Q

Month: July 2014

Kids

Didn’t expect leaving the pre-school to be this rough…

Don’t get me wrong, it’s EXHAUSTING herding little toddlers around all day. I have incredible respect for full-time pre-school teachers now. You’re literally on your feet ALL THE TIME: pulling fighting kids apart, removing play-doh from tiny mouths, cleaning poop, wiping butts, feeding, cleaning, reading stories, answering ENDLESS questions, singing repetitively, yanking stubborn ones out of playhouses… it never stops.

I was also surprised at how obstinate some kids can be. Washing poop off butts? No problem. But there were times where kids REFUSE to listen. You can’t lose your patience, because – KIDS. They are 18 months old you can’t reason with them on why trampoline time is over. You can’t stop them from screaming and kicking in protest because they can’t string a sentence together yet. The inability to channel blame on someone, and the helplessness when they insist on disagreeing – god it drives me mad. But THEN I LOOK AT THEIR TINY ADORABLE FACES AND I MELT.

This is really my undoing. I’m way too soft. Usually i end up cajoling. Even my firm moments are obviously collapsible with a little bit of whining AND THE KIDS KNOW THIS. That said, there are the sweetest ones that look at your adoringly and tell you things in the softest voice that kills me inside. Even the difficult kids have their moments. I LOVE ALL OF THEM.

One kid in particular reinforced how much of a failure-mom i’d be. He didn’t seem to understand or speak English, would go around knocking other kids about, refused to stay still for activities – basically he does the opposite of whatever he’s told to. At one point he fled the classroom and i went in pursuit of him, running around in the wet mud with my still half-broken legbutt. Caught up with him but he refused to be had. Just as i was at the brink of insanity i looked at his rosy chubby cheeksies and bright eyes and cutesy self and i exclaimed I LOVE YOU!!! and couldn’t help but hug him i wanted to kiss his lovely face forever omg i was insane.

Anyway he was so confused by my undue affection he froze – which was perfect cause i used the chance to whisk him back HAHAHA.

Yes. I want so badly to have kids i don’t even!!! These little ones are not mine and already i feel such a deep level of love for them. The things they say and do, their spontaneity and ingenuity, the unrestrained way they dance and ran and jumped and climbed and sang. Childhood is really one of the most beautiful things in life. I can watch them at play all day and not get sick of it.

I’d never be a kindergarten teacher as a long-term career, of that i’m sure. So i’m very, very glad to have had a chance to work there for a short time, just to be with kids: to be near their joy but also to learn how to manage them – behaviorally and with other house matters.

This sounds borderline creepy, but after quitting i’ve been dreaming of all the kids back at the pre-school. Altogether there are over a hundred of them, i’ve helped out with about 3-4 classes and i love them all equally but in different ways. KIDS ARE SUCH JOY.

–

In the coming semester, i’d be volunteering with children’s cancer foundation. I’d be working with kids too, but with entirely different dynamics. Not sure if i’m mentally strong enough to deal with kids who don’t have the childhood they deserve. Really hope so. xx

July 27, 2014
Confusing feminism with misandry

Before anything, i identify myself as an egalitarian. If i were to endorse feminism, it’s because gender inequalities are inherent in many parts of the world. No one – men or women – on the basis of being human, should be artificially disadvantaged. There are times, though, when arguments under the guise of feminism strike me as misandry. There is a difference between establishing equality by granting women the rights they deserve, and destabilizing men to equalize via inequality. That isn’t progressive, which feminism should be.

In some instances, radical feminism imposes the same constraints and judgments on their ‘less feminist’ counterparts. How is that any better than the patriarchy they so loathe? I’m talking about ‘feminists’ who strongly oppose willing stay-at-home moms/wives, who despise men for feeling the need to protect their spouses because it is ‘chauvinistic’ and ‘demeans women’s power’. Of course, that is a small minority of the feminist movement. But their voices are loud enough to color the positive and progressive campaigns by true feminists.

Why #womenagainstfeminism took root can be attributed to distorted understanding of true feminism, because of misandry-disguised-as-feminism. That, and because most of us are riding the waves of successful feminist movements prior to our time: the lack of perceptible oppression in our immediate society makes it difficult for those without contextual knowledge to empathize.

Having spent most of my life in a girls’ school, and surrounded mostly by SNAGs, gender divides to me appear arbitrary. I’ve never seen myself as a victim of gender prejudice. In fact, i think most social environments i’ve found myself in condemn discrimination of women, and are less hostile to females. This, strictly, is a form of positive discrimination – but hey people are being nice to me, i’d take it.

What i’m trying to say is: of course feminism should exist. Just as human rights organizations are significant, feminists are fundamental in grounding and furthering the progress of gender equality everywhere.

But it scares me how quickly #womenagainstfeminism were dismissed. The predominant sentiment online – and the one implicitly deemed ‘correct’/expected of open-minded individuals – is disbelief, disgust, and then jeering. It scares me because there i can understand the rationale behind some of their words, the very words considered wrong and regressive by most of the internet.

“I don’t need feminism because i don’t need to demonize men to make myself feel good.”

This line was tossed around many times, lost in a cloud of less meaningful claims. I don’t agree with the first part: we do need feminism. But yes, we don’t need the kind of feminism that demonizes men. Neither do we need a feminism that dictates what a woman shouldn’t do because it is considered demeaning to their gender.

Don’t dress up for men, don’t give up your career for your children, you don’t need men.

Feminism isn’t about that. It’s about the right of woman to do what they truly want, independent of social pressure of any kind.

