Yet another irresponsible message from AWARE

You just have to expect such from AWARE. Aren’t they always telling young women and girls that it’s OK to have fun, let your hair down, dress and behave anyway you want, never mind it means throwing caution to the wind?

Rape is a heinous crime. It is so barbaric and inhumane, some societies even put convicted rapists to death. Rape not only affects the victim physically. It also affects the victim emotionally and mentally – usually for a very long term, sometimes even lifelong.

So when AWARE equates a flirtatious behaviour like the come on signal to men, with the real victim of hardcore rape, that is nothing short of irresponsibility exhibited by AWARE.

Saying “it’s not your fault” to a sexual assault survivor can be life-saving – AWARE Exec Director

Date rape

Most rape is acquaintance rape, and more often than not it is date rape. To give you an idea – of the 34 rape calls that we received on our Helpline over the past two years, where information about the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim was made available to us, there was only 1 case in which the woman was raped by a stranger. In all the other cases, the rapists were people the victims knew.

Date rape is especially confusing for the victim as there is some level of consent to the situation and there is often an issue of evidence.

Even though the victim did not consent to the sexual penetration, she may have consented to meeting the accused at a late hour alone, to drinking and often to a certain degree of intimacy with the perpetrator, short of sexual intercourse. Although she is clear that she did not consent to sex, she feels partly responsible for the situation.

Isn’t prevention better than cure? Isn’t the good old grandmother’s advice to young girls and young women that they should behave like ladies still the best anti-dote to date rapes?

Yes, even nuns and fully burka covered conservative Muslim girls get raped. But it can be seen the many of these are date rapes, no? You see a nun or a burka clad lady dancing and drinking in pubs?

Why doesn’t AWARE simply tell the truth that if you behave sleazily, dress sleazily, mix around with sleaze, the chances of you ending up date raped are higher than if you put on your best behaviour and dress properly?

AWARE is acting highly irresponsibly by sending out a message to young women and girls that it is OK to have have fun, look as if you are a loose person, dress however little you like and when you get date raped, simply call the Hotline and AWARE will be able to help you get even with the b*st*rd who humped you because you decided you didn’t like that hump last night.

Isn’t that the crude message AWARE is sending out to young girls and women?

It is also an irony that AWARE has succeeded in convincing the govt to repeal Sect 157a – Section 157(d) to be repealed – Law Minister

Singapore’s Evidence Act is based on the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, which was based on the English common law during that period. Section 157(d) states that:

“The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party or, with the consent of the court, by the party who calls him:

(d) when a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to ravish, it may be shown that the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character.”

Two assumptions underlying Section 157(d) are that (1) a woman who is sexually experienced is less credible as a witness and (2) a woman who is sexually experienced is more likely to have consented to sexual activity.

With the above repealed, technically, a woman can accept the invitation of her date to his home, get cuddly, even get naked and even have sex with him on a regular basis.

Then one fine night when she gets more than what she could handle from her PMS, and decides to tell the world that she didn’t want sex that night, her date can do nothing to say that they’ve had sex regularly the last two years as his defence.

Suddenly, the date becomes a rapist, and the woman, a date rape victim.

Now, that would:

1. Trivialize cases of REAL hardcore rape victims.

2. Endanger young women and girls because AWARE gives them the idea that “help is nearby”if you get date raped. So for god’s sake, you can dress up (or rather dress down) and behave as sluttily as you wish.

As always, AWARE never fails to amaze me how its actions are more detrimental to young women and girls than any other organisation.

Alamak! Aware the biggest fail in their own Alamak Sexist Contest

Aware’s “Alamak! Who scored the biggest FAIL in 2011?” contest gets publicity from the Straits Times.

Aware to give out tongue-in-cheek award for sexism

It’s not an award to crow about.

But Hougang grassroots adviser Desmond Choo looks set to clinch what is believed to be the country’s first sexism award, in ‘honour’ of a person or organisation that has done the greatest disservice to gender equality.

The award is the tongue-in-cheek brainchild of the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware), which will dish it out on Oct 17 during its fundraising dinner at the Grand Hyatt Hotel to celebrate its 26th anniversary.

Here is Aware’s original article – Alamak! Who scored the biggest FAIL in 2011?

We are well into the 21st century and yet we still have remarks, commercials and policies that perpetuate gender stereotypes and sexist attitudes. So AWARE has created the Alamak! Award, an annual search for the most annoying, face palm, gut wrenching, you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me instance of sexism in Singapore.

Here are the nominees for the first Alamak! Award, submitted by members of the public.

