Gender divides rather than unites in politics

So, the first female candidate to have made it so far and close to running (and assuming) American Presidency finally conceded defeat and threw in her support for a black horse in the race.

One year ago, Hiliary Clinton was literally a shoo-in for the Democrat choice for the White House. But a year later, she failed to live up to the promise and handed the candidacy to a(n almost unknown) first term senator politician.

The guy who is on the way to becoming the first (Black) President, if he were to be a little less careful with his words in the race against straight-talking John McCain.

So what went wrong with the power lady?

Much has been talked about how her charming hubby was more a liability than an asset in the race. Also, how she made the wrong choice to go for the bigger states than chasing the caucuses like Obama.

And her blips during campaigning (like her claims to coming under sniper fire during a 1996 visit to Bosnia).

As a member of the fairer sex, however, the singular question that I think really begs an answer is really this: Is America ready for a female president?

If the results of the primaries are anything to go by, the answer will be negative.

Further by virtue of the fact that a Black (male) has triumphed over a White (female) candidate, the next question that really begs answering is whether America is more ready for a President from an ethnic minority group than a female president.

But perhaps before we can jump to any conclusion, there is a third question that begs answering. That is, how far does American women identify themselves with Hiliary?

This is perhaps the very weakness of any political campaign (that is intentionally or unintentionally) underpinned by an overture on gender representation.

The idea of a lady president may be an appealing selling point to women voters. But this will only work if the candidate in question is able to find a voice that connects women across social and racial boundaries.

Unfortunately, Hiliary wasn’t able to get that universal endorsement from women voters. She was a polarising figure, attracting staunch support and dissidence at the same time.

Many were disappointed with how she handled Bill’s infidelity. Yet, there are also others who sympathsized with her and complimented her forbearance.

Her cold, businesslike demeanour won endorsement from some women but turned others off.

For female voters (see http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3129/why_women_hate_hillary/) have looked to an alternative representation of American politics with more feminine traits like a softer touch, more compassionate rather than rational stance towards international issues like the Iraq War.

But Hiliary failed to represent what these women are looking for. Neither did she win the men over with her political machoism.

What all these show, really, is that gender may be more a liability than an asset in the political battleground. Women continue to be judged (by both the same and opposite gender) on the basis of their gender in a field that is not traditionally feminine.

And there’s hardly any middle ground on those issues like how one should deal with marital infidelity. That will continue to divide the feminist movement throughout the history.

New wise mother, good wife

Past – Wise mother, sweet wife, stay-at-home mom. Passive and obedient women were thought to be perfect wives.

Present – A wife who earns a lot of money, makes smart money investments, and looks gorgeous. She must be good at housekeeping, raising and educating children.

So the Korean series “Modern Housewives” also known as “New wise mother, good wife” begins running on national TV with a definition of an ideal wife and mother from the eyes of a jaded sole breadwinner and newsmaker.

The husband to a full-time housewife (part-time supermarket cashier) is now a disgruntled white collar, struggling to cope with the demands of a sandwiched middle class. The wife, for her lack of sophistication and economic independence, is a liability rather than an asset, her role as a homemaker is taken for granted, her daily struggles to cope with the required tasks are considered as signs of incompetency and her contributions never appreciated.

A situation that is typically facing most single income Asian families. What was once a slogan taken by the first wave Japanese feminists to empower the women with political will, ‘wise mother, good wife’ or ‘good mother, wise wife’ had been reinterpreted to serve the needs of chauvnistic societies. The good woman is one who will sacrifice herself for her family welfare, regardless of whether she is a full-time homemaker or co-breadwinner.

And so, modernity in Asia has ironically enslaved rather than free the modern women. Marriage remains a chauvnistic shackle for the modern woman, it would seem. But the modern housewives in ‘New wise mother, good wife’ would beg to differ. Divorce is not the only way out, nor is economic independence the only means to gain respect. The key is to free oneself from the ideology of a ‘wise mother, good wife’. The modern woman has to embrace her own individuality first, before her husband or her family.

She is not afraid to give and forgive, but her emotional generosity should not compromise her standing in the family or society.

