Skip to main content

Diigo Home
Home/ XD3102 - Gender Studies/ Group items tagged Children

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Weiye Loh

Balderdash: Modes of Feminist Rhetoric - 0 views

  • I don't see why AWARE should prioritize minor forms of discrimination against men when the vast majority of gender discrimination is not directed at men.
  • B: ah, but what "use" do single men have for girls anyway?
  • B: Presumably the same 'use' single women have for boys...
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • the whole "what about the poor, oppressed men" argument is anti-women. Yes, rape by women does happen and yes men can get raped, but are these really as serious problems in society than women being sexually assaulted? No.
  • Ladies nights do not objectify men like that cups promotion. Also Ladies Nights are not examples of misandry. This is like claiming that affirmative action is anti-white racism.
  •  
    More sexism you won't see AWARE protesting: single men cannot adopt girls

    Text of Adoption of Children Act: Restrictions on making adoption orders.

    "An adoption order shall not be made in any case where the sole applicant is a male and the infant in respect of whom the application is made is a female unless the court is satisfied that there are special circumstances which justify as an exceptional measure the making of an adoption order."
Weiye Loh

Balderdash: Money talks when S'pore women say 'I love you' / AWARE's flights of fancy - 0 views

  • "When it comes to looking for a potential spouse, the top criterion for Singaporean women is a man’s social status. Next on the list is kindness, followed by a lively personality. In contrast, American women value kindness the most, followed by looks, then a man’s social standing... ‘Maybe Singaporean women are just being realistic. Here, you need a lot of money to survive and afford an affluent lifestyle. Maybe they are just being practical’...

    The study found no major differences when it comes to men: Both American and Singaporean men went for looks first. The second most important trait in a spouse for men was kindness and the third was a lively personality...
  • By and large, he noted, wealthier countries tend to have lower birth rates. Yet ’significant differences’ still occur among countries which enjoy similar levels of economic development,
  • The relentless rat race and high cost of living are possible reasons Singaporeans are less happy with life and are more inclined to go after money and success... Besides, with the globalised economy and outsourcing, Singaporeans are vulnerable to losing their jobs to a foreigner any time. ‘People can’t really relax. Can you really get to the point where you feel comfortable? People just don’t get to that point any more’...

    Also, Singaporeans, like other Asians, tend to worry more about life than Westerners, who are ‘more relaxed’ and more comfortable with facing the unknown...

    People who are less satisfied with life and value material success more are less likely to view marriage and procreation ‘favourably’...

    With more women taking on high-flying jobs and their expectations of their partners rising as their own earning power soars, he reckoned getting the dismal birth rate up will be ‘very, very difficult’ unless a shift in values away from materialism towards more pro-family values occurs."
  •  
    Contrary to AWARE's claims, in Singapore feminism has actually decreased the birth rate - and more feminism will just depress it even more. This is not to say that is necessarily a bad thing, but just that they are divorced from reality; it is one thing to say that feminism, while depressing the birth rate, is still a good thing (even if contentious depending on definitions, this is defendable). It is quite another to say that feminism boosts the birth rate.

    Actually, this is not the most insane of their recent flights of fancy. In the world they live in, beauty is subjective and has no connection to a woman's remarriage; the use of the keyword "normative" should set off alarm bells, and the case is splendidly demolished ("Railing against the objective definition of beauty is like saying that America's Next Top Model is bunk; it is futile and makes everyone suspect that the person doing the complaining is ugly"). Again, it is one thing to say that maintenance payments should not be linked to looks (putting aside the fact of how similar quibbles could be made about "lifetime earnings", but they are commonly used to calculate, for example, divorce settlements [SPOING!])
Weiye Loh

Sex selection and the shortage of women: is science to blame? - Richard Dawkins - RD.ne... - 0 views

  • what if we are dealing with a human society in which cultural traditions over-ride the genetic imperatives (yet another example, this time not necessarily a benign one, of ‘rebelling against the selfish genes’). What if the religion of a country fosters a deep-rooted undervaluing of women? What if there is an ancient culture of despising women, whether for religious or otherwise traditional or economic reasons? In past centuries such cultures might have fostered selective infanticide of newborn girls. But now, what if scientific culture makes it possible to know the sex of a fetus, say by amniocentesis or ultrasound scanning? There is then an obvious temptation selectively to abort female embryos, which could have far-reaching and probably pernicious social consequences. I'll refrain from gloating over the possibility of Taliban-inspired woman-hating societies going extinct for lack of women.
  • The Guardian has a report today on ‘sex selection of babies’, which is described as a ‘scourge’ of the developing world.
  • Unnatural Selection by Mara Hvistendahl charts how the trend towards choosing boys over girls, largely through sex-selective abortions, is rapidly spreading across the developing world.