The winner – or rather, the loser – will be chosen via online voting. So do your part for gender equality in Singapore, and cast your vote for your (least) favourite candidate today! You can vote for up to 3 nominees.

Voting for the Alamak Award ends on October 7, 2011. The results will be announced at AWARE’s Big Ball on October 17, 2011.

Vote for the Alamak! Award
Obedient Wives Club Singapore
SAF: “Our Army, My Boyfriend”
Singapore Airlines: Employment Policies
Great Eastern: “It’s Great To Be A Woman”
Desmond Choo, GE2011: “Choose the right wife”

What? They put up five nominations but the biggest Alamak-worthy incident, where Statesman Lee Kuan Yew humiliated a woman PhD student, making references to her physical body, her reproductive system, and her womanhood, in front of thousands of other students, is not one of the five? See – PhD student should reply to LKY , “I have no bf. Are you proposing to marry me?”

What’s AWARE afraid of? Hasn’t LKY been the Number One Male Sexist of all time in the history of Singapore, since Day One? By leaving LKY’s latest sexist remark incident out of the nomination, the Alamak contest looks nothing more than a farce.

Here are the voting results so far, as on the morning of of 25 Sep 2011. Screenshot below.

Note that the highest scorer is an individual, while the rest are organisations. There’s always a tendency for people to pick out on individuals than organisations, when it comes to gossip, politicking, backstabbing etc, don’t you think so?

So if LKY had been a nominee, I am very sure he would beat the other nominees flat. Perhaps AWARE is too afraid to rub the Number One Male Chauvinist of Singapore the wrong way.

My Opinion

I didn’t vote. But if I did, it would be against SIA. That to me is what AWARE should be looking into. The SIA issue involves women who are required to retire prematurely. That is an economic loss not only for the women, but for Singapore in general.

Expecting these women who have been trained, which must have cost SIA a bomb, only to retire them at mid prime career does not make economic sense. Coupled with the fact that SIA expects these women to look young, pretty and everything that resembles a man’s dream, not to mention that implies if you are 40 and above you look “ugly”, this in my opinion should be the Number One Sexist issue.

But going by the results of the votes so far, it looks like many people (AWARE included) are getting so petty about remarks about women, rather than the real issue of being discriminated because of your gender.

Shouldn’t these people look into real tangible benefits for women, like extending their retirement age from 30+ to 60, instead of gossiping and bitching how some men (and organisations) can be so sexist in their portrayal of women?

In any case, like I said earlier, because there’s a tendency to zoom in on individuals rather than organisations, LKY would have won the title hands down, if he had been one of the nominees.

But Alamak! AWARE ain’t got no guts to put him up as a nominee.

Too bad. It would have been a real humorous tongue-in-cheek contest if that were to be so. But then again, knowing LKY’s highly patriarchal male egoistic nature, he probably would have bitch-slapped AWARE if they had done that.

Maybe that’s what AWARE is fully aware of and hence, are simply behaving like the meek submissive woman, (the type of woman AWARE tells women not to be), bowing to the Dominant Alpha Male LKY!

Looks like by omitting LKY’s very recent and sexist remark, AWARE has failed in their own Alamak Contest.

Sexist Uni Orientation: Again, where is AWARE?

The report that a university’s orientation programme has gone overboard has been around for days. The programme as you know is nothing more than a cheap, voyeuristic act by some seniors who enjoy being sadists – at the expense of the freshmen, especially the young women.

Heck, once again, where is AWARE? Why are they always so unaware of these incidents, where the women need real help? Instead, you find them poking their noses into areas when no help is asked from them.

Here’s the report of the sexist games, organised by some sex-crazed voyeurs with sadistic minds.

Pictures: ‘Sexist and humiliating’ orientation games make girls cry

Singapore Institute of Management (SIM)-University of London’s orientation games recently came under the spotlight when Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao reported that some girls burst into tears during the session.

Some of the activities included hugging the opposite sex, eating a biscuit from opposite ends and girls lying on their backs with guys leaning over them.

Netizen Zerocool questioned the appropriateness of such games on Stomp, a citizen journalism website: ‘Why do they even allow such lewd games? They are sexist, irrelevant and humiliating, especially to the girls.’

A SIM spokesman interviewed by The New Paper has stated that the student councils who organise the orientation programmes are given clear guidelines, and are ‘reminded that safety and modesty should be adhered to’.

Isn’t this sexual harassment? So where is AWARE when you need them? I’ll tell you where they are. They are at other places, nosing into areas when no one asked them to be around – like the following:

Alamak! Who scored the biggest FAIL in 2011?

