fight but reap its benefits afterwards.

What do we do now? 

I don’t know, I don’t have all the answers. And to be very honest, it’s been very tempting to give up. Speaking so openly about social issues has earned me a reputation for being “so angry” or “agitated” all the time. It’s a paradox isn’t it? It’s smart to keep silent, but we can’t all be silent either, then no change will every happen. I guess I’ll just keep writing.

 

10 Things I Cannot for the Life of Me Understand

  1. How is it that the snooty café downstairs can sell a can of Coca-Cola at $3.40 when the vending machine in the same literal building sells it for $0.90? Whose decision is this? Which idiot is buying the $3.40 cans and sustaining their business?
  2. I’ve never had the urge to spit on the ground in my life. Why are so many men spitting on the ground? Just swallow it?
  3. Why are so many university websites so ugly? You’re a leading educational institution but you can’t hire a web designer?

    evs

  4. In Interstellar, why did they let a random dude who drove a truck through their facility go to outer space in their expensive rocket? Don’t you need a PhD and like astronaut gravity training for that?

    54d19382d7e85_-_esq-interstellar-carhartt-xxl
    Yeah say goodbye to your daughter for 70+ years you prick.

  5. Why must tissue boxes all have ugly designs on them? Just make plain ones? Your business isn’t at stake, everyone buys tissues anyway and there are only 3 companies.

    fairprice-tissue

  6. I don’t even know who’s fighting for what anymore in Syria and I do follow the news. I suspect nobody does and it’s worrying me that there’s so much devastation for something no one fully understands. If the Western media has a stake in it and it benefits them to portray Assad’s government as the primary antagonist, then I can’t believe so much that I’ve read. I know virtually ZERO and I’m useless anyway, I’m just some girl in a country far away with internet access.
  7. If you gave me the numbers and my A-Zone notecards from junior college I’ll be able to do some sick work with statistics but I will have no idea what any of the results mean. What is a z-test? I know how to do it but what is it?
  8. Why did Channel 5 market their red threads drama as a blockbuster BEFORE it even started airing? What block did it bust?

    3437041982_5b016e731b

  9. When I was 14 or 15 I went to the Singapore river on a field trip and there was this guy in a black and white striped polo shirt who came up to me on the bridge and made growling dog noises. Why did you do that, you scared the crap out of me.
  10. If prostitution is bad, girls should retain their virginity until marriage, homosexuality is a sin and young men are encouraged to go out and have sex, then who are they having sex with?

A Thought

What really scares me about the world is that, for some people, it’s not a matter of convincing them that something is true. They already know the facts and figures, they know that people are suffering and that the world is a terrible place. But they also like it that way. Some people want it to stay that way, and no amount of rational speech is going to sway them. They don’t give a shit about other people because it doesn’t mean anything to them, and that’s just the way things are supposed to roll. What do we do?

A Singaporean Feminist’s Opinion on NS

19337609Photo unapologetically take from TODAY.

Feminist writer Natalie Tan gives her 2 cents on national conscription and on its social implications, in the process reaping frustrations which were sown since the regiment’s implementation, and annoying everyone with the deliberate overuse of the word “feminist”.

So how’d you like the title? Was gunning for the most aggravating/abrasive title possible. Other candidates included:

  1. Chinese Singaporeans and NS
  2. Young Asian Female Looking for Trouble, click to find out more
  3. Should girls be enlisted in the Singaporean army?
  4. Amos Yee Opens Up About NS: The Interview

I also learnt to change my opening lines so that they show up in the link description on Facebook shares and provide a nice summary. Hopefully that does the trick to draw more eyeballs, because otherwise my opening lines have always been non-social media friendly.

Ok your time as an internet reader is valuable. Now that you’re here, are you ready for what I’m about to say? Are you really ready?

Ok here goes.

.

.

.

.

.

I empathise.

No really I do. I decided to write this because I came across the non-news that some Singaporean girl posted a video berating men who complain about NS, and she even compared their physical exertion to that of illegal immigrants. I didn’t watch the video because I didn’t quite feel like spending my data charges on this crap, but it did remind me that I have a lot of thoughts on the topic, and I don’t think there’s a lot going around the internet on the topic from the point of view of anyone in a similar social position to me. In fact, my intuition tells me that people skirt the topic because it’s so difficult to write about it without stepping on anyone’s steel-toed combat boots.

Ok, so I’ve organised the rest of this article to address central, pressing questions. They’re not really classy academic questions, but these are the ones that consistently pop up on discussion forums and are usually met with some Jack_Boi87 comment like “idk lah sua :/”. Not very informative.