    While the natural sex ratio at birth is 105 boys born for every 100 girls, in India the figure has risen to 112 boys and in China 121. The Chinese city of Lianyungang recorded an astonishing 163 boys per 100 girls in 2007.

    The bias towards boys has been estimated to have caused the "disappearance" of 160 million women and girls in Asia alone over the past few decades. The pattern has now spilled over to Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, the Balkans and Albania, where the sex ratio is 115/100.

    The unnatural skewing towards male populations has become so pronounced in recent decades that Hvistendahl, a writer for Science magazine, says it has given rise to a new "Generation XY". She raises the possibility that with so many surplus men – up to a fifth of men will be single in northwestern India by 2020 – large parts of the world could become like America's wild west, with excess testosterone leading to raised levels of crime and violence.

  • ...2 more annotations...
  • t is she right to blame Western science and governments for making sex selection possible? Why do we blame science for offering a method to do bad things? Science is the disinterested search for truth. If you want to do good things, science provides very good methods of doing so. And if you want to do bad things, again science provides the best practical methods. The ability to know the sex of a fetus is an inevitable byproduct of medical benefits such as amniocentesis, ultrasound scanning, and other techniques for the diagnosis of serious problems. Should scientists have refrained from developing useful techniques, for fear of how they might be misused by others?
  • Even sex selection itself and selective abortion of early embryos is not necessarily a social evil. A society which values girls and boys equally might well include parents who aspire to at least one of each, without having too large a family. We all know families whose birth order goes girl girl girl girl boy stop. And other families of boy boy boy boy girl stop. If sex selection had been an option, wouldn’t those families have been smaller: girl boy stop, and boy girl stop? In other words, sex selection, in societies that value sexual equality, could have beneficial effects on curbing overpopulation, and could help provide parents with exactly the family balance they want.
  •  
    In nature, the balance of males and females is maintained by natural selection acting on parents. As Sir Ronald Fisher brilliantly pointed out in 1930, a surplus of one sex will be redressed by selection in favour of rearing the other sex, up to the point where it is no longer the minority. It isn't quite as simple as that. You have to take into account the relative economic costs of rearing one sex rather than the other. If, say, it costs twice as much to rear a son to maturity as a daughter (e.g. because males are bigger than females), the true choice facing a parent is not "Shall I rear a son or a daughter?" but "Shall I rear a son or two daughters?" So, Fisher concluded, what is equlibrated by natural selection is not the total numbers of sons and daughters born in the population, but the total parental expenditure on sons versus daughters. In practice, this usually amounts to an approximately equal ratio of males to females in the population at the end of the period of parental expenditure.

    Note that the word 'decision' doesn't mean conscious decision: we employ the usual 'selfish gene' metaphorical reasoning, in which natural selection favours genes that produce behaviour 'as if' decisions are being made.
Weiye Loh

Why is feminism still so afraid to focus on its flaws? | Deborah Orr | Comment is free ... - 0 views

  • Feminists (and I'm generalising here) tend towards the conclusion that women who don't sign up are simply hostages to the tyranny of the patriarchy, whose feeble personal consciousnesses have refused to be raised.
  • The fundamental and rather serious problem is the blunt and somewhat stubborn emphasis on "equality", difficult enough in a society deeply divided by economic inequality generally, even without the added complication that it's the people with care of children, whatever their sex, whose economic freedom is most compromised the world over.
  • It has also embraced, then dumped the idea of women who "have it all". The archetypal feminist of the 80s and 90s had a fulfilling and dynamic career, wonderful children, a lovely home and fabulous grooming. Consensus on the impossibility of such a lifestyle for any but the wealthiest has been long-since reached.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The mass entry of women into the workplace in the latter half of the last century was claimed too unequivocally as a purely feminist achievement. Yet the door opened so easily when pushed because the needs of capitalism had undone the bolt.
  • the fast-burgeoning demand for professionals did as much to usher women into flashy jobs as female liberation did.
  • equal opportunity in the workplace has not resulted in equal achievement, and not all of this is the fault of continuing chauvinism. Women bear the children and, far more often than not, they wish to be the primary carer for those children. At its most strident, feminism can be mistaken for an ideology designed to make women feel they are wrong to want that.
  • Worse, feminism has accidentally promoted the idea that it's pretty easy to work and have children, with the right support in place. On even an average income, it's never easy, even once children are at secondary school (though it's certainly easier then). Your priorities change. Work is no longer the most important thing, for a while anyway. Ambition can dissipate.
Weiye Loh

Claws and Flaws « Guardian Watch - 0 views

  • Deborah Orr looks at why some women still don’t adopt feminism or call themselves feminists. She starts by saying that there is a myth that women reject feminism simply because it has a bad image. A kind of 80s dyke image. I agree with her point in relation to that myth, that:

    ‘The very fact that some feminists are so willing to accept that women don’t want the label for such superficial reasons, rather than crediting women with more profound intellectual discomfort, is an indication that even feminist attitudes can sometimes be dismissive of women and their legitimate concerns.’