1. Obedient Wives Club Singapore

This initiative by the controversial Global Ikhwan group promotes the view that wives should keep their husbands happy in the bedroom by serving them like “a first-class prostitute”, so as to prevent social ills like prostitution, divorce and domestic violence. News that the Obedient Wives Club was setting up a branch in Singapore made international headlines this year. We say that the Club’s distorted and reductive views of marriage and gender roles is socially divisive and dismissive of the real root causes of marital problems.

Heck, if the wives are happy, and the husbands are happy, who the hell is AWARE to rock that happy relationship? Helloooo? Shouldn’t they be looking into cases where people need help instead?

2. The Singapore Armed Forces’ “Our Army, My Boyfriend” Ad

Featuring a group of women giggling and gushing over their girlfriend’s army scholar boyfriend, this ad annoyed men with its shallow portrayal of the SAF soldier as a trophy boyfriend who, rather implausibly, “always has time” for his adoring partner. And it would take a woman with nerves of steel not to be irritated by the ad’s depiction of women as wide-eyed, simpering bimbos – that cloying chorus of “so sweeeet” alone is enough to turn your stomach.

Eh? Who were the men who were annoyed? And which women saw themselves as bimbos (other than those at AWARE)? Trying to campaign for a cause that no one is even interested in?

3. Singapore Airlines’ Employment Policies

It’s a great way to fly – well, perhaps not so much for its female cabin crew. Unlike most other global carriers, SIA’s stewardesses have to resign once they are pregnant unless they can get a ground position, which is difficult to obtain.

Ah, at last. Finally they hit a right target. But wait, what have they been doing about it other than yammering it is not right? Did they lobby and pressurise SIA, or at least worked hand in hand with the SIA Unions to get a better deal for the stewardesses? Oh dear, NATO – no action, talk only.

4. Great Eastern’s “It’s Great To Be A Woman” campaign
Again, like the SAF ad, who’s complaining (other than AWARE)? It does look like AWARE is so free it is able to be a busy body, parking itself in areas they are not needed and causing annoyance, no?

5. Desmond Choo, the People’s Action Party’s candidate for Hougang during GE2011

During a rally, the 33-year-old PAP candidate spoke in Teochew of meeting an old man who said that choosing an MP is like choosing a wife. “If your wife is unable to cook, there’s no point. You must choose a wife who is able to do things for you,” Mr Choo quipped, thus delivering arguably the most sexist analogy of the recent General Elections. In the final tally, the first-time candidate received only 35.19 per cent of valid votes. No one can say for sure whether his loss boiled down to his old-fashioned concept of wifely duties, but it certainly didn’t help.

Cheap shot by AWARE. That guy lost because the WP candidate worked hard. And again, note that no one complained about this guy’s remark either.

This last example has to be the one that exposes AWARE’s hypocrisy to the bone. We have in fact a bigger case where a sexist statement was made against a woman by none other than Lee Kuan Yew. Yet, AWARE till today doesn’t even dare make that an issue.

The woman was humiliated when LKY made inferences about her body and reproductive system. AWARE totally skirted that issue – Aware finally rebuts LKY, but keeps mum about him demeaning a woman

Concluding Words

Aware is noticeably totally absent when they are needed most. They have done nothing to condemn nor take action to see that young women at Orientation Programmes are not sexually harassed in future. They are totally silent on LKY’s sexist remarks, when he made inferences on a particular young woman’s body and her reproductive system. And of course, they paid only lip-service to the SIA stewardesses who have to retire prematurely…..

But while they’re visibly absent at places where they should be around to assist those in need of help, they make themselves a nuisance at places where they are not welcomed like poking their noses into the Obedient Wives Club, the SAF advert, the GE advert and the “who gives a heck about Desmond Choo’s remark” issue.

AWARE sure has got its priorities wrong.

Aware finally rebuts LKY, but keeps mum about him demeaning a woman

It sure took AWARE a long time to be aware that something’s amiss, when Lee Kuan Yew publicly humiliated a lady PhD student, didn’t it? However, note that AWARE did not mention a single thing how condescending LKY was when he was addressing her, even alluding to her private life and (reproductive) physical body.

Why has AWARE, which has always been known to argue that a woman’s body need respect (especially from the condescending male – which LKY has displayed himself to be one going by Feminists’ definition), totally let that point unmentioned?

