MENU

MENU

Donate Now
Login

Year: 2014

home

FACE Featuring JuJubee from RuPaul’s Drag Race for One Night Only!

 

 

face-visualIndignation is proud to present a one night only event featuring JuJuBee from RuPaul’s Drag Race! RuPaul’s Drag Race is the first reality television show starring America’s most glamorous and hottest drag queens.

JuJubee will be supported by performances from some of your favourite queens from Singapore – Mona Kee, Noris and Becca D’Bus.

FACE is an event of IndigNation, Singapore’s LGBT Pride Season, now in its tenth year. IndigNation reminds all that the LGBT community is as much a part of Singapore as anyone else. Each event is separately organised by different people, who as a gesture of solidarity, contribute their events to the joint calendar.

This event will raise funds for IndigNation ensuring its continued presence on the Singapore calendar.

Please register here.

Date: 20 August 2014
Time: 8:00pm – 11:00pm
Venue: TAB, 442 Orchard Road, #02-29

Tickets

  • VIP Tables: $400
  • General Admission (online sales): $25
  • General Admission (door): $30

For more information, please click here.

This is an 18+ event. 

Abortion should be discussed factually

By Jolene Tan, Programmes and Communications Senior Manager, AWARE

I refer to Ms Angeline Chua’s letter calling for women considering abortion to have more information on the “psychological effects” of the procedure (“Elaborate on psychological impact of abortion”, 10 Aug).

Emotional and psychological reactions to abortions vary.  However, according to a 2008 briefing by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), the “predominant feeling” following abortion is “relief and diminution of stress”.

RCOG states that “severe negative reaction” is uncommon and tends to be present either when the pregnancy was planned or the abortion takes place late in the pregnancy.  These factors are rare in the Singapore context.  Termination usually takes place with unwanted pregnancies.  After 24 weeks of pregnancy, an abortion is only legal if the mother’s life is at risk.

The American Psychological Association has found that among women with unplanned pregnancies, choosing a single first-trimester abortion carries no greater chance of mental health problems than carrying the pregnancy to term.

Whether to bring a pregnancy to term or obtain an abortion is a highly personal matter.  Women deserve full access to accurate facts, presented in a neutral manner, so that they can make informed decisions based on their needs, circumstances, values and aspirations.

It is unduly sensationalist to present patients with only outlying and atypical examples of negative consequences, devoid of context or probability.

Women who have concerns about abortion should have access to support or therapeutic counselling if they require it. However, counselling should not seek to guilt-trip the many women who are largely reconciled with the choice to seek a termination.

 

Emphasising a default reaction of “guilt, shame and pain” may actually communicate moral disapproval to women who are in fact at peace with their own decision, thereby placing them under unfair social pressure.

This is not the appropriate role of doctors and counsellors, who should prioritise patient welfare in all their activities, in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath which enjoins them first and foremost to “do no harm”.

This letter was first published in the Sunday Times on 17 August 2014.

Build a university culture that respects consent

By Sumedha Jalote, Communications Executive, AWARE

graduatesLocal university management must take decisive action on reports of inappropriate sexual games at student orientation camps (‘NUSorientation camp criticised over ‘sexual’ games’, 2 August).

Orientation games take place in large groups of young people who do not know one another very well. Many are anxious to establish their place in a new community and to feel included in an unfamiliar environment where they expect to spend the next few years.

Asking them to strip, or lick whipped cream off another student’s body, or do push-ups on top of another student, is grossly inappropriate in such a setting. Many students feel acutely uncomfortable with this level of physical intimacy.

However, the desire to fit in makes it difficult for them to express their objections. In my own freshmen orientation camp at SMU, opting out of such sexual “games” wasn’t easy. No new student wanted to mark themselves as a “spoilsport” or “prude” by not participating, even if the activity made them uncomfortable.

While these activities are nominally optional, they are presented as part of a campus-wide exercise in student bonding. This communicates to students, right from the start of their university experience, that pressuring peers into unwanted physical contact and intimacy is a fun part of social interaction.

Senior students and universities that promote this are building a campus culture that celebrates coercive and invasive bullying, and which disregards consent and bodily autonomy.

This has ramifications that go beyond orientation. Too many students experience sexual assault and harassment on their university campus. Many universities in the United States, for example, are facing strong public condemnation for their failure to prevent and address sexual violence on campus.