  • Orr writes:

    ‘The fundamental and rather serious problem is the blunt and somewhat stubborn emphasis on “equality“, difficult enough in a society deeply divided by economic inequality generally, even without the added complication that it’s the people with care of children, whatever their sex, whose economic freedom is most compromised the world over.’ (my emphasis)

  • ‘Feminists (and I’m generalising here) tend towards the conclusion that women who don’t sign up are simply hostages to the tyranny of the patriarchy, whose feeble personal consciousnesses have refused to be raised.’

    And, her belief that women reject feminism for more complex and thought-out reasons than mere ‘false consciousness’.

  • ...6 more annotations...
  • One of the problems I have with feminism is the way it seems to ignore the continued importance of the ‘couple’ in society. Sure, single parents, who are more likely to be women than men, suffer economic pressures. But people in couples, when they have children, do not operate as isolated entitities.
    • Weiye Loh
       
      But one might bear the brunt more than the other?
  • The real divisions are along class, location, cultural and age lines.
  • Orr goes on to do something I rarely see a feminist woman do, and that is she acknowledges that many of women’s advancements have been down to socio-economic change, not feminism.
  • ‘But equal opportunity in the workplace has not resulted in equal achievement, and not all of this is the fault of continuing chauvinism.’

    This statement goes along with recent research, for example by Catherine Hakim, reported in her book: Feminist Myths and Magic Medicine, which shows how the fast diminishing ‘gender pay gap’ is no longer the result of discrimination, but of actual different choices and behaviours made by men and women in their jobs and careers.

    http://www.cps.org.uk/cps_catalog/Feminist%20Myths%20and%20Magic%20Medicine.pdf

  • Orr acknowledges that when women have children often their ‘priorities change. Work is no longer the most important thing, for a while anyway. Ambition can dissipate’. She does not ask why the same does not occur for men, or if it does, why this is not an issue for feminists.
    • Weiye Loh
       
      Because the dominant narratives demands women to be contribute more towards the caring and well being of their children? 
  • I think feminists, deep in their subconscious, are worried that if they admit the truth that gender ‘inequality’ is not caused only and always by ‘patriarchy’ and ‘discrimination’ against women, then the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. If gender inequality is caused by a number of complex factors, and, in many instances men suffer from gender inequality (e.g. fathers, prisoners, mental health sufferers, men who don’t live as long as women or enjoy as good health as long as women), then what is this ‘feminism’ lark for exactly?
Weiye Loh

Powerless to protect our kids? Oh, do grow up | Barbara Ellen | Comment is free | The O... - 0 views

  •  
    This idea that we are powerless against a cultural tsunami - come on! Once late teenage hits, many parents learn the hard way about powerlessness, but not in the age range under discussion here. As the mother of an eight-year-old, I'm finding it easy to keep her away from padded bikinis, Nuts, internet porn, violent video games and sexy music videos. I did think The X Factor routines were too much for "little eyes", but it wasn't difficult to flick the channel over for a few minutes. It wasn't as if I was trapped, Dr Who-style, in a child-sexualised force field, unable to reach the TV remote.

    Indeed, as much as David Cameron seems to be enjoying waltzing around, looking all gung ho and "concerned father-ish", he must know that, without hands-on parental involvement, there is only so much the coalition can achieve. Popular culture does not exist to babysit our children. As always, parents have to step in where appropriate, too. So let's stop the sub-McCarthyist hysteria about child sexualisation and get some perspective - no one is going to steal your child's childhood, unless you let them. "Porn star" knickers for children are creepy, but they can't jump into underwear drawers all by themselves.
Weiye Loh

What Can The View Teach Us About Genderless Babies? « Canada « Skeptic North - 0 views

  • you’ve no doubt gotten wind of the controversy caused by two Toronto parents who decided not to tell the world the gender of their new baby, Storm. The story jumped from our national press across the 49th parallel, where the hosts of ABC’s The View had this to say:

  • The Blonde One To Whoopi’s Left: I don’t get it, it’s like when the baby was born they said, “Congratulations, it’s an It?” What did they say?

    What Not-Whoopi is getting at here is that something just doesn’t feel right about not being able to identify a child’s gender. It’s such a key piece of how we categorize the world — a simple, binary classification. In fact, I suspect, given gender’s importance in reproduction, that it’s often the first distinction we make on encountering someone.