Aware disagrees with Mr Lee

THE stark choice between motherhood and professional advancement presented in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s comments to Ms Joan Sim is not new (‘A PhD’s fine, but what about love and babies?’; last Tuesday).

In 1983, he said: ‘We shouldn’t get our women into jobs where they cannot, at the same time, be mothers.’

In 1994, he said that ‘attractive and intelligent young ladies’ should go to finishing colleges so that they will be ‘marvellous helpers of their husband’s career’.

And now, Ms Sim has been advised to stop wasting time on her doctorate and find a boyfriend instead. These views contradict the recent statements by Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports Halimah Yacob to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw) that gender equality is central to Singapore’s socio-economic growth and that ‘maximising the full potential of every individual, male or female, is a priority’.

Under Cedaw, the Government is obliged to ‘take appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of the conduct of men and women based on the idea of stereotypical roles of men and women’. However, state policies have not kept pace with social developments and changing gender roles.

Fathers are not entitled to paid paternity leave, reinforcing the social expectation that mothers should bear most of the caregiving responsibilities.

Flexible working arrangements attractive to mothers of young children are not widely available. Infant care facilities are inadequate for the country’s needs. Such policies make raising children a daunting prospect for working women who want to continue their careers after becoming mothers. The State should take the lead in making family a more attractive option for these women, starting with a change of governmental attitude and the policies stated above.

The Scandinavian countries have shown that appropriate state policies that counter social norms can reverse declining fertility rates.

Public statements made by influential figures like Mr Lee are also important to shaping social attitudes.

Remarks that imply that women belong at home and men should be primarily providers undermine the efforts of men and women who struggle every day to meet the demands of family and working life.

Implying that marriage and motherhood are more important than education and work belittles the choices and contributions of women who prefer to be single or childless.

Such comments also perpetuate sexist stereotypes for a younger generation.

Nicole Tan (Ms)
President
Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)

Instead of reminding this chauvinistic LKY he should treat women with respect (a stance which AWARE has always been known to take against the Alpha Male), it talks about some CEDAW report, confusing the already warped answer given by LKY.

The original question by the student was about social integration in the light of high immigration rate. That question was totally ditched by LKY. He instead mouthed a lot about her personal and reproductive life. This can be seen as an intrusive, if not sexually tainted intended innuendo on a woman.

What has AWARE said about that unbecoming behaviour of a statesman, who has just shown the world that he disrespects this lady’s womanhood? Nothing! What AWARE did in its letter is just reminding the world how involved it is in UN’s Cedaw plan. Cheap publicity and cheaper advert for itself!

If you recall the Jack Neo vs Foyce Lim incident, AWARE was quick in believing the fake claim by Foyce that she was sexually harassed by Jack Neo, when he text her some messages. AWARE even publicly condemned that act and talked big, purporting to be for women’s rights, even when that claim was just that – a claim without proof. As it turned out, the words text were just “I miss you”.

So if AWARE could have in double quick time judged Jack Neo so easily when he was actually innocent (ie he did not sexually harass Foyce), why does it do nothing to remind LKY that he is bordering along sexual harassment of a lady PhD student?

Isn’t it ironic that AWARE is being totally submissive letting this highly arrogant Alpha Male, LKY, yes the very kind of male AWARE has been trying to tame, demean a woman for her womanhood publicly?

So for all the brave words, the trumpeting, the chest-beating that women today have come of age and it is time to show the Alpha Male that women and womanhood should be respected – when it comes to LKY, the epitome of Singapore’s Alpha Male – AWARE simply retreats like a beaten submissive woman, obeying her orders from her Dominant Man!

Fret not, ladies, Women and Womanhood do deserve respect. It is just that AWARE doesn’t. It can’t even act out what it commands others to do.

======

Related Link:
PhD student should reply to LKY , “I have no bf. Are you proposing to marry me?”

Aware still living in the shadow of the past, denying it did grave wrong

It is said if you don’t move ahead, you will slide backwards. That’s true in this world today. But looks like AWARE is very unaware of this. They seem to live in the past.

Battling over the moral meaning of gender equality

Excerpts:

The March 2009 takeover of AWARE by a group led by Thio Su-Mien and Josie Lau, and its takeback two months later, may be a harbinger of things to come. Understanding why and how it happened will go a long way towards being able to see these conflicts with a wider perspective.

March 2009 takeover? Aware is two years behind, no? Come on, move on! Nobody remembers Thio or Josie for that matter. Do you see them in the news today?