Ok first question. Why do you empathise?

I understand why Singapore needs a military defence force. It doesn’t just function on a practical level in the event of war, but it’s also symbolic and a semiotic requirement for any entity claiming to be a sovereign nation. It’s part of the impression. A country will only seem legitimate if it has a government, its own currency and an army. I, however, acknowledge the artificiality of nationhood. Nations are relatively new and their conception coincided with the invention of the novel. Yesteryear’s ideas of colonial empires seep into our present understanding of what it’s like to be a strong polity.

That being said, I think it’s unfortunate and symptomatic of larger social problems that we prioritise the preservation of a nation over the lives of individuals. People with their own lives and concerns and ambitions are reduced to a mere statistic in news reports and budget proposals. The bodies of young men have been objectified and are assessed based on their utility. The army functions like a well-oiled fighting machine and each soldier constitutes a tiny cog. Here I’m going to echo a bit of Foucault (bear with me): the state apparatus depends on the docility-utility of bodies.

A lot of movies and novels make the idea of fighting seem more palatable and even honourable because sacrifice is something that is compatible with the male ego. If you spend a lifetime hearing warmongering messages about how men should prove their worth by showing that they can fight, and then you live in a social environment where it’s difficult to show vulnerability to your male peers, then of course you’re going to need some sort of outlet to earn some dignity. A boy becomes a man when he blows up trying to evacuate his team. After that he is very much a Real Man when his body is encased in mahogany with a flag draped over it. The reality of war is very different though. I reckon most soldiers die very anti-climactic deaths (they forgot something, the weather conditions weren’t favourable, they starved in the cold, they fell sick from bacteria in rivers, they spend 1 month travelling and then die after 10 seconds of gunfire etc). And when you’re on the field, your humanity still exists in you. Of course it’s beneficial for the army as a whole for soldiers to march fearless into battle, but are they really fearless? Will you be if you were activated in war?

These things were more apparent when the British colonisers imposed conscription on Singaporean youths in 1954. Protests broke out because Chinese high school students did not want to serve a state that they did not identify with, and their petition was met with violent action from the colonial government. After the dissolution of colonial rule, military conscription could be rationalised along nationalistic lines, and that’s where all the Singapore is a small country, if not me then who, if not now then when rhetoric comes in.

I know another grievance is that men feel like they have lost 2 years of their lives and they’re not competing well career-wise. I have the suspicion that this is exacerbated by the fact that women are 2 years ahead. It doesn’t sit well with a lot of men to have women as their seniors, especially if they’re younger. That perception is itself a problem, and to be quite frank I don’t think this is a real issue that will stretch well into your adult life, because 1) statistically, women tend to be in different industries anyway, and 2) the camaraderie built from the shared experience of NS will help you in male-dominated industries. Real deals are struck on the golf course, not in the office. Admittedly, it’s different when you’re looking to work overseas. I think it becomes an issue then, because people won’t have the knowledge that you’re 2 years behind because of compulsory military service. I can’t really comment on this aspect because I’ve never spoken to anyone old enough to form an informed opinion on the long term effects of NS on an overseas career.

What do you think of guys who chao geng?

Full on empathy because if I were a guy and I did NS I would definitely chao geng too lol (but then again maybe if I were a guy I would be more encouraged to play sports, then I would be fitter and it won’t be so daunting, idk). Some men will flourish in the army, and some men won’t. I don’t want to discredit those who do well in the army because it does take backbreaking work to get far. It’s not something people are just born with. What I’m saying is that so many men are uninterested, and some are even scared away from “manly” activities because “manly” men have been mean to them in school. I personally know many boys like that because they tend to gravitate towards female friends (we’re less intimidating and know not to make fun of them). They are more interested in things like drawing, gardening, knitting, childcare, writing etc, and some of them are really excellent in those areas. I can see why they would be lazy in the army. If I didn’t care about something then I wouldn’t do it. Simple.

I guess the controversy arises because Singaporeans see NS as a responsibility, a duty. If you are lazy then you’re just shirking your due responsibility and jeopardising national security. And on top of all this, it’s a test to prove that you’re a good man, and no accolades in fashion design or nature photography will ever bring you the same adulation. I think it’s hideous that we think that way, and in an ironic roundabout way, it might even promote belligerent behaviour and make living less safe for everyone. When people see the term “gender role”, they think about women and house chores, but serving in NS is also a gender role, one imposed on men.

