LGBT, Feminism out to deconstruct and destroy the Family

One of the issues I have discussed in this blog is that there has been covert and stealth attempts by LGBT and Feminist groups out to deconstruct, or even destroy the family.

Here are the articles I put up in 2009 and 2010.

1. Family Busters on the loose again
This discussion is about the No to Rape campaign, which lobbies to make it illegal for husband to have sex with wife if she simply says no. Isn’t this a misnomer? Isn’t marriage itself a blanket consent to sex?

However, if husband violently forces himself on wife, that itself is a crime. What need for “no to rape in marriage law”? This campaign actually attacks the very fundamental principle of bonding between husband and wife – which is the backbone of the Family structure.

Note that the campaigners of this No to Rape are feminists.

2. The Dark Side of Feminism – A platform used to destroy traditional family values
This article discusses the Gay Agenda propagated in Feminism – again, with the intention to deconstruct the Family Structure. In fact, even to destroy the Family Structure!

3. Stunning Similarity Between Aware’s CSE and Girl Guide Literature
This article is about how the Girl Guides group (not in Singapore…yet) teaches young girls about… well…. sex, sex, sex, the way AWARE taught our young schoolgirls. The point in this article is that this covert and stealth move to liberalize sex among the underage is worldwide. Somewhere in the middle of the post, you will note that the UN is also involved in de-sensitizing the topic of sex among the underage!

The Deconstruction and Destruction of the Family has begun in Europe -

Here is a report on how lobby groups (ie the Feminists and LGBTs) have persuaded the govts of Europe to (unwittingly) introduce laws and/or policies that supposedly remove gender and sexual orientation discrimination. But in fact, it is all about deconstructing and destroying the concept of the Family. Isn’t this so like the No to Rape from Feminist groups and call by LGBT’s to end S377A due to sexual orientation discrimination?

A pretty long article. Hope you bear with me, but if you read it through, you will realise the gravity and seriousness of the issue we have at hand.

Europe to destroy traditional family and sexual identity

Traditional words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ will be replaced with official terms Parent 1 and Parent 2 in Britain. The terms will be used in official documents. The authorities decided to make such a “politically correct” move to accommodate same-sex couples. Experts are sure, though, that the matter is not about the requirements of certain social groups. The decision is another step towards the destruction of traditional families.

The words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ will be removed from British passport applications before December 2011. This became an achievement of Stonewall group, which defends the rights of sex minorities. The US State Department tried to do the same before, but it was eventually decided not to remove the two words from US passport applications.

Note this practice (above) makes it gender neutral for either parent. It plays directly into the hands of the LGBTs, who have either two male parents or two female parents. But why must this be so? Can’t they just have Dad 1 and Dad 2 or Mom 1 and Mom 2 for gay marriages? Why must we bend backwards, deconstructing the Family for just some minority wishes?

The subject about novelties in the field of gender relations has been getting more and more popular recently. Not so long ago, Pravda.Ru wrote about the kindergarten in Sweden, which became world-famous after its administration decided to simply abolish the use of ‘he’ and ‘she’ pronouns.

Last year, the European Parliament published the brochure, which recommended not to use the words ‘Missus’ and ‘Miss’, ‘Mademoiselle’, ‘Seniora’ and ‘Seniorita’. From the point of view of the European parliament, the use of such words was discriminating against women because they directly indicated their sexual identity.

This one (above) plays to the Feminist agenda to make “he” and “she” gender neutral. Again, why must we bend backwards to appease a minority? Languages have been around for thousands of years. It is our history and culture. And they want to change it just like that?

One does not have to be an expert to realize that such novelties in various countries are not just a coincidence. It is a trend, the goal of which is to change the public perception of the role of the sexes in the society.

Pavel Parfentyev, the chairman of the inter-regional public organization “For Family Rights” also shares this point of view.

“Indeed, this is a serious international trend. It started back in the seventies and the eighties as a powerful movement to defend the rights of sexual minorities. There were organizations that tried to defend even the rights of pedophiles, who, as they believed, also had the rights for their own sexual preferences.

I told you that if you want to argue that homosexuality is a sexual orientation, there would be groups who would argue that so is pedophilia.

“The organizations publicly said that their goal was to destroy family. Afterwards, under the pressure of public opinion, many activists decided to refuse from the openly sexual bias in their activities. They proceeded towards the protection of human rights. This is how they approach children’s rights today. They think that children must be protected from the despotism of their parents – from any forms of traditional upbringing, that is to say. In order to accomplish that, one has to destroy the traditional family first and to make the family become a form that enslaves and binds children,” the expert said.

Remember the laws in these “First World” countries that disallow parents to beat their children? If I did not show this article, or the articles I wrote earlier, and if I said that this stooperd law (preventing parents beating their own children as punishment) is actually an attempt to deconstruct and destroy the Family, you wouldn’t have believed me, would you?