As it is, the AWARE conflict was seen by many as a clash between conservative Christianity and homosexuality. Indeed, the actors involved – a “new guard” motivated by Evangelical Christian antipathy to homosexuality on the one side, and an “old guard” with its secular ethos, allied with liberal and gay groups on the other – made such a reading almost inescapable.

Aware’s conflict seen by “many” as conflict between conservative Christianity and Homo? What about the part where parents were up in arms with AWARE, when it was discovered they stealthily introduced homo ideals to underage girls in schools? Why the total silence on that?

That it came only 18 months after the loud public debate about Section 377A of the Penal Code – which criminalises homosexual acts between men – in which the conservative side was also strongly identified with Evangelical Christianity, only led people to see the AWARE saga in the same light.

Please note that the loud debate is the result of the gay community themselves, when they pour a tirade against those who did not support repeal of S377A. If gays feel they have a right to ask for a repeal, why are they not respecting those who do not wish to support them?

Please also remember that years before that incident, a Muslim Minister no less, approved marriage between a person who has changed sex, with another person of his/her former gender. There was just a whimper from the Muslim community, and that too it was because it was a Muslim minister who approved that. The core argument WAS NOT against gay or queer practice in itself.

So if that could have gone smoothly, because the gay community did not howl then, why blame the Christians for not getting S377A, when it is because they howled too loud?

The rest of the article centres on the stale old argument, Christian Right vs Gay and Secularism vs Religion Stuff. It ends off with…

The author is an activist and commentator on socio-political issues who blogs at Yawning Bread. The book The AWARE Saga: Civil Society & Public Morality In Singapore is available for $28 at the AWARE Centre (Dover Crescent Block 5 #01-22).

So…. this article is just an advertisement for a worthless book that is sold for $28, huh?

You don’t need to spend your hard earned money on that hyped up book that dramatizes the takeover issue two years ago. That book tells you a very heavily lob-sided story. Hear it first hand from someone who was there at the EGM itself. I have put this article up, even challenged those who claimed to have attended the EGM to dispute the facts I reported. None has taken my challenge.

No need to spend $28. Get the facts free over here.

Sectarian Christians replaced by Sectarian Gays – So what’s the difference?
There are more facts that are revealed in the comments section than the main post itself, in the link above. It is an irony that the gay community, in trying to “explain” that it did not happen the way I described, exposed that it did happen the way I described!

So, Aware was a front for promotion of gay and lesbian lifestyle after all
This link contains important info which AWARE hides from you. It contains facts that are a precursor to the Aware takeover. Here, you will find that Aware was teaching girls as young as 12 in schools how to have sex, lesbian type sex included of course; (isn’t it a crime to have sex with an underage girl?). The topics included not only how as 12 year olds you can have sex, but also about homo and lesbian sex. Aware did it stealthily, covertly and deceitfully. This was the reason for Josie and gang to takeover Aware, something which AWARE keeps hiding from the public!

Aware’s Slant on Homosexuality and Comprehensive Sexual Education Programme
See for yourself Aware’s gay agenda – and how it infiltrated schools to teach girls, as young as 12 how to have sex, lesbian sex included. Isn’t Aware complicit in crime?

Aware’s Comprehensive Sexual Education Training Manual
This is the actual Trainer’s Manual which Aware has been trying to hide from the public.

Read the lurid details (short of calling it an intro to porno and homo ideals for young underage girls). Read how it was taught to your young daughters in schools how to have sex, sex, sex. This was the sex ed programme Aware taught IN SCHOOLS, before MOE rightfully dustbinned it.

Be reminded that it is a crime in Singapore to have sex with a girl under 16. Yet, we have Aware teaching these girls how to have sex at the age of 12? Isn’t this being complicit in crime? Note that Aware NEVER mentions this whenever it talks about its takeover. Small wonder, no?

CONCLUSION

1. Aware is still living in the past, “nostalgia-ing” about the takeover and re-takeover. Is this what you call a forward moving organisation?

2. Aware now tries to con you off your hard earned $28 with a useless book, which contains highly inaccurate pointers, lies and half truths.

3. Aware tries to deny that it has a gay agenda and instead, place blame squarely on the Christian right for its takeover.

4. Aware had actually successfully infiltrated MOE and the schools and even started teaching underage girls how to have sex, including homo ideals and lesbian sex. They did it covertly and stealthily. This was the real reason for Josie’s takeover of Aware.

5. The book Aware promotes fails to tell you the truth about #4 above.

6. By promoting a book that is about an event two years ago, which the public has long forgotten about, it shows that it is living in denial. They are denying that it was because of its gay agenda and odious sex programmes in schools, teaching underage girls odious sex, that caused the takeover. Aware is living in the shadow of the past, and living in denial that it did grave wrong to the public.