‘New wise mother, good wife’ offers a fresh take on the dilemma facing the modern woman, man and family. Not only does it seek to break away from traditions that confines individuality, it also re-affirms the spirit of humanity.

Can we be made equal?

Race, sex/gender, age, appearance, nationality, wealth, intelligence.

Every man/woman is marked by traits, some in-borne, others acquired, but nonetheless traits that would define his/her standing in society, justified or unjustified.

Some of which are inherited by virtue of birth, not of personal choice or merit. But they have come to define us. We do not choose to be borne men or women. Neither do we have a choice on our parents or our siblings or the nation we are borne into, all factors which would come to shape the world’s perception of our being or our perceptions of the world.

Yet humans have attempted along the way to temper with their fates.

Education, (im)migration, plastic surgery, sex-change operation.

Social, scientific or plain blasphemous – human civilisation has picked up ways to take control of our own destinies.

Education is the key to wealth creation – ‘Give a man a fish and you feed him for the day, teach him how to fish and you would feed him for a lifetime’.

If we are not happy with where we are – there is the option to uproot and leave in search for our next promising lands.

And if age, looks or gender get us down in our life options, we could look to plastic surgery or sex-change operations.

Humans have picked up the ropes, but not all these approaches work out flawlessly or at without any costs. For the idea that we are all citizens of the world remains an unattainable ideal. Despite what we would like to believe – that the world is everyone’s oyster – some will have a greater share than others. Not by virtue of who you will become, but by virtue of where you start from. And we remain slaves most part through our lives to our own self-interests. No one single human – save for the greatest ones in history perhaps – will forgo his or her own interests or the interests of his or her own tribe entirely for the greater good of everyone else.

And so we continue to judge and be judged by skin colour, race and nationalities.

And so we try harder to change the visible traits with which others judge us. Some choose to go under the knife of a plastic surgeon to correct the ‘flaws’ – to lighten up the skin tone so one could pass as a person of another race or even gender. Looks matter even more in modernised and capitalised societies where the first impressions count in passing the entrance exams to some jobs.

But are these indeed the answers to one’s prayers to be the every man and woman one wishes to be?

Sadly no. Despite the human efforts at transcending the boundaries – to play god for our own good – people remain judged by what they are borne with and not what they have become. People who go under the knives to improve their looks are considered plastics, those who change their gender are perceived as freaks.

Humans want to play god, but we don’t seem to be able to unload the burden of humanity.

So we question and challenge the rights of those who try to do so. But it doesn’t stop us from trying to test the boundary. Now we aren’t quite happy to stop at changing the physical attributes – we want to improve our genetic make-up, defy life and death.

Yet we remain trapped by our double standards. Dolly, the clone, will remain the Frankenstein, and never the sheep. Because Dolly is the first to re-write history and traditions long-held to be true and the guiding principles of morality. She could not be perfect as the first, and will always remain the sinner as the first.

Such is the dilemma of the human race – the want to be what one wants to be in the future held back by the want of being acceptable by the standards of the past.

No, we can’t be all equal, because there’s no equality in history.

*NB: Text should not be read as an unequivocal endorsement of plastic surgery, sex-change operation, stem cell research or cloning. Author remains a god-fearing human being who prefers to adhere to rather than challenge traditions. But this does not impede the author from applauding those who have the courage to try to do so.

Hana Kimi – The art of androgyny

Androgynous: (adj) a term derived from the Greek words άνδρας (andras, meaning man) and γυνή (gyne, meaning woman)that can refer to two concepts regarding the mixing of both male and female genders or having a lack of gender identification.

Above definition from Wikipedia.

In Hana Kimi, Ella (pictured centre in the above poster) of the Mandarin pop trio, S.H.E., won fans over with her hilarious personification of the trials and tribunals of a girl cross-dressing as a boy to enrol into an all boys school to get up close and personal as her idol (an accomplished athlete studying in the same school).

What doesn’t fail to entertain through the history of such cross-dressing series is the confusion that arises from mistaken gender identity. Of gay men who can tell a woman from a man better than other heterosexual men or women. Of (heterosexual) men doubting their own sexualities when they fell for these (wo)men.