Universities in Singapore must ensure student safety by building a culture that respects and recognises consent. Instead of allowing inappropriate sexual games at orientation camps, we ask universities to teach students to understand and respect boundaries, communication and consent.

This will show students that their well-being and concerns are valued by everyone around them, and help them feel more comfortable in speaking up to authorities if they subsequently encounter abusive behaviour. Ultimately, this builds a much safer environment for all students – where respectful bonding between peers is more likely to naturally develop.

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 15 August 2014.

Guest blog: Queer liberation is a feminist issue: A Singapore primer

By Leow Hui Min

In 2009, former law dean Thio Su-Mien proclaimed herself a “feminist mentor” and led a group from the Anglican Church of Our Saviour in taking over AWARE. She did so on the pretext of putting an end to an ominous and subversive “lesbian agenda.” She alleged that there was something suspicious about a feminist organisation that advocated for queer women.

feminist is for everyone

But as Flavia Dzodan has declaimed, “MY FEMINISM WILL BE INTERSECTIONAL OR IT WILL BE BULLSHIT!” [1]. What is intersectionality?  Basically, it is the recognition that everyone in society holds multiple identities. Some identities are accorded a higher social status (privilege), and some of those identities are accorded a lower social status. For queer women, both queerness and womanhood are sources of marginalisation.  An intersectional feminism must come to terms with these multiple axes of analysis.

In Singapore, colonial-era sodomy laws remain on the books, and the Media Development Authority actively censors queer-positive material as contrary to the public good. Its guidelines prohibit media that “glamourises” queer existence, but allows negative stereotypes and anti-queer propaganda to flourish in pulpits and newspapers alike. Marriage laws and immigration policies explicitly do not recognise same-gender civil unions lawfully contracted abroad, denying access to housing and other public services even to the couples with enough class privilege to obtain a partnership that’s legally binding somewhere in the world. To say nothing of the couples in a less privileged position.

Meanwhile, women participate in the labour force at a lower rate than men and for less pay. There remains marital immunity for rape, and the legal definition of rape remains pitifully archaic. MediShield does not cover birth control and the Ministry of Health mandates both unhelpful pre-abortion counselling and a two-day wait period.  Sexism extends beyond these regressive policy measures and is cemented in societal attitudes such as casual rape threats in the armed forces.

More than that, though—at its heart, homophobia emerges out of sexism.

While much of Adrienne Rich’s opus “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” is questionable, she very insightfully points out that the “eight characteristics of male power in archaic and contemporary societies” enumerated by anthropologist Kathleen Gough also serve to enforce heterosexuality in women’s lives. “The chastity belt; child marriage; erasure of lesbian existence (except as exotic and perverse) in art, literature, film; idealization of heterosexual romance and marriage,” Rich writes—“these are some fairly obvious forms of compulsion, the first two exemplifying physical force, the second two control of consciousness.”

Singapore has found itself with an organised anti-queer movement straight-up transplanted from Evangelical Christian America. Their preferred euphemism for their bigotry is “pro-family.” In defence of their views on sexual morality, they trot out every naturalistic fallacy in the book. Penises belong in vaginas! Women have uteri, therefore conception is a moral imperative! Every child requires one [1] mother and one [1] father, genetically related, with only infertility justifying adoption (only by heterosexual, married couples)!

It is a worldview without any room for individual choice—a worldview in which “biology,” with all its socially and culturally inscribed meaning, is taken as destiny. And it is a worldview where a conviction in rigid difference between binary sexes leads to the exclusion of queer people. Firstly, sexism; thus, homophobia.

The “pro-family” argument is founded on the idea that men penetrate, women conceive; that men lead, women follow; that men discipline, women nurture. In theological terms, it’s called complementarianism. In secular terms, gender essentialism. Besides a failure to accept the reality of transgender existences and a failure to imagine a world outside the male/female binary, this way of thinking refuses to consider individuals as individuals—people with their own individual personalities, preferences, strengths, and weaknesses, and not some psychological checklist based on the “M” or “F” they were assigned at birth.

Some women are nurturing. Some men are nurturing. It’s always good to have a mix of personalities in any team effort (like child-rearing), but personality traits are not gender-specific, and parenting is not about mixing one part stern voice to one part sayang-sayang, adding water, and then expecting a happy family and healthy offspring.

