In developed countries like Singapore, where a certain measure of gender equality has been reached such that a significant proportion of women have grown up never having to worry about systemic and institutionalised discrimination against them enshrined in legislation, the notion that we may be living in a post-feminist society, or even that the pendulum has swung too far and that men are the ones who are in need of affirmative action in certain fields, is no longer an uncommon view to hold.
Correspondingly, feminism is seen as superfluous and unnecessary, or if not dismissed entirely out of hand, is then seen as a movement which campaigns for trivial and inconsequential issues. In online discussions, mainstream media, and social media, modern feminists are commonly characterised as being overzealous, man-hating, high-handed, over-sensitive, humourless, and emotional. It therefore comes as no surprise that many people, even women, are hesitant in identifying themselves as feminists or supporters of the movement. The negative connotations that have been attached to it have led to many disparate notions of what feminism, as an ideology and socio-political movement, constitutes. Compounding this confusion is the fact that, much like any other socio-political movement, there are many competing schools of thought within feminism itself. However, I think feminism can, broadly speaking, be defined as comprising of two central assertions. Firstly, the empirical assertion is that women are discriminated and disadvantaged in society as compared to men. Secondly, the normative assertion is that this discrimination is unjustified, and that there should be equality of rights between men and women. The interpretation of what constitutes discrimination against women and the prescribed actions for eliminating discrimination, or even who should be defined as a woman, is still a matter of debate, but I believe that fundamentally these claims are what unify most of the differing strains of feminism.
The responses prompted by the Purple Lights debacle, in which many took to expressing their dissatisfaction that AWARE’s lobbying resulted in the banning of a portion of a popular army song that depicted rape and murder, has revealed a illuminating spectrum of attitudes and perspectives towards feminism in Singapore. Ignoring the more logic-defying arguments crafted by fine builders of strawmen, there were two main arguments against AWARE’s (Association of Women for Action and Research) advocacy of this particular feminist cause, which parallels a similar line of argumentation against feminism in general.
1. To change the status quo in support of (Feminist Cause A) would be emasculating for men and/or an infringement of men’s rights. Since women have mostly achieved the same rights as men, and men experience discrimination in certain areas, to champion women’s issues only, as feminism does, would be discriminatory towards men.
This argument appears to be given more credibility in Singapore, where it is compulsory for men to undergo National Service, but not women. Other often cited evidence that women are given preferential treatment over men include how the Women’s Charter grants the courts the power to order men to pay maintenance to their wives during marriage or divorce, as well as how female divorcees are awarded custody of their children in the overwhelming majority of cases.
It is certainly true that given the relatively high workforce participation rate for women in Singapore, it is perhaps inevitable that there may be some families where the female spouse has a higher income-earning capacity. AWARE however, is cognisant of this disparity, and in their proposal for amendments to the bill, includes a suggestion that the law be amended to one in which “in appropriate cases, where it is just and equitable, husbands should have right to seek maintenance from their wives.”
With respect to the awarding of custody of children, the law is not biased towards either gender, because the “paramount consideration” in the awarding of custody is the “welfare of the child”. Certainly, in a disproportionate number of cases custody is awarded to the mother, but that is only surprising if one ignores the still widely-held stereotype that women inherently possess the traits necessary for being caregivers, which in turn has translated into the expectation that the bulk of the child-rearing and household chores should fall upon them. This expectation is borne out in reality, with 81% of economically inactive women aged 25-54 citing family responsibilities as the main reason for not seeking employment, as compared to 9.2% of men, according to a labour force survey conducted by the Ministry of Manpower in 2013. If anything, this gender gap in the awarding of custody should augment the need to dispel gender stereotypes, one of the main concerns of most feminist movements.
As for compulsory military conscription, which appears to be the most common grievance expressed against the advocacy of some feminist causes, it should be noted that insofar as AWARE can be taken to be representative of mainstream feminism in Singapore (as has been the implicit assumption of this article), feminists have proposed that NS be extended to both genders, while the nature of what constitutes as NS be broadened to include other activities like social services.
I should point out here though, that the defences of feminism I have outlined above should be completely unnecessary.