  • Part of our cognitive hard wiring is to see the world through certain templates that may or may not accurately reflect reality, but are usually pretty close. In this case, what Not-Whoopi is probably driven by is Essentialism — the belief that living things have an irreducible quality that cannot be explained by physics and chemistry alone. Essentialism is partly caused by our tendency to categorize, thus “male” and “female” are more than just reflections of gentials and hormone balance, but the essence of maleness and femaleness. That’s a lot more than they taught in biology.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • When we deny people the ability to categorize, we deny them the ability to essentialize, and that makes humans very uneasy.
  • Continuing on:

    Barbara: There was a poll that the Today Show did, by the way, of 52,000 people. 11% said “A Great Idea’, 89% said “Terrible Idea”.

    The Other Blonde One To Barbara’s Right: It troubles me that this seems to be some sort of social experiment, where they’re using their child to send a message to everybody else.

    Did you see what Not-Barbara did there? She sounded for a second like she was concerned for the child (more on that below) but really, she’s concerned about the message this family is sending.

  • a good chunk of the vitriol behind the reaction to this story is aimed at the perceived affront to societal norms these people are making. I think there are two aspects to this:

    The first is personal. If Storm’s parents are right about the harm gender stereotyping does to children, then all of us parents who didn’t worry so much about it are wrong. Being wrong produces cognitive dissonance, and can result in a whole slew of behaviours to convince yourself that you’re actually right. More to the point: being wrong about how you’re parenting produces more cognitive dissonance than you can possibly imagine, and a reaction that can be shockingly violent. Just wade into the Homebirthing or Breastfeeding waters for a little taste of what that’s like.

  • The second seems to be simple herd conformance. It’s no secret that humans are social animals finely attuned to those individuals that are a bit too individual. Assuming that the intensity of herd response depends on the perceived threat such individuality presents, we might well expect parenting and gender — both pretty fundamental to the herd’s continuance — to evoke a pretty strong reaction.
  • Storm’s parents aren’t actually raising their child as gender neutral — no one’s duct taping their genitalia shut — nor are they, from what I’ve read, assuming a stridently behaviorist stance. They’re trying to change the way that other people treat the child.
  • Not-Whoopi made her position clear by quoting the wisdom of Lady Gaga: the baby was “Born This Way”, so any veering from that must be bad. Barbara made a similar (though perhaps better argued) point by quoting child psychiatrist Harold Koplewicz that “there is no such thing as gender neutrality,” and “infants are not a blank slate.” Which are both true, yet completely beside the point.
Weiye Loh

The Invention of "Adolescence" » Sociological Images - 0 views

  • The idea that young people take a decade to grow up, in the meantime inhabiting a space called “young adulthood,” is rather new in American culture.  A bit older is the idea of “adolescence,” the idea that there is a stage between childhood and (young) adulthood that is characterized by immaturity and capriciousness: the teenage years.  Before these ideas were invented, children were expected to take on adult roles as soon as they were able, apprenticing their parents and transitioning to adulthood with puberty.  Shifts in ideas about life stages is a wonderful example of the social constructedness of age.
  • Documenting the rise of the notion of adolescence, Philip Cohen searched Google Books for the term, tracing its rise at the turn of the 20th century till today:

  • but what about what we’ve learned in the last century about neurological and cognitive development? Obviously institutions have risen up to shape children into adult workers/citizens in a complex society instead of simply implementing them as unpaid farmhands on homesteads, but isn’t there something to be said for the existence of adolescence as a recognizable phase in late childhood?
Weiye Loh

Is Singapore justice blind? « Yawning Bread on Wordpress - 0 views

  • when someone has done wrong against another, justice requires that the former pay a penalty. Less noticed are other aspects: that to be just requires that the penalty must be proportionate to the degree of wrongdoing, and that if two persons commit similar crimes, the penalties imposed on them should be comparable.
  • Both sex-related cases with victims who were underage, but there are differences. Let’s compare the two cases:

  • Today’s Straits Times carried two stories from the courts.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • — Straits Times, 22 Feb 2011, NSF gets 18 months’ probation for underage sex
  • — Straits Times, 22 Feb 2011, Lewd proposals: Jail term upheld for ex-teacher
  • The most significant difference, in my opinion, that relate to the gravity of the offences is this: Case #1 intended and resulted in penetrative contact which in turn resulted in physical injury.

    As for mitigating factors, the perpetrator in Case #1 was himself not yet 21. Generally, the law is less harsh on those below 21 and rightly so.

  • As for whether the youngsters consented, it is an immaterial consideration. The girl seemed to have consented, but not the two boys. However it is immaterial because the law does not consider persons of that age capable of making informed consent.

    There are two questions here:

    1. Do you consider the two sentences equitable between these two offenders? If not, which do you consider too harsh or too light?

    2. Even if you consider both sentences roughly comparable given the circumstances, do you consider both sentences too harsh, too light, or just right?

    And why?

1 - 9 of 9
Showing 20 items per page
Move to top