Sexism gives rise to prescriptive ideas about women’s “essential nature.” The sexist conceptualisation of womanhood chronically demands heterosexuality and denies transgender identities. Because feminism is opposed to sexism in all its incarnations, straight feminists must address homophobia alongside queer women, and cis feminists must address transphobia alongside trans women.

When critics ask why AWARE supports the advancement of queer and trans rights, then, it is a failure of the imagination to appreciate the connections between different forms of marginalisation in society. That support emerges from the recognition that it is not only cisgender and heterosexual women affected by anti-woman sexism, from the understanding that many oppressions overlap, and from the principle of solidarity that should be at work in all progressive movements.

 

Leow Hui Min studies race and gender in media, and is a professional pen-wielder. It’s fun.

 

[1] Intersectionality, as articulated by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1988 paper “Mapping the Margins,” is a rejection of the call (in the U.S. American context) for Black women to put aside their racial identities in order to get a seat at the feminist table. That rejection is rooted in the fact that Black women cannot separate the racism they experience from their gendered existences, nor the sexism they face from their racialised lives. Moya Bailey coined the term misogynoir to describe that double-whammy.

Blog: On my unrequited love for India

By Kokila Annamalai, We Can! Campaign Coordinator. This blog post is written in her personal capacity.

shame coverI just finished the book ‘Shame’, which is about forced marriage, honour killings and domestic violence in the South Asian diaspora of Britain. The author is a Sikh woman from Derby who survived very brutal oppression and violence by her family and community, and has spent her life supporting and advocating for other South Asian women and girls in Britain, mostly of Pakistani origin, who’re affected by the same conditions she was in.

What struck me about the book, apart from the horrifying experiences of some women, is the author’s evident pride in her South Asian identity, though she consistently refers to the South Asian community – its culture, norms, traditions and practices – as a site of inequality, discrimination and very violent crimes against women.

Like the author, I too identify deeply with South Asia and South Asian culture, especially India. Though I was born in Singapore and have spent most of my life here, my family is from India and has always taught me that India is home. Since I can remember, we went back to India every year for annual holidays. I’ve spent three of my adult years in Tamil Nadu and had quite a few other stints in different parts of India.

I have always loved India dearly, but because of my own experiences and the overpowering narratives of violence and oppression that is the reality of many South Asian women, it is a very difficult relationship – full of contradictions, shame, confusion and even guilt. But the feeling that has been strongest since reading ‘Shame’ is a very personal kind of pain and anger. It’s the same kind of pain and anger I feel every time I read or hear someone say that India is one of the worst countries in the world for women to live, and say it as though it is the most important thing about Indian society, notwithstanding everything else that is beautiful or remarkable about the place or the people.

I get angry not because they’re wrong, overgeneralising or reductionist in their accusations, but because they’re right. I recently came across an organisation called No Country For Women, which fights against gender-based violence in India, and I was taken aback by the truth in that name. It forced me to confront the fact that the love I have for India, at least for now, is unrequited.

Because the place I love is also a place in which I feel very unsafe; because many of the films in my language are deeply misogynistic and promote rape; because when I was sixteen, I was sent away to India where my relatives pretty much kept me under house arrest for six months because I was suspected to be dating a boy in Singapore; because many of the people I worked with in rural India and adore only respect me because I cover up around them and don’t share many parts of who I am or what I believe in with them.

My own community, both here and in India, accepts dowry, tolerates domestic abuse, forces women into marriage, and some people in my family still rebuke women who dare to call their husbands by their name.

Some of the oppressive practices in South Asia have a stronger hold on diasporic communities like mine, which cling on to them as a source of comfort, security and identity in foreign lands; but for me, growing up with other influences, opportunities and identities in Singapore has allowed me to reject those practices and those who impose them on me.

A part of me has always wanted to live in India and contribute to the feminist movement there. And having met my partner there, I’ve had to consider more seriously the possibility of moving there in the next few years to live with him, but I’m finding that it’s such a difficult decision to make. Because of our families (which are conservative), communities (which are punitive), socioeconomic status (not being able to afford the luxuries of private transport makes things even more restrictive and unsafe for women), jobs and other factors, I’m fearful that we cannot live the lives we choose, and that I will be forced to give up some of the things I believe in.