==============

PS – I find it an irony that:

- Aware denies that it has a gay agenda. Yet time and time again, it gets its support mainly from the gay community (the EGM included!). Note that the article I linked at the very top is from a gay author.

- Aware purports to represent women in Singapore. But time and time again, it appears more bent on telling the world that it went through an invasion of onslaught from the Christian right – a typical gay argument. How do you expect support, if you keep a hostile attitude towards the Christians, which forms a significant portion of the community?

>Parents Beware! AWARE pushing gay agenda in schools – again!

>We’ve had the case where Aware infiltrated the school system to introduce gay ideals. Remember their odious sex programmes teaching underage girls, as young as 12 how to have odious sex?

Not only was the programme odious, Aware did it covertly and sneakily. They cheated MOE’s and parents’ trust. Part of the programme also introduced gay lifestyle to young children.

8 Mar 2011 was International Women’s Day and of course, Aware was involved organising a seminar. Nothing wrong with that – except this sneaky bit, introducing a gay agenda covertly:

Gender Equity Essential for Singapore’s Next Lap

The key recommendations to policy makers are:

1. A quota of 30 per cent be set for women in Parliament as recommended by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which was ratified by Singapore in 1995.

2. The Singapore Constitution be amended to prohibit gender discrimination.

3. All policies and legislation be reviewed and all gender discriminatory laws, policies and practices be removed or replaced with laws, policies and practices that promote an equitable and sustainable work-life balance for both women and men.

4. Gender studies be added to the core curriculum for all students, and in the Civil Service.

5. Budgetary allocations to health care be increased significantly so as to ensure the good health of older people.

6. Care-giving (of the young and the elderly) should be recognised as a gender-neutral skill, and the quality of, and access to, care facilities and services for children, elderly and the disabled should be improved.

Take note that “Gender Studies” is part of Gay Ideology.

One of the topics in Gender Studies is the decronstruction of gender. It is about the belief that you are a man or a woman due to what you were taught when you were young, and not so much of what nature has bestowed upon you.

Gender Studies is about decontructing the definition of Man and Woman. Gender Studies is also about “choice” of your gender. It covers the study of “your choice” to be a man or a woman, because of the belief that gender roles and perhaps even gender itself is just a construction.

Gender studies

Gender studies is a field of interdisciplinary study which analyses race, ethnicity, sexuality and location.[1]

The philosopher Simone de Beauvoir said: “One is not born a woman, one becomes one”.[2] In gender studies, the term “gender” is used to refer to the social and cultural constructions of masculinities and femininities, not to the state of being male or female in its entirety.[3] The field emerged from a number of different areas: the sociology of the 1950s and later (see Sociology of gender); the theories of the psychoanalyst Jaques Lacan; and the work of feminists such as Judith Butler.

Let’s get this straight and clear. If non-discrimination against women is what we want to achieve, let’s work together towards that.

There is NO NEED to introduce Gender Studies in schools to achieve that.

Gender Studies is found in many fields, including literature.

Gender Studies is also used by the Gay Community to deconstruct gender to argue their case for same gender sexual relationship.

The fact that AWARE is trying to introduce Gender Studies into schools (like what they did with their odious sex ed programmes), shows that they are being sneaky, dishonest and bent on propagating their gay agenda in schools again!

I repeat. If Aware wants to work towards a non-discriminatory environment for women, there is NO NEED need for Gender Studies to be taught in schools.

Parents, guardians, and all those who care for society’s young Singaporeans in schools, please spread the word round about Aware’s latest sneaky plan.

They are at it again, trying to teach young underage kids that homosexuality is normal. They are attempting to teach your young children homo lifestyles again.

Here are a list of past articles on Aware’s gay agenda and its now defunct odious sex ed programme in schools.

So, Aware was a front for promotion of gay and lesbian lifestyle after all

Urgent Message to all Concerned Parents and other Responsible Citizens

A very big Thank You to all Parents and Responsible Citizens!

Looking back at AWARE’s CSE – did it encourage collaboration in crime?

Attention Parents: AWARE still bent on Gay Agenda

Here is a webpage to links on the actual sex ed programmes that Aware conducted in schools, which MOE and parents were not aware of, until Aware got busted. See for yourselves the odious nature of the programme, teaching underage girls how to have sex and about homo ideals. Isn’t this being complicit in crime, since it is a crime to have sex with underage girls?
Links to AWARE’s CSE

>Aware’s contradictory message

>Don’t you feel feminists don’t know exactly what they want, because they keep contradicting each other?

