The J-thing (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} jemauvais) wrote,@ 2009-04-25 00:53:00 |
|
| Current location: | SFC Maroochydore, Queensland, Australia |
| Current mood: |  uncomfortable |
| Entry tags: | news bites, social commentary |
On the latest in the AWARE saga
It's not surprising in the least but still I'm disgusted that the takeover of AWARE was planned like a terrorist attack months ago by a fundie Christian church, and like all terrorist organisations, there will inevitably be clues that point back to it.
I find it ridiculous that Thio thinks that homosexuality is a man's issue when I happen to know a lot more lesbians than I do gays—unless of course she is myopic enough to be defining homosexuality as s377A defines it, in which case it is impossible to apply to women.
I would sign up and vote at the EOGM if only I could. All the women who can vote, I would encourage you to sign up for the EOGM and help reverse the creeping spectre of Christian fundamentalism.
However, I must admit that after reading the newspaper reports flying back and forth, I have had some nagging thoughts at the back of my mind. The new ex-co claim that they decided to act because they felt that AWARE had lost its focus—which was to work to give disadvantaged women a voice, to ensure that women were treated fairly and to ensure that women had a choice, a say in deciding how their lives were run. They were a group that focused on research on women's issues (hence the 'Research' part of the name). But the new ex-co claims that they have started to delve into the pro-gay and pro-lesbian realm so far that they've neglected their original aim.
Now while I would have dismissed such fundamentalist rhetoric as pure hyperbole, unfortunately they have brought up concrete examples to support their case—so much so that it has made me pause and think.
From the list the new ex-co gave:
PROMOTED A LESBIAN MOVIEAlso from Thio's original email:
Aware sponsored the screening of the lesbian-themed movie Spider Lilies (above) at its charity gala. The film is about two lesbians who fall in love.
In response to a parent's complaint about the movie, then-president Constance Singam said Aware embraced diversity and individual choices and was glad Singapore is now more open to discussing diversity.
MOTHER'S DAY 2006
Aware held an event featuring lesbian-friendly mothers and lesbian daughters talking about themselves. The new team felt this was out of sync with how Mother's Day is usually celebrated.
Honorary treasurer Maureen Ong, 55, said that she joined Aware because she was alarmed at the direction Aware was heading.
'I am a mother of three children, so I'm concerned that going forward, what are the children going to be taught on as part of the so-called comprehensive sexual education?
'I don't want my children to say that oh, it's all right to go and experiment with homosexuality, to experiment with anal sex, to experiment with virginity or the pill or even pre-marital sex. I'm concerned. I'm a parent. It's shocking. How can this be done in our Singapore society?'
Aware is a woman's organisation which conducts comprehensive sexual programmes for girls and it runs this programme in some of the schools. They encourage girls to express their full sexuality and this includes experimenting with other girls.Now what I would like to find out is whether or not there is any truth in these allegations. While I still oppose whatever the new ex-co is out to achieve—because I am against imposing Christian fundamentalism on anyone, let alone secular organisations—I think the old guard is not altogether blameless if this is true.
I am not against being gay, and neither do I condemn it. But I accept it insofar as what all the gay people I know have been saying: that it's not a matter of choice, that they are born gay and there's nothing you can do about it. It's just like Siamese twins or those kids who are exceptionally good at math or painting: they're born with it, there's nothing they can do about it, they didn't choose to be like that, and we should accept them as normal human beings. If you are born gay, I will fight to defend your right to be gay and to be treated equally with all other straight people.
But this is very different from promoting or advertising a gay lifestyle. For want of a better example, if you compare it to drinking alcohol, it is something OK, it is something accepted, some people are natural born drinkers and others will keel over after half a glass. But while consuming alcohol is something accepted in our society today, and no one is discriminated against (or should be discriminated against) because he is an alcohol drinker, we should not be promoting an alcoholic lifestyle. And along with that, we should not be encouraging kids to experiment with being gay just like we should not be encouraging them to experiment with alcohol. It is one thing for mature adults to decide for themselves but totally another for impressionable teenagers to be told this.
In this respect, bringing schoolchildren to see a film about lesbian lovers and then telling them that a lesbian lifestyle is OK is rather out of line. While there is nothing wrong with a film about lesbian lovers, why was there a need for AWARE to sponsor it? Was there no other film able to portray discrimination against women or a woman's resilience, talent or value? Embracing "diversity and individual choices" is very different from supporting or promoting diversity. On that note too, organising a Mother's Day event featuring "lesbian-friendly mothers and lesbian daughters talking about themselves" sounds like something we'd expect Fridae or PLU or IndigNation to organise, but AWARE? How does organising this event fit in with their stated focus on "the fundamental rights and responsibilities of women as women. These include being treated as informed individuals capable of choice, being deserving of opportunities equal to those of men in education, marriage and employment; and being able to control their own bodies, particularly with regard to sexual and reproductive health"? What does it have to do with giving women a voice and a say in deciding their lives?
So yes, can anyone familiar with the old AWARE comment on whether these allegations are true and to what extent?
I read this article recently that asked whether or not with society's increasing acceptance of gay people, that more and more people are now being gay because it has now somehow become fashionable. If you are gay because you are naturally like that, that's alright. But I think we should not be encouraging people to be gay just because it's fashionable. That, I really have a problem with.
On a totally gender un-neutral note, it seems like this AWARE thing has now descended into the catfight of the year, with both sides rallying and exhorting women to sign up and attend the May 2 EOGM as though they were forming some sort of Amazon army. Some of the fundie rhetoric really sound like a cry for jihaad (and in some way they think it really is). Now the new ex-co claims that they have been receiving death threats, the secretariat staff (who are presumably loyal to the old guard) have been "hostile" and "unco-operative", and the new ex-co has responded by firing the secretariat and changing the locks of the AWARE centre. Somehow I wonder, if this had been an organisation of men instead, whether it would have resulted in such a bitchfest....
Addendum [25 Apr 09 4:21 p.m.]
I read the rebuttal by the AWARE old guard and I am relieved (especially by the last part) that the accusations by the new ex-co are unfounded.
I am especially heartened by Dana Lam's statement: "We women have been saying that decisions—public, personal, family—cannot be made by only men; that they have to be made jointly with men. If we walk the talk, then we have to give men the right to vote." [emphasis mine] This really shows how enlightened they have become, where they believe that men have a say and that their opinions count, rather than the new ex-co's chest-thumping, bra-burning idea of 'gender equality'. AWARE is, after all, about wanting to improve women's conditions and consequently their family's conditions, not about making sure women and men achieve "full gender equality". That'll only happen when women and men share the same IPPT standards, the same toilets; and oh, women are allowed to walk on the beach topless. Yeah. :P
§ Technorati tags:
news bites;
social commentary