In order to be more efficient, representatives of such movements began to cooperate with large international organizations such as the UN and the Council of Europe. This led to the creation of a small, albeit a very strong lobby for the protection of the rights of sexual minorities on the international level, Pavel Parfentyev believes. The lobby intends to distort the perception of traditional family in the modern society.

As a result, European officials already try to avoid the use of the word ‘family’ in top-level international documents. Instead, they use “family in all of its forms” expression, which implies all forms of cohabitation. As a matter of fact, they deliberately erode and expand the notion of family. The family as we know it has virtually disappeared from the new term.

“The lobby prefers to move in small steps. At first they say that one should not discriminate human beings on their gender rights and sexual orientation. It is hard to argue with this indeed. In Russia, there is no discrimination of real human rights on the base of sexual preferences. At the same time, they create special, previously unseen “rights” and preferences for homosexuals on the international level. As a result, they attach special importance to sexual orientation, which distinguishes a person and makes them stand higher than others,” Pavel Parfentyev said.

The words indicating the sexual identity of people gradually disappear from official speech and documents. If they abolish ‘he’, ‘she’, ‘father’ and ‘mother’ they will not be able to abolish the gender per se. However, it can be possible to undermine the traditional perception of gender.

“A family is much more than a marital union of two people. It is a reproduction mechanism for the whole society. The movements for the protection of rights of sexual minorities are trying to undermine the traditional or natural family, as we call it. They want to take it beyond the scope of public values. More importantly, they want to separate the process of procreation and childcare from marriage and family. According to them, children and parents are two different things that must exist separately from each other. They cast doubts on the special role of parents in raising children,” the expert added.

Many people in Britain claimed that the above-mentioned novelties undermine family grounds in the country.

Isn’t that the deconstruction and destruction of the Family Unit? Isn’t this what Feminists and LGBTs are looking towards, as what I have written in my articles in 2009 and 2010?

The above was about the Europe context. Here’s the American context on LGBT. Not much difference, when it comes to playing the “victim” role, expecting society and/or the govt to back them up. STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: “The Overhauling of Straight America”. Note the very aggressive style and approach that is recommended. Just like what happened at AWARE’s EGM, no? Here’s my first hand account how boorish and gangster-like LGBTs can behave, just like what has been recommended! – Sectarian Christians replaced by Sectarian Gays – So what’s the difference?

LGBTs and Feminists have an agenda to remove the Family Structure permanently -

Like I said, if I had not written about this and shown you these various links, you would not have believed me. But is it true that these groups, although a minority, have a world agenda to make the Family Unit extinct. This agenda is backed up by international institutions like the Girl Guides and even has the endorsement from the UN!

One of the biggest stumbling block to these LGBTs and Feminists’ agenda is religion. All religions teach about the basic Family Unit. The religion Americans and Europeans come in contact most is Christianity. Hmmm…isn’t this the reason why so many gays like to bash Christianity?

My Concluding Words -

On one hand I feel that some individual gays are having a raw deal. Employers discriminate them. Society discriminate them. But on the other hand, there’s a hostile group within them who appear to have an agenda to dominate society.

I am OK if gays just wanna be gays. You go your way, I go mine. However, if you push your agenda and expect me to bow down to you, I won’t take it lying down.

This covert and stealthy way of getting policies introduced by govts is not going to help the image of LGBTs – just like what AWARE did when they stealthily introduced such ideals to young underage girls in schools.

As for Feminism, it truly has been hijacked. The early days of Feminism was about fighting for the rights of women. Now it appears that the LGBTs have hijacked their plans and instead, make Feminism a platform for advancing the LGBT agenda.

Finally, it is not all gloom. So far it is America and Europe who are heading for the dumps. The majority of mankind living in other parts of the hemisphere still have very strong family cultural roots to hold society together. That includes many Thirld World countries in parts of Asia, Africa and South America. These societies still believe that there has to be respect within the Family.

So who are the civilised and who are not?

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.

Feminists willingly accept the term slut, then blame society for stereotyping them

Sigh. Many men (and non-feminist women too) wonder how some Feminists try to push their cause. They want to claim they have a right to (un)dress as they please. The most amazing part is that they are implicitly telling society that they are even willing to be called sluts, the very derogatory term earlier day Feminists have been trying to delink between women who (un)dress and the term “slut” society has been giving to such women!

From (un)AWARE:

SlutWalk Singapore: Happening this December

2011 has been an exciting year so far, and it looks set to end with yet another ground-breaking event – Singapore’s first SlutWalk.

If all goes according to plan, the local version of this international anti-slut-shaming movement will take place in December.

Workshops on relevant issues are being planned for Dec 3, with the SlutWalk itself slated for Dec 4.

It all began in January, when these words left the lips of Canadian police officer Michael Sanguinetti during a safety forum: “Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized.”

