Response to Ju-Len

 

**WARNING: THERE ARE NO STICK-PEOPLE IN THIS POST. IF YOU’RE HERE TO LOOK AT STICK PEOPLE, SCROLL DOWN!!!**

This is a follow up to an earlier post where I criticised STOMP Star Blogger Ju-Len for being sexist.

Ju-Len responded by posing the following question:

How to explain something that is so obvious that it feels like a punch in the eye?

Here’s the response I typed up on the STOMP blog:

I have homework to write, but I didn’t want you to think that local women make blind, unfounded assertions and attacks, and then later fail to back them up. So I’ll quickly type this up:

In general terms, sexism = thinking that women are inferior to men.

I can think of two defences you might come up with against a charge of sexism:

1. You don’t think women are inferior to men, you even called them “the world's better half”! You merely think that local women are inferior to foreign women.

2. Assuming that your view was that local women are inferior to local men, would that make you sexist? I think so. But you could argue that you think that BOTH local women and men are inferior to our foreign counterparts. Nothing to do with gender, you think that all Singaporeans are equally bad.

Here’s what I have to say:

1. Hedging yourself by mentioning the line that women comprise of “the world's better half” in passing, does not immediately give you a free pass to say whatever you want in what follows. It’s like people starting a conversation with “I am not a sexist, BUT...” or “I am not a racist, BUT...”. Your “stated stance” and “what you’re actually saying” can be, and in this case are, completely different things.

2. Even though I recognise the topic had to do with “Singapore women” and not “Singaporeans”, you were *completely silent* on whether you think local men were equally as guilty of all the faults you listed. You had so many opportunities, even in the comments, to explicitly make such a stance known and yet you chose not to do so. Instead, you went for ambiguous “let me cover my backside”-type comments like: “Anyway my assertion isn't that local women are less 'worldly wise' than local men. It's that they're not 'worldly wise'. Period.” Given that you had so much to say about women, your complete silence about local men spoke volumes.

Those general matters out of the way, in the following are concrete instances in which I can specifically point to sexism/ the objectification of women.

1. Quote: “It’s probably a universal attribute of our species that men will always be judged by the cars they drive”. Meaning: All women, local or foreign, are materialistic, and the poor men will be the victims of their judgment. Oh, never mind things like glass ceilings and economic oppression of women by the patriarchy... Oh poor men, with their calculating and grubby girlfriends!

2. Quote: “Foreign women have exotic accents”. Meaning: Foreign women are some sort of strange creature that we can enjoy for EXOTIC appeal. Please see: Postcolonial theory regarding the oppressive nature of exoticism.

3. Quote: “Even if they absolutely have to bray like that, I would at least like my women to look like women.” Meaning: Alright, I’ve made so many criticisms about women, but in the end, the worth of a woman boils down to whether or not she has large breasts. If a woman is un-cultured and materialistic, she can still be “saved” if she doesn’t look like Changi Airport!

SEXIST!!!!!!!

It was an attempt. It’s not perfect.

Next on my to-do list: Learn how to coherently explain to a man that he is being sexist.

Once again, I apologise for the lack of stick-people on this post.