It is undeniable that men are negatively impacted by the imposition of social constructs defining masculinity and are judged according to how well they live up to these artificial ideals. To work towards rectifying these issues is a laudable cause, but it is interesting how many of those who purportedly champion men’s issues inexplicably find it almost necessary to be card-carrying anti-feminists as well. The strangely reflexive defensiveness for many of these anti-feminists could be attributed in large part I think, to the way they perceive the advocacy of particular feminist causes as an attack on their hitherto freedom to perform actions which are construed, if not as ‘direct’ misogyny, then at least facilitative of an atmosphere that is uncomfortable for women.
There is a certain level of vindictiveness and spite, in that because women are seen to receive preferential treatment over men in certain areas, it is only fair that they should have to put up with being disadvantaged in other ways. This is not only childish, but absurd. The fact that one party experiences discrimination in particular fields in no way justifies their opposition to the attempt by another party to better their own cause.
This is not some sort of grotesque competition to see Who Has The Most Legitimate Claim to Oppression, where the discrimination suffered by one gender in a particular field is pitted against another, and the side that earns the glory of the title of being More Oppressed should henceforth command all the focus and resources of any gender-related socio-political movement. It is perfectly acceptable if a feminist organisation chooses to advocate for gender equality by focussing mostly on the discrimination experienced by women, much like it would be perfectly acceptable if a men’s rights organisation chose to focus on the discrimination faced by men. Trying to make a value judgment about whether women’s or men’s issues should take precedence in the advocacy for gender equality is unnecessary and counterproductive.
2. (Feminist Cause A) is trivial and inconsequential, because there are so much more important and pressing issues which feminists should concern themselves with, like (More Important Cause B).
This argument is often levelled at feminists who advocate for ‘soft’ issues like misogyny and problematic representations of women in songs and mass media, the gender-based vitriol targeted at public female figures, or the underrepresentation of women in certain academic disciplines, industries, and upper tiers of management. Proponents argue that these ‘soft’ issues pale in comparison to more pressing issues that need to be addressed, like sexual harassment in the workplace and in public areas, and the lack of legislation penalising marital rape.
There are a few things which proponents of this argument fail to realise. Firstly, the advocacy of ‘soft’ issues and ‘hard’ issues is not mutually exclusive. It is also not necessarily true that devoting all of the organisation’s resources into resolving ‘hard’ issues to the neglect of ‘soft’ issues will be more beneficial in attaining gender equality in the long run. Although it is much harder to quantify the value of campaigning to resolve more ideological, less visibly tangible issues, it would be hard to deny that these issues do, in varying measures, affect the individual’s perception of social reality, and structure their interactions with other people. For instance, in a recent study of HR managers in Singapore, it was revealed that 44% of them felt that the relative lack of career advancement of women compared to men was due to societal perceptions that women were less capable at their jobs, by virtue of their gender, with the figure rising to 77% for medium-sized firms. Elsewhere, in a study published in the British Journal of Psychology in 2012, participants were unable to differentiate between derogatory quotes about women found in magazines targeted at young men like FHM, and quotes from convicted rapists, despite their belief that the content found in magazines was normal, while rapists’ views were extreme.
The normalisation of misogynistic views and gender stereotypes is no idle threat. The consumption of media which perpetuates such views does have a real effect on people’s attitudes and perceptions. In group discussions during tutorial, a female student who felt that the group’s line of argument was problematic and wanted to discuss it in further detail, was brushed off by a group mate who said, “you can’t win an argument with a woman,” and was subsequently ignored for the rest of the discussion. Another student experienced a rape cheer, complete with the accompaniment of enthusiastic pelvic thrusting and grunting during an orientation camp. There are also accounts of several women who have experienced sexual harassment in public, but do not alert the relevant authorities for various reasons. All of these minor, seemingly isolated incidents tend to get swept under the rug and go unreported, because the people who experience them are afraid that they will be labelled as being overly sensitive and easily offended, accused of being attention-seekers who are playing the victim, or even blamed for the offences committed against them because of their state of dress/inebriation/behaviour/choice of location.
Lastly, I may have argued against some of the perceived failings of feminism, but I don’t think that feminism is completely immune from criticism. Nevertheless, I believe that there are many misconceptions surrounding AWARE, the face of mainstream feminism. Public awareness of the causes which it takes up is low because the organisation has placed a larger emphasis on behind-the-scenes negotiations with policymakers rather than consciousness-raising amongst the general public. To that end, critiquing the organisation and its causes without first gaining a fuller appreciation of its work would be ill-advised.