Outraged by the suggestion the way women chose to dress were to blame for the sexual violence inflicted on them, thousands gathered for the first SlutWalk march in Toronto in April.

The movement caught on swiftly, resulting in what some commentators have termed the “summer of slut”. More than 50 SlutWalk marches have since been held around the world, making it one of the most high-profile instances of feminist activism in recent memory.

So it all started in Canada. It then spread to other parts of the world. Now it is coming to Singapore in December. Merry Christmas! Santa(rina) Slut is coming to town!

Wait a minute. Are these Feminists serious? You want the world to remember you as sluts? Huh?

Highly irresponsible message -

In condoning Slutwalk, AWARE has given out some very confusing and irresponsible message. Firstly, it appears that the term slut is OK, at least if it is for lobbying a socio-political message, ie is society should accept how women choose to (un)dress.

Secondly, to deny that a scantily dressed woman has nothing to do with sexual crimes like rape or molest, is akin to saying that leaving your valuables out in the open has nothing to do with the criminal’s decision to make a quick swipe on your valuables.

Thirdly, Feminists who claim that women have a right to (un)dress as they wish have completely no regard for other societies or cultures, which places women’s modesty high up on the scale. Many societies in the world value a woman’s modesty and dignity. In trying to push for the argument that women be allowed to (un)dress the way she pleases, are they not being insensitive to such societies, forcing their own values on others? Yep, talking about how Feminists bark at others how women are forced to dress and cover up by some societies!

Let’s test it out, shall we? -

To hardcore Feminists who have young teenage daughters, I suggest we do the Sincerity Test. Here it is:

Would you allow your 16 year old daughter to dress skimpily and walk around Orchard Road with her other skimpily dressed friends around midnight on a weekend?

To Feminists who have no teenage daughters, find a fellow Feminist friend who has. Then ask her the question above.

On the other hand, if you can’t even find one Feminist friend who has a teenage daughter, that about sums up how many women you know have the same line of thought about allowing their daughters to (un)dress themselves, not to mention women who are willing to (un)dress themselves, no?

In other words, have you not as a Feminist, been isolating yourself from the rest of society, mixing only with the type of your kind, such that you believe in your false notion that a woman should be allowed to (un)dress as she likes, as an accepted norm, when in reality, most women don’t even agree with you to start with?

Feminism is just an extension of Western influence, does not cut across all cultures, in fact it conflicts with some cultures -

Let’s face the hard truth. Feminism is not an ideal shared by many societies and cultures in the world. Feminism is a minority thought. It is a sectarian thought.

Feminists who are pushing ideals of Feminism around the world are no different from extremists from some religious groups, pushing their brand of bizarre religious beliefs around the world. Both are delusional that the world revolves around them and their ideals, unwilling to accept that they are a minority, and they believe they are the chosen ones who are appointed to change the world to reform and convert others to their way of life.

Even today, many societies around the world treasure the true feminine nature of the female gender. Many societies prefer to see the conservative lady, prim and proper, rather than the brash woman who shamelessly displays her boobs and more, and expect society to respect them for their lack of shame and modesty.

My Concluding Words -

Slutwalk is no smartwalk. In fact, it is telling the world you are willing to accept the term “slut” to be used on you. Haven’t past Feminists fought hard to “de-stereotype” women who dress shabbily are to be called sluts in the first place?

Telling the world that a woman has a right to (un)dress as she pleases is highly irresponsible. It is giving young girls the wrong idea that the way a woman (un)dresses has nothing to do with sexual crimes.

Feminists should stop living in their own delusional, isolated world, believing that their ideals are a majority school of thought, and they have the moral right to teach, even condemn, other societies who do not conform to their way of thinking.

Finally, if Feminists want to be taken seriously, they should act seriously. Stop giving yourselves a bad name, trying to elevate the term slut to a noble level. It is an irony that the last sentence in AWARE’s article above states:

“We demand respect.”

Huh? You want respect, yet you call yourselves sluts and go round showing off your boobs and more, shamelessly? As if you know no modesty?

Nobody takes sluts seriously. Don’t these Feminists realise that? Or are they truly out of touch with society?

=========

Related Link:

Slutwalk ain’t no smartwalk

Feminist opinion on gender issues can be so inherently gender-bias to start with

I am having a quiet laugh at some Feminists who keep saying that we must end gender-bias in some men’s opinions. That is because whenever they bring such issues up, their own narrow view is inherently gender-bias to start with.

From who else but (un)AWARE:

What women want (in a President)

But I can tell you what many women do not want in a President. We do not want our political leaders to perpetuate sexist stereotypes, because words from the top carry weight, and through the media, these words can reverberate through society, influencing and perpetuating certain attitudes.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: On wives getting permission from husbands

During The Online Citizen’s Face 2 Face forum (Part 2, 00:58), adjunct lecturer Ms Hani Mohamed asked the Presidential candidates what they would do to encourage women to enter politics or take on higher decision-making roles. Dr Tan Cheng Bock replied that “some of our top CEOs are women” but “the political arena is a difficult area for women in Singapore because the commitment is really very heavy. So you got to get the permission of your husband.”