I was scouring through Aware’s site to understand their proposal on paternal leave. I could not help notice two diverse articles, or rather two contradictory articles, about sexism. Here’s the first one.

Misogynist Airwaves

I was tuning in to Mr Young’s late-night show on 987 on Friday, December 17th. In the short span of time I was tuned in, Mr Young made several comments about various female celebrities, including Nicole Scherzinger. What I noticed was that most of his comments of the female celebrities revolved around their bodies. He alluded to their curves, hotness, and at some point pointed out that hotness was about moving fats of the body around. He then said for women, fat could be moved from the butt (if it were too big) to the “chest area”, and then said that for women the chest area can never be too big.

Since this radio programme has many teenage listeners, the objectification and sexualisation of the female celebrities on air is particularly worrying.

I agree with the writer on the point of the stereotyping of female celebrities as sex objects. That is sexism and it is bad.

However, from the same home page, there is another article. And this time the writer appears to be putting up a thinly veiled “advice on what to expect during physical medical examination procedures”, when in fact it appears more like an “exhibitionist-voyeur with sexual slant type literature” from the writer to titillate readers. Here is that article.

Offering My Breasts For Science

Note that the title of the article itself has a sexual slant. I don’t want to give excerpts from that article. Just read it yourself. You will know what I mean. This lady was describing how it was like to have her body examined, gynae style – with all the “sexual flavours” that goes with it, and not ashamed to let readers know she (sexually) enjoys it!

Note that if it truly were a “medical report article” to enlighten the public, the writer wouldn’t have put up her (thinly disguised sexual) emotions, the medical students’ emotions and all that crap. She would have simply described it from a professional, medical viewpoint. Like this site.

So isn’t the above article contradicting the former, when it puts up in a sexually suggestive way, that the woman’s body is to be “offered for science”? Not to mention the disguised attempt to make it look “professional” by saying that the article was to prepare people for a proper medical exam, when she unabashedly shows she actually enjoys it, to the point it borders on exhibitionism and/or voyeurism.

Aware should be aware what it is putting up its website. Well and good if it puts up articles that discourages sexism. But only to have it undone, when another article uses the woman’s body to show off her sexuality in public?

Come on. You can’t have it both ways. Either you respect your body so that others will respect it, or you boast about it and others will enjoy what you boast.

Here’s a screenshot of Aware’s homepage, showing the two diverse (and contradictory) articles displayed at the same time. (Click on image to enlarge)

>Once again, AWARE is not forthcoming

>Aware has started another programme to protect women. That’s a good cause. However, I am concerned about Aware’s tendency to hide facts and figures from the public in its push to promote its cause.

Men, time to oppose violence against women – AWARE

The Facts:

One in 10 women in Singapore has been a victim of violence (International Violence Against Women Survey, 2010). Read that figure again. Think of ten Singaporean women you know. The figures say it’s very likely that at least one of them has experienced violence in some way.

One it 10? That’s a very high number.

I tried to search the internet to establish that fact. However, I could not find anything to support the statement that one on 10 women in Singapore is a victim of abuse, according to the International Violence Against Women Survey, 2010. Perhaps it would be good if AWARE had put up a link or some reference for readers to check it out. Why is that not done?

The reason why I do not take AWARE’s words as it is, is because AWARE has a tendency to twist facts. I am not just talking about last year’s AWARE’s saga, where it is shown that it covertly inserted odious ideals in its Sex Ed programmes in schools. We have seen how AWARE blindly supports “No to rape” as well.

However, even before that, AWARE has been less than honest in its ways. More than ten years ago, when we had the SE Asian Financial Crisis, Indonesia was troubled with riots. Prices of basic food rocketed, and consumers targeted provision shop owners. Most of these business owners were ethnic Chinese.

Some Chinese in Singaopre (and Malaysia) started playing the race card, citing it was a race riot, when it was actually motivated by economics. Fake rape photos of Chinese women being raped were then posted on the internet.

Aware took the opportunity to hold an exhibition, using those fake photos, to create “awareness” of the situation to Singaporeans. When asked why were those faked photos used, AWARE’s then spokesperson said if “it serves its purpose”, why not use them (ie fake photos).

So AWARE has shown it has no qualms lying to the public. This was in 1998, well before the AWARE takeover saga and its odious sex ed programmes in schools.

It is not that I do not support the call to stop abuse against women. All kinds of abuse must be stopped. Not just against women. However, AWARE, with its record of twisting and hiding facts, should be more forthcoming.