Ultimately, it boils down to a single question – how far should our sexuality be tied to our gender.

And it is precisely because of this controversial aspect of the storyline that the series did not pass through the local censorship board unscathed. Crucial scenes capturing the dialogue between the female protagonist with her love counsel, a gay teacher, were heavily censored to remove any direct mentions of homosexuality – obviously an unpopular and taboo subject in an island-nation that cannot afford to put the sexuality of its limited population to test.

But what really puzzles me is why did the local TV station even consider airing Hana Kimi in the first place, knowing and understanding that gender confusion/(homo)sexuality is a major theme in the series?

Thankfully for me at least, I do not need to rely on local channels solely for my entertainment needs.

I couldn’t imagine deriving any joy from watching the censored version after watching and enjoying every bit of the uncensored original.

Fantasy couple: straight talking women on the rise

Just finished Fantasy Couple or Couple or Trouble, a Korean interpretation of Goldie Hawn’s 1987 classic, “Overboard”.

The female lead, Ana Jo is a rich and spoilt young lady, much well-known for her wilfulness and lack of tact – somewhat common traits among leading female characters in Korean production (see My Sassy Girl, My Love Patazzi).

If the popularity of these characters are anything to go by, the tide may be set for a change in the definition and representation of Korean femininity.

Korean Supermodel Han Ye Seul, who played Ana Jo in the series, has this to say when she spoke of the popularity of the lead character:

“When I see how popular characters like Ana Jo are, I realize that Korea is changing fast. The public is becoming more open-minded. It’s cool. Such a mindset is important for us to develop, isn’t it?”

Mark this day when he who thinks he knows all said this …

The same man who said he regretted giving Singapore women education and berated graduate women for not having enough babies had this to say when asked about the ‘noise’ raised against increasing ministerial salaries:

“The cure to all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government,” Lee senior told the Straits Times on Thursday, adding that it is “absurd” for Singaporeans to quarrel about ministerial pay and warned that Singapore would suffer it the government could not pay competitive salaries.

“Your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people’s countries,” he said.

Quote from CNN via Mr Wang.

Ain’t it strange how to some of the martians, women can only be categorised into worker female ants, baby producing machines or the ‘lowly subservient’ maids (blogger does not endorse adjectives in quotation marks, they are plainly an eunciation of what he who thinks he knows all possibly feel towards foreign maids)?

Am beginning to think I need to get a p**** transplant to fit in here in Singapore, because I can’t see myself aligning with any of the above categories, haha…

How self-reliant should we be?

We here refers to women, but I think my discussion will extend to men to a certain extent.

What triggered off this post is an article on Today (omg! I’m quoting the dreaded MSM again!) two days ago, which attempted to draw on the positioning of female politicians, namely German Chancellor Merkel, presidential hopefuls and fashion or sex icon, Hilary Clinton (minus sex icon here), Ségolène Royal (oh yah she is said to be sexy).

So Merkel as the androgynous German lady (congruent with the ‘cultural stereotype’) is criticised as cold; Clinton and Royal are questioned over their ability to function competently plainly because they play up their feminine traits.

So…

where does this leave us, the women in the streets?

Are we to be the strong woman hated by men but admired by women?

Or are we the wiley females, adored by some women, looked down upon by men and with disdain by a certain fraction of post-modern feminists who extoll self-reliance?

But before we align ourselves with any of these stereotypes, there is a fundamental difference between us the everyday women, and them the high flying politicans.

That is, in the murky world of politics, stereotypes are played up for their own sakes.

They are not meant to be extolled as virtues, but rather should serve as markers of self-interests, at least in the eyes of a discerning audience.

For as much as androgynity serves Merkel’s purpose in the German context, ’sex sells’ for Royal, and the ‘wholesome American woman who stands for the errant husband’ works wonders for Clinton.

But we aren’t Merkel, Royal or Clinton for that matter. And to elevate them to the pedestral of role models for women in postmodern age serves no purpose at all – at least not for the public interest, perhaps only for the interests of selected elites.