There was a loud, collective ‘OH!’ from the shocked audience. Everyone seemed to realise how sexist that sounded, but rather than realise his faux pas, Dr Tan Cheng Bock merely smiled broadly.

But isn’t the view by Feminists that “asking permission from husband” sexist, is constructed to be sexist by Feminists themselves?

Cheng Bok is a Christian. In Christian Literature, the husband is the head of the household. The wife (and children) needs to seek the permission of the head of the household.

Can’t it be argued that due to his Christian upbringing, he on the spur of the moment, gave his opinion as such? Why must it be seen as a “gender-bias” opinion, and not some other reason, like Christian upbringing? Has not Feminists constructed a gender-bias situation, when it could have been something else?

Mr Tan Jee Say: Giving women the choice to be housewives

During the same forum (Part 2, 1:04), AWARE President Ms Nicole Tan asked the candidates for their views on the Baby Bonus – whether it was still necessary, and whether it had been effective.

Mr Tan Jee Say replied: “I would like to go back to the days when women can afford to be housewives… I’m not discriminating against women working, it’s just that women would like to have the choice of not working. After a certain stage in life, they (women) want to really look after their family. And the present circumstances do not allow such choice, because of cost.”

I agree that people should have this choice, but by focusing specifically on women instead of making a gender-neutral point, Mr Tan is merely reinforcing the attitude that women should be the ones to have “the choice” to “really look after their family”. Does he realise that this unequal burden placed on women, including those who work by choice, is precisely why some cannot cope with having more babies?

Again, a Feminist constructed opinion that if we give women a choice to be housewives, it is due to “gender bias”. The idea of woman as homemaker again, like the idea of husband and father is the head of the household, has long been entrenched in many traditions. It is a worldwide phenomenon.

So isn’t making this opinion (as mentioned by Jee Say) a gender issue, actually a recent construct by Feminists?

My Personal Opinion

Feminists seem to be pushing everything that concerns women as gender issues, and if they find it is “disadvantageous” to them (but not necessarily to women), they will say it is gender bias.

But Feminism is an ideology in itself. Like beliefs, which has traditions that has certain practices, Feminism has its own ideology that purports to propagate practices that are “fair to women”, never mind those practices may not really be fair to women, but just practices that seek Feminists to tell women what to do. I have discussed that in this article – I told you Feminism is about Feminist Tyranny replacing Patriarchy

The ideology of Feminism started from the Western hemisphere. But to many other parts of the world, the ideals of Feminism is foreign or even alien. Pushing the Feminist agenda on societies that are not too familiar with Feminist ideals is no different from the missionaries of the past, pushing their ideological beliefs on the natives of the lands.

Back to the opinions given by Cheng Bok and Jee Say on Women Issues. The former gave his opinion that the wife has to ask permission from the husband. The latter gave his opinion that women be given a choice to be housewives.

The above opinions are backed up by centuries of tradition, which is the practice of the norm in many societies around the world even today. It is based on a mixture of religion and other Family Structure type practices, long before anyone heard the term “Feminism”.

So the next time a Feminist argues that a certain opinion is sexist or gender bias, ask her (or him) if that opinion itself is a gender bias constructed opinion, when that opinion could be a host of other reasons that has nothing to do with Feminism.

A Woman President just for the sake of a Woman President?

That seems to be the motto of AWARE.

Is a female President impossible?

Excerpt:

A blogger wrote that a female President would “bring a fresh perspective to the office of the President, serving as a softer mother figure of the nation, neutralising and possibly transforming the still prevalent harsher, for-your-own-good paternal style of the parliament”. A Straits Times Forum letter suggested that a female President “would be a momentous event, in my opinion, to recognise the importance of the role of Singaporean women in improving democracy”.

This chatter is all very well and good, but also somewhat beside the point. The issue at hand is not whether Singapore would benefit from having a female President, or if citizens are ready to cast their vote for a woman – at least not yet.

The plain truth is this: The professional credentials of an eligible Presidential candidate are held to such exacting standards that current levels of female representation in the highest echelons of the public and private sectors in Singapore are simply inadequate.

In other words, much more must be done to encourage and ensure the presence of more women at these levels of leadership, before a female President becomes a real prospect.

Isn’t this about having a female President just for the sake of having a female President?

In America, before Obama was elected, Americans thought it would be good to have a Black President. Well, they have one now. Any change since he took over Bush?

In fact, Obama’s performance and popularity has dived so much that many believe he would be a one-term President.

So much for having the first Black President who unceremoniously would be remembered as an unpopular President.