But here is the reality check – these compromises and restrictions are meagre compared to the situation of many women who can’t choose to stay away, who don’t have allies, who can’t support themselves financially, whose rapes and murders don’t make it to the news – hell, they don’t even make it out of their homes – who don’t have the power to reject the oppressive conditions they are in or be heard.

This is the reality check that makes me want to go and not want to go, at the same time.

Family justice must put welfare and fairness first

By Jolene Tan, Programmes and Communications Senior Manager, Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)

gavelWe support the recommendation by the Committee for Family Justice for specialist agencies to be set up to offer information, advice, counselling and support to those undergoing divorce (“Less painful divorces under new system”; July 5).

Our experience assisting women indicates that the legal processes are often stressful and confusing to the layperson.

These agencies must be sensitive to marital abuse and intimidation, including physical, psychological, social and financial abuse.

In such cases, we disagree with the committee that couples should undergo pre-filing consultation or mediation. Requiring joint attendance jeopardises the victims’ well-being.

The committee’s desire to “focus the parties on the children’s interest” can be fulfilled without forcing victims to enter unsafe spaces – for instance, through separate consultation sessions.

Overall, agencies should take a secular approach, committed first and foremost to the welfare of clients. Victims of domestic violence are often reluctant to leave an abusive relationship because of the widespread judgment that divorce is a personal failure or a moral ill. The agencies should support clients in prioritising their safety and avoid adding to societal pressures.

We also agree that litigants in the Syariah Court should have access to services provided under the State Court system, such as child welfare services and support for those facing violence. It is important to ensure that resources are available to the Syariah Court to prevent a two-tier system.

Lastly, it is unfair to limit maintenance claims by men to situations of incapacity. Existing criteria – including income, earning capacity, contributions to the household and financial need – can apply equally to claims by men. However, in practice, awards to women should be more common as a larger proportion of women (43 per cent) than men (1.8 per cent) who are economically inactive are in this position due to domestic responsibilities.

Moreover, judges must be alert to the potential effect of societal attitudes on their assessments. There is a danger that women’s domestic labour is given less credit because it is seen as “natural”, while similar efforts by men are unfairly perceived as a more significant sacrifice.

Maintenance assessments should also consider that women are more likely to be pressured by spouses and families to leave the formal workforce. However, these are not reasons to deny relief to men in deserving cases.

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 2 August 2014.

 

Housing policy must reflect commitment to equality

HDB

By Sumedha Jalote, Communications Executive, Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE)

Recently, a letter sent by the Housing Development Board (HDB) to a single mother appealing to buy a flat has struck a chord with many on social media, having been shared by over 1,600 people.

In a terse two paragraphs, the HDB letter rejected the application, stating, “An unmarried parent is treated no different from a single person. Hence, you and your daughter do not constitute an eligible family nucleus to apply for a flat from the HDB.”

The mother who received this letter and many who have seen this letter are justifiably angry. This discriminatory policy denies citizens – both unmarried parents and their children – access to public housing, which is a basic human right. It also sits uneasily with Singapore’s international obligations to protect children under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

The UNCRC is a comprehensive charter on the rights of children, setting minimum standards that governments should meet. Singapore acceded to the UNCRC in 1995.

Under the UNCRC, the state must “recognise the right of every child to a standard of living adequate” for the child’s development (Article 27). The UNCRC states that the state must take “appropriate measures to assist parents” in implementing this right.

Instead of assisting parents, the policies of the HDB make it much harder for them to provide for their children. The alternatives HDB suggested – renting a room or staying with friends – are often ultimately more costly, even though the need for affordable housing may be more urgent with only one parental income rather than two. The social pressures and uncertainty of home-sharing may also create a less favourable family environment for some children.

The UNCRC also requires the state to “take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination” based on the status, activities or beliefs of the child’s parents (Article 2).

By denying public housing to unmarried parents, HDB not only fails to protect children from discrimination, but itself actively discriminates against them, based on their parents’ circumstances or choices.

The recent furore over the National Library Board shows that many Singaporeans care immensely about creating a society that includes and supports diverse families.  Moreover, the government is equally accountable to everyone regardless of their family structure. Policies must stop punishing children for the circumstances or choices of their parents. We recommend that public housing be made equally available to all citizens at the age of 21, regardless of their marital status.

An edited version of this letter was published in TODAY on 1 August 2014.