We need #womenagainstfeminism to understand that feminism is necessary, but to do so we need women to understand what feminism actually is. By cracking down on them, invalidating their words and labeling them as obstructions to progress will only reinforce their distorted perception of feminist intolerance.

#Womenagainstfeminism are entitled to their opinion, just as any other woman is (feminist claim, right there). They are speaking out against a whole different set of oppressors – other women instead of men. The issue is complicated because of the muddy division between their oppressors (misandrists/extreme feminists) and the very people who freed them. Instead of reacting as they would expect feminists to, show them what real feminist is and isn’t.

July 24, 2014
WELL.

My previous post was really meant to read as satire, but never mind.

July 16, 2014
NLB’s action is pro-homosexual (in the long-term)

Until yesterday night, every time someone mentions NLB’s destruction of And Tango Makes Three, i feel my guts seize up with indignation. The country i have defended from scoffing, jet-setting friends; the country i optimistically believed was heading towards a culturally-rich and tolerant direction; the country i have always loved for its quaint old ways co-existing with dynamic modernism – IS. DESTROYING. BOOKS.

WEH. My heart.

BUT. The more i thought about it, the less sense it made. I’ve come to the conclusion that NLB’s move might actually be an insanely clever strategy that would ultimately benefit the pro-homosexual faction. What made their actions suspect?

Firstly, NLB is not stupid. It has after all curated millions of books, co-ordinating across libraries, conducted art and cultural events, festivals, programs. I refuse to believe that NLB can take the demands of anti-Tangos seriously, without detecting the illogic behind their rationale.

The greatest concern presented by anti-Tangos is that the book, being accessible to younger children, may ‘promote values’ they should not ‘exposed’ to. If the children in question are as young as supposed – that a story revolving around penguins can possibly inflame their infant libido for homosex, or somehow ground their lifelong beliefs about marriage – then wouldn’t the parents be present to function as a filter?

How the children interprets the book, or in fact if they even come into contact with the book, depends almost entirely on their parents. The onus is on them to either explain to their children that such relationships exist in reality and should not be condemned, or that such relationships are unnatural and unacceptable.

If your children are as impressionable as you have claimed, i am sure they will take your word over a picture book about antarctic birds they have just encountered. Are we that in doubt of our parenting, that the complete physical destruction of a book is necessary?

How about its value as a literary resource for parents who do want to educate their children on homosexual acceptance? By destroying the book, thus creating a literary void about homosexuals, we deprive the early exposure and understanding of homosexuals for children of such parents.

As i was saying, i would like to believe that NLB is not stupid. They must have weighed the arguments from both ends, and given the multiplicity of their committee, i would imagine much debate generated from both sides.

So why is it that NLB has chosen the extreme course of action? The very act of destruction brings to mind dystopian societies, Fahrenheit 451, oppression at the cost of literacy and culture, etc. NLB cannot possibly be blind to this. Could they not have transferred the books to the adults section, or limited access to it in the central library? Was pulping books really necessary?

Especially given the backlash from social media, why would NLB go ahead with such measures without an attempt at compromise to appease both camps? I think the anti-Tango parents would have been smug enough if these books were made restricted in the central library, beyond the grasp of impressionable young hands. That would leave pro-Tangos – parents or not – free to access and peruse them.

This was what triggered my suspicions that NLB’s ultimate goal may be more complex than publicly perceived. There’s more:

The PinkDot was a recent success. The calls for restriction against it – to fence up Hong Lim Park and ban people under 21 and/or are foreigners from PinkDot – were nowhere close to fulfilled. NLB, as part of the statutory boards of Singapore, would predictably echo the stance taken by the government: even if there was no outward endorsement of homosexuals, the government had at least symbolically indicated that homosexuals and their societal rights were considered.

The pulping of Tango, however, was in direct opposition to the supposed governmental stance taken. Not only did it yield to the demand of anti-Tangos, they went to the lengths of physical destruction – almost performative in their metaphor of how homosexual values should be destroyed and not ‘taint traditional family values’.

Why the confusing, contradictory messages sent out by each arm of the governmental body? First a victory against suppression by the homosexuals, then #achievementunlocked #bookburning by the anti-homosexuals. What is going on? Friends. This is where i propose a ludicrous conspiracy theory that bubbled and took form yesterday night while seething in quiet discontent.

NLB’s move was that of an ingenious, tactical mastermind. At the present, it somewhat maintains a balance between the crossfire between anti- and pro-homosexuals. In the long-term, however, where progress is inevitable, this incident serves only to advance the recognition and acceptance of homosexuals.

They have stoppered the escalating noise rising from anti-homosexuals after the WearWhite/ PinkDot, appeasing them with a token follow-through of their complaints. Will removing a book about penguins prevent the children of anti-homosexuals from future exposure, or from forming their own insights on the issue? No.

In fact, what is does on a societal level, in favor of pro-homosexuals, is much more powerful. What are the future consequences of destroying books, seen in conjunction with its surrounding societal context (PinkDot, global progression towards homosexual acceptance), and historical allegory (Fahrenheit 451, Stalin’s persecution, Mao’s cultural revolution, etc)?

Our kids will perceive the destroying of literature as oppressive, an obstruction to true progression. They will view the homosexuals as gagged, as unjustifiably persecuted. Our children will feel the same indignation i feel today for homosexuals, the same ones blamed for ‘playing the victim card’ but at the same time having their voices taken from shelves.

Our children, when they have their own minds and cannot have their rights snatched from their fingers, will be more sympathetic to the homosexual cause than they would have been without your complaints today.

So anti-Tangos, thank you for unintentionally steering the future of our society the right way. Thank you NLB for your tactical genius. Thank you.

July 12, 2014