Not that I am against blacks or women as President (or PM) of any nation. Question is do we want one just to be politically correct?

Of course if there is a woman who is capable of leading, (be it President or PM) why not? Like Margeret Thatcher, Mrs Aquino, Ms Benazir, Mrs Ghandi, Megawati, Helen Clarke, Julia Gillard, Yingluck Shinawatra…

So if Singapore has one who is capable, I am sure Singaporeans would vote for her. There’s no need to push when no woman is ready.

>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 should face the Realities of Life

>Aware is still in denial mode, after more than half a year since they have been exposed for their gay agenda. In denial that there are exists today, an increasing number of men who are victims of women. Below is a forum letter from Aware, in response to an article reported by Straits Times.

Don’t turn perpetrators into victims

Note the following tone and attitude in the above forum letter.

- The ever perpetual misconception that the women are always the victim.

- The uncaring attitude of Aware towards genuine male victims.

- The non-acknowledgement that there truly are female perpetrators and male victims.

- The nonchalant and uncaring attitude towards genuine male victims who suffer too.

- The “we must protect female victims no matter what” attitude, even if it means that male victims have to suffer in the process.

- The inability to see that if the man accepts compound fine means he is implicated, also means that if the woman accepts the deal, she is implicated too.

- The inability to see that if man is innocent he would go to court, also means that if woman’s allegation is genuine, she would insist on going to court too.

- The inability to see that if women feel embarrassed to go to court, also means that the men will feel embarrassed to go to court too – hence, the acceptance on the man’s part to have fine compounded – and hence, that’s what ST’s article pointed out, ie there are women who staged the molest in the first place!

I believe that Aware is not in touch with the ground. In fact, it has been out of touch for many years.

Here are some suggestions to effectively to seed out wolf cries by women from genuine cases.

1. Names of alleged male perpetrators should be kept confidential until convicted. This takes the sting out of women who deviously want to shame men and cry wolf.

2. All molest cases should NOT be compounded but go through the FULL PROCESS of police investigation. This takes the monetary incentive out for women who try to make a quick buck by abusing the system.

If Aware is truly concerned about molest victims, shouldn’t they be the ones who suggest the above, rather than perpetuating the “woman is always the victim” notion?

Actually, I have lost all respect for Aware – ever since their gay agenda has been exposed. The forum letter from them simply reinforces the idea that Aware is really out of touch with the real world.

>Feminists, be responsible – stop the blanket "It was not your fault" statement

>Before I start, let me say that rape is probably the most heinous and barbaric crime any woman or girl can go through. This crime is so inhumane that if Singapore were to make it mandatory for rapists to be hanged, I would support it.

Having said that, I find that Feminists, in their eagerness to impose their own philosophy on others, have very irresponsibly taught young women and girls how not to be safe from sex crimes.

In the old days, grandma always told their young grand-daughters not to walk alone along dark streets. They were told not to come home late. And yes, they were told by their doting grandmas to dress conservatively. Grandmas knew and still know best.

Come the age of Women’s Rights, all the wisdom from past generations are washed down the drain. Feminists would claim that the advice given to young women are influenced by the male dominated society. So, don’t listen to any crap about dressing conservatively, avoiding dark streets and coming home alone late at night. Feminists tell young women and girls that all that advice comes from the oppressive male, who wants to keep women at home. So don’t listen to the men, just listen to the Feminist. Never mind that all that advice is actually from grandma.

In reality, feminists should note that:

The “It was not your fault” statement should only apply to women and girls who have taken grandma’s advice and yet, still get sexually assaulted.

It should not be used as a blanket statement to victims who carelessly disregard grandma’s wise words.

There is such thing as contributory factors on the part of the victim – let no feminist deny that.

And let no feminist portray those wise words from grandma as male dominance, such that women and girls can throw caution to the wind.

Below is a post from a blog which appears not to give consideration for the safety of women and young girls. Instead, it up plays that the victim did nothing to contribute to her own state. But all the signs of disregarding wise grandma’s words are there. So why the denial that there was a contributory factor on the part of victim (read as disregarding grandma’s advice) in the article?

Is not the above article sending an erroneous (and irresponsible) message that advice on personal safety can be disregarded?

Let me reiterate that rapists are demons and should not go unpunished. But what really distresses me is that fact that there are feminists who disregard simple safety first rules taught by good old and wise grandma.

Police handling of rape cases in Singapore : Skills Upgrading Needed
Note the quote “(reproduced at the end of this post too. I hope that she will be strong, know that none of this is her fault, and that many people care about her and will support her all the way)“.

If you read about the case found in this link, you will see that the victim somehow let her guard down, which grandmas had always warned -

“In her bedroom, she recounted to SI Kim the ordeal of how she had too much to drink in a Woodlands apartment and was raped by five men, one of whom was a friend of hers.”