Enhance police skills in sexual assault cases

From Sumedha Jalote, Communications Executive, Association of Women for Action & Research

police1The recent Committee of Inquiry and subsequent public discussions have addressed the possibility of enhancing Singapore’s police capability in areas requiring specialised skills, including by drawing on international experience. (“Overseas protest training for the police?”; July 21)

Sexual assault cases would be one area that may benefit from lessons in international best practice.

Through our Sexual Assault Care Centre (SACC), the Association of Women for Action and Research works with women who experience sexual assault, providing legal advice and therapeutic support, as well as accompanying victims who are navigating medical, police and legal processes.

Making a report is onerous. For six months to two years, victims undergo long interviews, repeating details of their assaults to multiple officers.

Research shows and our experience confirms that the responses of the police and other agencies can have a substantial impact on victim recovery. If a victim is not treated with due sensitivity, this can worsen trauma and slow down recovery.

If victims feel uncomfortable with the police, they may be hesitant to describe their experiences in detail or may even discontinue reports. This can hamper the ability of the police to gather evidence to hold perpetrators accountable. Thus, many police forces have specialised procedures and training to ensure a victim-centric approach to sexual assault. The Sapphire unit in London is “committed to ensuring that victims of sexual crime are treated with care and respect”.

The Singapore Police Force already has a specialised unit, the Serious Sexual Crime Branch (SSCB), and could consider this approach.

The police could refer all sexual assault cases immediately to the SSCB or designate specific police stations to handle such cases and provide all personnel there with advanced training.

Most victims’ first contact would now be with police officers who have not received specialised training for sexual assault. If it is not feasible to ensure that victims’ first contact is with specialists, the police should train all officers and counter staff to respond to an initial report in a sensitive, victim-centric manner before referring the case to centres with advanced training.

In New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom, a social worker or trained volunteer often accompanies victims through medical examinations, police interviews and court processes. In Singapore, only SACC clients typically benefit from such support. To enhance victims’ experiences of the legal system, the police could consider making immediate referrals to social workers for all sexual assault cases or developing similar services of their own.

Increased training and sensitivity, as well as greater resources for victims, would encourage more people to report their experiences and provide the support needed to heal from their trauma.

This letter was first published in TODAY on 26 July 2014.

Support parents rather than romanticise parenthood

By Jolene Tan, Programmes and Communications Senior Manager, Association of Women for Action and Research

Last Friday’s commentary (“For many, parenthood is one part blessing and one part trauma”) was refreshingly honest about the experience of parenthood.

familyToo often, new parents feel unable to openly discuss the difficulties they face in coping with the enormous transformation in their lives. There is tremendous social pressure to express only positive sentiments about having children.

Parents may see negative feelings as reasons for guilt and shame, as well as fear of judgment about not loving their children enough.

However, it is ordinary for any parent to sometimes feel ambivalent about parenthood, and to experience unhappiness, boredom or frustration from time to time. These feelings reflect the fact that parenting, like all caregiving, is hard work.

Women face especially intense and potentially damaging societal expectations to be “perfect mothers”, who sacrifice without complaint.

An Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) survey of more than 1,300 individuals found that most people – especially male respondents – see childcare as primarily the responsibility of women.

According to Manpower Ministry statistics, 43 per cent of women who are economically inactive cite domestic responsibilities as the main reason for not being formally employed, compared with only 1.8 per cent of men.

Ironically, placing the idea of motherhood on a pedestal can undermine the actual needs of real mothers for practical support. Other people may assume that women “naturally” know how to take care of children. This puts undue pressure on new mothers to automatically “get it right” through “maternal instinct”.

In fact, childcare, like all labour, involves a learning curve and the acquisition of skills and knowledge with experience. All caregivers, regardless of gender, go through this process, and need the material and emotional support of family, friends and society in general.

Unrealistic romanticism about motherhood also pressures women to deny that they have needs and aspirations that can conflict with the demands of caregiving. Women may feel guilty about the desire to have time and energy for other pursuits, including their own relaxation and hobbies.

We support the call for greater kindness and understanding towards caregivers. Society needs to recognise that caregiving work is not just for mothers – it should be shared. Policies can encourage this by expanding gender-neutral parental leave entitlements, doing more to financially support caregivers, and recognising the need for all employees to access flexible work arrangements.

This letter was first published in the Straits Times Forum on 11 July 2014.