I want to clarify that I think it’s a great thing that some men are so dedicated to serving and that they’ve defied so many odds to rise up through the ranks, but I also think it’s fine if men don’t do that, and that they contribute to society by excelling in other areas.

Do you think girls should serve NS?

I don’t know how to answer this question because my real answer is that, ideally, I don’t want anybody in the world to be in the military. No soldiers at all. But obviously that’s not going to happen, so I will try to answer again with that grim fact in mind. Let’s work this out together.

Hmm. Yes, but a transition towards that will have to carefully address and manage social differences so that it benefits our country and doesn’t damage other sectors of living. For example, I know a lot of girls want to get a university degree and be married first before having their first child, and considering that the risks of pregnancy increase after 30, we would like to have all this done before then. Two years of NS will zap so much time from that little window. Maybe NS can be introduced later, once the woman has already given birth? But then she’ll be more sluggish then right? Then again not all women want to have children, but it’s very difficult to make a definite decision about all this when you’re only 18 and you haven’t even met your first boyfriend. It’s also not very conducive to assume that women would give birth because if they don’t then they’ll be treated like selfish spinsters. I really don’t know. Maybe there can be a half-serve half-study scheme for everyone? But that won’t be vigorous enough right, how can anyone be operationally ready like that?

I guess social expectations of what a woman should be like will also have to change before girls are enlisted. I’m sure boys would be happier knowing that girls are enlisted and that seems more fair, but after they ORD, are they going to accept the tanned and muscular women in their social circles? Are men going to respect that a woman will have as much knowledge and experience in the army (assuming that in this hypothetical universe, we do indeed do exactly the same things)?

Maybe women can serve as nurses. That is compatible with current sexist standards of what women should do and how they should behave – caring, nurturing, attending to the needs of other people before themselves, domestic, docile. It’s useful anyway to have a large proportion of the Singaporean population trained in first aid. But if we go along these lines then it sort of defeats the purpose of enlisting girls for fairness’ sake, because serving as a nurse is not as physically demanding and they don’t have to put their lives on the line in the event of a war. I really have no idea how all this can work out.

Before we move on to the next question, it’s really important to point out that I think many women are more capable/suited than men to serve in NS. I had this friend who was the head of the St. John’s Ambulance Brigade and she was 1) very fit, more so than a lot of boys, 2) was always in leadership positions in sports, 3) very smart, one of the top students, 4) in admiration of military positions. I always thought she would have made an excellent soldier. I had another friend who was super interested in military planes and she knew all about them. She also had a really hardy personality. She also would have made a good soldier. I think we’re missing out on a lot when we gloss over people like them by virtue of their gender.

Are Singaporean girls pampered?

No, not anymore than your average developed country citizen. Singapore is a very wealthy nation, and the middle class here are expected to be able to afford treats like matcha tiramisus and S.E.A. Aquarium tickets. I think Singapore is a pretty pampered country in general, and the government is exceptionally paternalistic.

The answer changes if you switch the yardstick for measuring someone’s level of “pamperedness”. If you’re assessing a girl based on sexist ideas of what a girl should be like, then the millennial Singaporean girl would fall short on a lot. Here are a list of things that we are supposed to do:

  1. Cook and/or bake.
  2. Do all the house chores.
  3. Like and take care of children.
  4. Be loyal and faithful at the side of a boyfriend/husband who is a “man in the making” i.e. he has no money.
  5. Stay slim.
  6. Somehow look very pretty but don’t ask anyone for money to buy makeup and look pretty.
  7. Don’t talk so much, even if you obviously know more about something.
  8. Give birth.
  9. Be attracted to men who are not physically attractive/don’t have good grades/don’t have a job/have the courage to ask us out, because otherwise we’ll be shallow.
  10. Be attracted to Singaporean men otherwise we’re race traitors.
  11. Not go out so much, especially at night.
  12. Study hard and do well in school but then don’t do anything with your degree beyond a regular office job.
  13. Not hold any leadership positions, especially above men.
  14. Be virginal, the best case scenario being that you’ve never dated before.

Tell me, would you be able to obey ALL these rules? It’s difficult, and for a lot of us, it’s not even in our interest, so why would we? I guess if you hold these standards, Singaporean girls will be mighty pampered to you, but the news I have for you is that so are all other women in developed countries, and it’s not going to change your dating prospects, which we all know is the main point of the question. If you choose to stick by these standards, I suggest you work on your own personality, not because it will guarantee you a date, but because in general I think your personality needs work. You’re not entitled to a cooking and cleaning machine because you served NS.

Ok that’s about all I have for today, hope this was useful and interesting in one way or another.