Women should not have been considered as a single entity, despite how it is presented at times as distinct constituencies to suit the agenda of political savvy few.

The same could be said of our fellow beings from mars, or a race, or a nationality.

Let’s take a step back and embrace our individuality.

Ramblings on treatment of extramarital affairs

Having an extramarital affair may be a big boo boo for public figures in Singapore and serve to taint the image of politicians in America, but it’s not likely to make a big difference amongst French.

The MIW in Singapore will probably rather die than be caught with another woman or man for that matter, (other than their legitimate partner) in bed. It certainly isn’t going to sit well with their spanky clean image. But it ain’t much difference in the so-called liberated U.S. where the much adored Bill Clinton has to suffer public ‘flogging’ for his indiscretion with an intern. Now the situation will be entirely different for Clinton if he were the President of France rather than the U.S. The French appear to be totally blase towards Jacques Chirac’s confession of his extramarital affairs in his biography which made headlines elsewhere but not at all in France.

Baffled by the nonchalance of the French, the Brits put this question out to a French woman about a fortnight ago on the BBC. Apparently, Chirac’s public achievements appears to have overshadowed his private indiscretions in France. And while the feminists may scream foul play, the same freedom is also accorded to a married French woman. So if the Presidents are allowed mistresses, there’s no stopping any First Ladies from having their one night stands or affairs. But of course, the key is to handle these with discretion, which possibly explain the silence of the French media when it comes to such reportage. In fact, the French had found the Americans childlike in the handling of marriage or relationships.

So where does it place Singapore then? Are all our politicians or their wives or their families beyond reprimand when it comes to their personal lives or matters? I seriously think it’s impossible for anyone to be 100 per cent squeaky clean. Members of the opposition aren’t likely to be spared the heat from public scrutiny for any misconduct but I have doubts whether the MIW will be subject to similar treatment. I’ll say it’s more likely the silent treatment but it’s definitely not in the same class action as the French.

Whereas freedom and respect for privacy may be the French liberal operation modus, there is little or no appetite at all for such indiscretions in Singapore when it comes to public figures. That leaves no room at all for paparazzi and juicy exposes on our politicians in the majority league – unless of course, if and when they chose to step down.

Realistically speaking, no man and woman is a saint. I do not think our MIW and their families or for that matter, our Mediacorp artistes are entirely free of any blemish. I’m certainly not arguing for the value of paparazzi reports but methinks selective silent treatment has compromised the credibility of local press. Whether or not we ought to condone extramarital affairs has to be considered in conjunction with the respect for privacy (of the entire population not just the selected few). So if the ruling elites are spared the public embarrassment, it’s only fair the same should be extended to the man or woman in the street.

Do it the American or French way, but not a hybrid of both. You will only mess up nationhood with contradicting missives.

‘Double whammy’ for baby boomer women

Warning: Do not proceed beyond this point if you are planning to get married.

Houston Chronicle Monday Jan. 15 2007 predicts less for baby boomer American women when they hit retirement age, excerpts below.

Millions of upwardly mobile women of the baby boomer generation face the danger that retirement will bring a sharp downhill slide in lifestyle. Many of these women could suffer a greater decline in living standards in later life than their mothers did.

The retirement security of women is jeopardised by the same trends affecting men, but the threat to women is amplified by:

1. Higher rates of divorce and singlehood: Record numbers of women are heading toward later life without the backup of a partner’s savings and income. Unmarried older women have higher poverty rates than their male counterparts and much higher poverty rates than married women, according to government data.

2. Interrupted working years: Although baby boomer women generally have more education and work skills than their mothers, many quit jobs or worked part time to care for children or ailing relatives. Such efforts may be cherished by family members but they slash retirement benefits.

3. Long lives: At age 65, women are expected to live an average of three years long than men. This greater longevity magnifies risks to retirement security, including the danger than a woman will outlast her savings or incur medical costs without help froma house.

In addition to these factors, women overall still earn less than men and have less in the way of retirement benefits for old age.