I agree that the police could have handled the case more tactfully and professionally. But that is not the point I want to make. My main points are as follows:

1. Rape is a serious and heinous crime. I will support the death penalty for convicted rapists if the law allows it.

2. Feminists should stop acting irresponsibly, belittling words of wisdom handed down over generations on how to avoid rape and/or other sexual assault.

3. Feminists should stop giving the idea to young women and girls that all the wise advice given to them are from the male’s perspective because in doing so, they are encouraging these women and girls to behave in a manner that puts themselves in peril.

The crux of the issue is the safety of the women and girls. It is NOT about male dominated society telling how women should behave, as what feminists want you to believe.

If you touch a hot iron, you get burnt. If you disregard safety advice, you end up in perilous situation. These are FACTS.

Feminists should start acting responsibly. Feminists should stop using the “It was not your fault” blanket statement to justify the disregard of grandma’s wise advice.

If feminists want to protect women and girls from rape, then do the right thing – take grandma’s advice. It works marvelously.

>Modern Woman’s Dilemma – which is worse, Patriarchal Domination or Feminist Oppression?

>Sometimes I wonder if our women are going through some sort of identity crisis. They been told that they have always been told what to do. So it is time to wake up and be assertive – and start doing things what they want to do, and not what others decide for them what to do. So at last, with the dawn of Feminism, women are free from for any form of dictatorship – or so it seems.

This article is a follow up of a previous article (also on Feminism, of course) which I posted -So exactly what about Made to Order Brides are feminists not happy about?

It is the comments that follow the main post in the article above, that inspired me to write this follow-up. Briefly, the post in the link is about Mail Order Brides in Singapore. There’s a video clip that shows a Viet bride being “bought” by a Singapore man. Feminists have objected to this arrangement, citing it like buying cattle in the market.

In the Comments Section, it was argued that the bride accepted the arrangement out of her own free will. So if feminists now object, would it not be a case of feminists telling women what to do? Yes, the very grouse that feminists are up in arms with males telling females what to do, in a male dominated society?

In this post, we will hence discuss the topic that Feminism has replaced the Patriarchal System. We shall see that feminists have been telling women what to do, in place of men telling women what to do.

The Viet Bride Again

Let’s get back to the Viet Bride story that is found in the link above again. She is a willing bride and gives her consent. So why are feminists so upset about that? Here are a summary of points, as taken from the comments section of article.

- The transaction between the marriage consultant and the groom appears to belittle the status of women, akin to buying cattle in the market. The most telling part is that the bride has to be a “virgin”.

- The bride had “no or little knowledge” of her rights. She also was exploited for her poverty.

A different perspective -
As the saying goes, there are two sides of the coin. So what are the differing views to the above? The bride was willing and gave her consent. For feminists to say that the transaction was akin to buying cattle, feminists have in fact put forth their views above the view of the willing bride. Thus, has not feminists now taken over the place of the domineering male, expecting the bride’s view to be subordinate to their own feminist views?

Another point to note is the assumption of the lack of knowledge on the bride’s part. Knowledge to what? That she has a right to reject? Well, she accepted willingly, didn’t she? Isn’t that an indication that she knew she has a right to reject but chose to accept?

Or do these feminists mean that if they are given education and the ability to work, they don’t have to resort to being a mail order bride? That viewpoint can be approached from two angles. Firstly, feminists are assuming that these Vietnamese ladies are willing to be brides because they lack knowledge and education. Maybe so. But until that is proven, feminists just assume, haven’t they? What’s that point about men assuming women are the weaker sex by male society and hence have to submit to men, which feminists object? And now feminists are behaving the very same way the domineering male has for centuries?

Secondly, let’s look at the stereotype feminists have on women from third world nations. Feminists view third world women as oppressed, subordinate, helpless, exploited and ignorant. So while feminists have always been hard on male society, alleging male dominant culture always stereotype women as the weaker sex, feminists themselves are now stereotyping third world women in their own way.

At the end of the day, for all the cries and (hypocritical) claims feminists make that we should protect the Viet bride, these same feminists have not come up with a tangible, workable plan to “empower” Viet women to make choices. They offer no alternative, other than their “words only” that we give them education. So how is that to be done? They offer no ideas.

This gives impression that feminists are only concerned about their own agenda and truly have no genuine concern for the individual Viet brides.

The Hijab – Feminism vs Religious Clash

Moving away from the topic of Mail to Order Brides, it can be argued that this notion that Feminism has replaced the Patriarchal Society is universal, and not just a Singapore phenomenon. An interesting point that was also discussed in the linked article above is the issue of the ban on the hijab worn by Muslim women. In fact, this issue magnifies the oppression and true nature of Feminism much more than the Mail to Order Bride case. So let’s study how Feminism functions, or rather, “disfunctions” when it comes to the hijab case.

Actually I really like to cite the hijab case in Feminism, because it is this issue that truly magnifies and amplifies the true nature of what Feminism stands for. It is here you get to see the real Feminism, warts and all.