Which part of the report of the International Violence Against Women Survey, 2010, was it mentioned that one in 10 Singaporean women have been abused?

I did a search on that and Google’s search engine over here and here returned no such result.

So if AWARE is so passionate about the cause (which I agree is a good one), why is AWARE so secretive about its sources, making it difficult for the public to counter check their claims? Why can’t AWARE give a link or be more specific, which part of the document supports their claim?

>AWARE in SCWO Leadership Tussle

>SCWO (Singapore Council of Women’s Organisation) is facing its first major leadership tussle in 8 years – and AWARE is involved in that tussle. Let us recall how AWARE managed to infiltrate into our Education System, using its covert and odious Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) Programme to teach young underage girls how to have sex and about homosexuality.

AWARE, as we all know, had its own leadership struggle last year. But this year, it appears that it intends to break into SCWO. That in itself does not appear to be anything fishy – except that AWARE and SCWO had always been working apart because of different ideologies. Now if that is the case, what is AWARE’s purpose of its key official trying to sit on the board of SCWO?

SCWO sees leadership tussle

THERE has been a resurgence of interest in leadership at the Singapore Council of Women’s Organisations (SCWO), the umbrella body for women’s groups here.

Its annual general meeting last Saturday saw its first major contest for board seats in eight years. A total of 15 representatives from among its 51 member groups vied for 11 places on the board. Only the president’s post, which went to Mrs Laura Hwang, was uncontested.

The groups which sent candidates to contest SCWO posts included the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) and the United Nations Development Fund for Women (Unifem) Singapore, which last contested in 2002. That year, there were 20 nominations for 12 places.

Aware has traditionally not worked closely with SCWO, as the two took different approaches to promoting women’s rights and issues. Aware was embroiled in a high-profile leadership tussle last year between its more liberal incumbents and a conservative group of newcomers who feared that Aware was promoting a pro-gay agenda.

Aware’s current president, Ms Dana Lam, 57, told The Straits Times that she decided to run for a board seat this time as she was drawn to the council’s growing interest in research and advocacy.

SCWO president Laura Hwang believed that what ‘resonated with many’ who decided to seek a board seat was the council’s task force on the enforcement of maintenance support orders for divorced women, and its planned centre to assist claimants.

Members will decide who sits on the board tomorrow. Let’s wait and see the results.

>Aware Confirms Feminism is about Feminists telling Women what to do, not what women want to do

>You just gotta read today’s Straits Times Forum, where the newly hired Executive Director of AWARE writes about the Jack Neo Saga. The two main points in summary are (excerpt below):

First, it puts paid to the notion that a husband’s extramarital affairs are acceptable as long as he is discreet. The public outcry shows that assumptions as to men and women’s roles and responsibilities in the family have changed.

Women today will not swallow the pain and hurt of a betrayal without complaint. They will not accept that a husband’s infidelity is ‘unavoidable’, no matter how successful he is. The strength and cohesiveness of families are dependent on both partners treating each other with love and respect.

Second, the drama has drawn attention to a problem which is common but rarely talked about: workplace sexual harassment.

On the first point – Didn’t Mrs Neo (she’s a modern woman, no?) forgive her husband? Who the heck is AWARE to make a sweeping claim that “times have changed” and hence, they will not accept their husband’s infidelity?

On the second point – the allegations of sexual harassment are just that. Allegations. Why is AWARE jumping the gun? Trying to exploit the situation?

I find it ironic that for all the bombardment by feminists that victims of molest and sexual harassment dare not speak up due to misplaced shame or guilt and hence, many cases go unreported, these “victims” of Jack Neo do not seem to have any shame in them, basking in the infamy they have brought to themselves – not to mention their own parents, who may squirm at the thought everyone now may call their daughter not so nice names.

Another irony is that why didn’t these “victims” report to the police then? Afraid of publicity as what feminists would claim? Really? But they don’t seem to be afraid now!

But the biggest irony is that AWARE while purporting to be campaigning for Women’s Rights, do not seem to care that Mrs Neo is a woman who does have a right to forgive her husband, yet AWARE does not endorse that, but instead continue to campaign that women should follow what AWARE tells them to do!

Has not AWARE confirmed that Feminism is not about empowering women what they choose to do, but about Feminists telling women what to do?

Again, I am not saying Jack was right. But AWARE appears too happy to exploit the issue, not giving a single hoot about Mrs Neo or her children’s feelings. Such is the low-down approach AWARE appears to be taking.