What Houston Chronicle recommends for baby boomer women: Do more themselves to prepare for the long haul, ie saving more and working longer.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ladies, let’s face it:

1. It’s not possible to count on others now – women in the postmodern world are expected to stand on our own feet, as far as men are required to do so.

2. We have to be prepared to work past 65 even for the duration of our lifetime. More often than not taking on the role as the primary caretaker in a family unit, the postmodern women carry the double burden of retirement planning for both their parents and themselves.

3. The insecurity of marriage as an institution in postmodern living speak volume of a need to plan for oneself aside from contributing to a family unit. Hmm, marriage doesn’t sound like an attractive proposition anymore, does it?

Does Islam encourage submission of women to men?

A question triggered off by an earlier comment from strangeknight on how ‘arabisation’ of malay culture has possibly changed the perception of gender performativity amongst muslim women in Malaysia. Given that ‘arabisation’ of cultures is often associated with the spread of Islam – see quote from Arts, Culture and Heritage Minister and wiki’s definition – this really sets me thinking as to whether Islam does in fact, encourage the submission of women to men.

It ain’t quite surprising that the evidence refuting an affirmative to my question has to come from the research findings of a presumably Muslim Malaysian woman.

In her research tracing the genealogical interpretation of Islamic teachings pertaining to women’s role, Raihanah Abdullah^ argues that the original intent of Islam was to ‘improve the position of women’ over their ‘inferior status … during the pre-Islamic period’.

So in comparison to the pre-existing ‘practices and customs of the pagan society’ where

1. Women were considered as property and not given any rights to determine their own lives
2. Female infanticide prevailed for the reasons of shame and poverty
3. Women were perceived as not being able to contribute to their own tribes
4. Unlimited polygamy and divorce as well as payment of dowry to the father

contributed to the inferior status of women in the pre-Islamic period, the Qur’an revised these customs to suit the spirit of Islam which advocates ‘principles of equality, justice and humanity in an Islamic society’. Hence,

1. A Muslim man may marry up to four wives simultaneously (ie restricting polygamy)
2. Muslim women have rights to their dowries

And to protect married women’s status in a family unit

3. Muslim women have rights to inherit property from her male relatives and husband; the right to a bequest and the right to possess and manage her own property during marriage and after divorce.

Quoting a direct verse from the Qur’an, Raihanah interpreted Islamic teachings as recognising the equal rights of women and men – both ‘men and women are equal with respect to moral and spiritual obligations’.

Further as Raihanah argues, such equality between men and women extends to social, economic and political spheres. Raihanah seals her point in quoting the ‘dynamic, influential and enterprising’ wives of Prophet Mohammad as examples, in particular, the authoritarian figure of Aisha in Quranic and legal studies.

Therefore for Raihanah, women’s status deteriorated not as a result of the spread of Islam. Rather, the limiting of women’s rights really began by the ‘end of Umawi period and early Abbasid’ when gender prescriptions were adopted from Byzantine, Persian and Sasanian civilisation. For the elites of these societies, ‘harems, concubines and confining women to their private homes were regarded as symbol of [their] social status’.

These were the same social norms that were applied to Middle Eastern countries now or as I daresay – as implied in Raihanah’s research – operating in Malaysian societies. All these work to restrict Muslim women’s roles not just only in their religious participation but also in social, economic and political spheres.

So, if Raihanah is spot on in her genealogical interpretation, Islam has indeed been very wronged. It would appear we all need to replace these coloured lenses we’ve been using to assess the religion and its followers.

**************************************************************************************************

Some may argue Raihanah’s exercise is possibly an attempt to externalise the flaws of Islam. However, the beauty of Raihanah’s research lies exactly in her unflinchingly confrontation with the historical evolution of Islamic norms, her honest attempt to debunk the (mis)interpretation of religious teachings to support the cause of ruling minority.

That again, is exactly why we need to reassess the claims of so-called traditions and their relevance in our social, economic and political contexts.

Let’s not take things or judge others at face value.

^Findings and quotes from Raihanah Abdullah’s paper, ‘Muslim Women in Malaysia’ published in Women in Malaysia: Breaking Boundaries.