Here is the issue. If Feminism is about empowering women to make their own choice, and not being subordinate to male (or other) dominance, is not banning of the hijab an intrusion into the woman’s rights, hence a feminist issue?

What is interesting is that the same feminists who appear to fight for women’s rights, actually justify why they do not see the need to fight for Muslim women who are forced to take the hijab off. Feminists cite that this is a religious issue.

Oh, really? Let’s see if feminists will stick to what they say, or will they have to eat their own words….

Religion precedes Feminism? Have not feminists shot self in foot? -
Ah, so if the hijab issue is a religious issue, and because of that feminists feel they don’t have to defend their Muslim sisters, then are they not saying that if there is a clash between religion and feminism, religion precedes feminism? Hey, if I recall correctly, one of the major grouses feminists have is that religion (especially Christianity and Islam) is male bias and hence we should educate women to stand for their rights.

Well, these Muslim women are now standing for their rights – to don the hijab. Yet, they are forced to have it off. Now feminists tell them that it is a religious issue? Have not feminists undone all they have tried to do, educating women that they should not submit to religious tyranny of male bias?

Dress as you wish –
Another very familiar feminist quote on women’s dress is that “Women have a right to decide how they want to dress and not be subjected to what men decide for them.”

The above quote is always heard when it is argued that some women get raped because of the way they dress. Let’s put aside the safety argument why women should dress decently. Let’s just stick to the argument that the woman has the right to decide how she dress as she pleases. So why is this argument not used by feminists to defend their Muslim sisters to put on the hijab?

Men stereotype women in mini skirt, Feminists stereotype women in hijab -
It does get interesting, doesn’t it? I mean the hijab issue exposing Feminism’s hypocrisy. Feminists, decry that men stereotype women in scantily dressed attire. They hit out at men who say that women who dressed scantily are asking to be raped. OK, then are not feminists stereotyping women in hijab as backward and uneducated guilty too?

It is a common perception by many (feminists included) that the hijab is oppressive to women. Feminists argue that the hijab covers the woman against her will. Hence if these women are given education and freedom to choose, somehow they would fling off their hijabs, show their pretty faces, beautiful hair and bosoms and behave as the new, liberated woman.

Are not feminists assuming too much?

Firstly, have not feminists stereotyped women in hijab, that is, have they not stereotyped women the way she dresses? So have they not committed the same sin they accuse men of, when these men stereotype scantily clad women as loose?

Secondly, feminists assume that these women in hijab have been forced to put it on. Let’s look at the Afghan women today. We were told that the Taliban forced women to cover up. Yet, years after the fall of the Taliban, these women are still covered up!

Another viewpoint is that, what about the woman who wants to have the hijab on? The hijab is banned in schools and universities in France and parts of Germany. These women who want to have it on are university students – hardly ignorant like what feminists claim them to be. These female students have the knowledge, yet they choose to have it on.

So isn’t the assumption by feminists that a woman who wants to wear the hijab because she is ignorant, itself an ignorant assumption?

Global Uniform Template-like Answer towards Hijab -
The biggest irony of this whole episode is that the reasons given by feminists (pertaining to hijab ban) is all the same, wherever you go. The view that the hijab ban is a religious issue and not feminist issue, as well as it is worn only by ignorant women, is the same among all feminists, be it from Europe, America or from this part of the world.

Isn’t this ready-made, template-like answer, readily given by feminists all around the world, an indication that Feminists have successfully drilled and brainwashed women to think a certain way, and only in a certain way? What’s this talk about Feminism is about breaking the Male deciding what women should think? Are these feminists not committing the same sin they accuse men of?

Conclusion

It appears that it is a no-win situation for the modern woman. If she sticks to the traditional patriarchal system, she is accused of being submissive to male patriarchy. On the other hand, if she moves over to feminist ideals, she will only be transferring her submissive and subordinate ways to Feminism.

The only way to be truly free from any dominance and/or oppression is when the woman decides for herself and for herself alone. No one should tell her what her choice should be.

The bizarre ironic twist is that the women who have that courage to decide for themselves are the likes of the Viet Brides and the Muslim women in hijab – the very women Feminists so scorn.

>The Blue Mansion: Same Gay and Feminist Message

>Movies have long been used by lobbyists to soft sell otherwise unpalatable, even undesirable causes. That’s how the Vietnam War was sold – loads of war movies during the 1970s and 1980s showing how Men in Green Berets fought with valour – never mind using chemicals like Napalm and Agent Orange on civilians are well against humanity.

We have seen how movies and TV shows sold free sex, single motherhood etc as well. When once these lifestyles were condemned by our grandparents, free sex promoted on the screen today is no longer an issue.

So it comes as no surprise that gay themes are now being played over and over in movies. What comes hand in hand about gay theme is also the deconstruction, or should I say more accurately, the destruction of the family unit. The all encompassing argument of the “patriarchal” family is always played out by feminists, who by now work closely with gay groups.

Here is a review by Kent Ridge Common (KRC), (which I have pointed out are gay theme promoters themselves- you can dispute me if you wish) on the movie show, The Blue Mansion.

Note that the movie review was the result of Kent Ridge Common’s close working relation with AWARE. The review in point form as follows.

1. The usual patriarchal (Asian ?? – you mean only Chinese are Asians? – shouldn’t it be East Asian?) that leads to much unhappiness.

2. The unhappiness includes the overbearing (patriarchal again!) father who is the head of the family, which in turn causes mayhem in the family.

3. This includes the daughter turning to alcoholism.

4. The second son has an unhappy marriage and turns to a mistress.

5. The eldest is a closet gay and suffers in silence.

6, The producer of the movie (as highlighted by KRC) tries to send a message that the PAP, using Confucian values, can cause those subjected to such authority to rebel.

7. KRC appears to allude the above to the Singapore Family and Singapore lifestyle of control under the family environment and/or the Singapore environment where the government places heavy emphasis on the Family Structure. What a far fetched idea by KRC, as we shall see later.

8. In other words, the Blue Mansion is a soft sell, the very tool used by gays and feminists, to promote gay themes and deconstruction of the family unit.

My Personal Points

I feel that this is another subtle message to sell gay theme and deconstruct the family unit. Here are my reasons why I feel that The Blue Mansion is nowhere anything like the typical Singapore Family Unit.

The average Singapore Family lives in the HDB flat. The more well to do live in landed property. Those who live in Mansions are the very rich, and are probably Singapore Perm Residents and/or expatriates who own businesses outside Singapore, rather than typical citizens. How does the producer (or KRC as in its review) expect the average Singaporean to even empathise with such a family as portrayed in The Blue Mansion?

Here are the main issues what the typical average Singaporean family are concerned with….School, school, school – Even before little lad starts primary school, some parents will take pains to ensure that their child enters “top schools”. They do that either by finding residence within the 1 km radius of the school, or be volunteers in the schools’ Parents Support Group.

From then on, it is school results, gaining place in top secondary schools, JCs and NUS or NTU. It is always studies that is on the minds of the typical Singapore family. Not just for the kids, but for the over worried parents too!

For young parents who have pre-school kids, the main concern is who looks after their children. It is not uncommon for both parents to work. The question of hiring domestic help, together with all the problems tied with that, has to be factored.

In the light of the current economic downturn, another concern the family has is job security and making ends meet. And for families with elderly parents and/or grandparents, the issue of the high healthcare costs comes into the picture.

The above are more relevant to the average Singapore family. A far cry from the billionaire family lifestyle The Blue Mansion tries to portray.

Gay Theme and Patriarchal Family – the fingerprint of gays and feminists

The above theme has to be played out, isn’t it? That’s what they’re after, isn’t it? The film isn’t about Asian values or The Family per se. It is about subtly sending out negative images of the family unit, and celebrating gay issues.

I feel that Jack Neo’s production is more representative of the typical Singapore Family. Yes, it has its own controversy, like the subtle racist themes, stereotyping Westerners and ethnic minorities in Singapore. But that aside, the Singapore audience can empathize the characters in Jack Neo’s movies, rather than the far fetched, airy-fairy, “typical Asian Family” (haha) The Blue Mansion erroneously tries to portray.

Finally, going by the recent Aware Saga where 8000+ signatories petitioned against Aware’s CSE to the MOE, the typical Singapore Family actually is against gay themes, rather than willing to celebrate it the way The Blue Mansion tries so hard to project.

What the show could be representing instead

I would like to say that if there are any morals or message the The Blue Mansion highlights, it can be that alcoholism destroys lives as portrayed by the daughter. The message can also show that having extra marital affairs turns your life upside down, as played out by the second son. Finally, the eldest shows that being a gay can mean being a misfit in society, in spite of your high wealth status. (Why not that provocative message, since so called “modern” movie themes are about prodding the mind to think laterally?)

Another message could be that if the head of the family (the father) is too engrossed with wealth, rather than forming ties with his children, it can cause a fallout. Hence, the message could be that bonding within the family, rather than creating excessive wealth, is far more important.

Lastly, since it involves the death, the message could also be a reflection of what one wants to achieve in life. When asked what is the one regret any dying person has, it is always that he or she did not spend enough time with his or her family. No one answers that he or she did not make enough money.

Again, the above is a powerful message that can be used to drive the point that family unity and cohesion is much more important than chasing after gold.

Now why can’t The Blue Mansion be seen in that light? It can, of course. But the producer’s and the reviewer’s message is about gay theme and destruction of the family unit. That explains the way off mark alluding that a billionaire family can represent the typical Singapore family unit.

What a laugh.