Reflective Journal 2
REFLECTIVE JOURNAL II
Question: Reflect on the changing role of women in society. Draw on examples from China, the United States and Singapore in your reflections.
From the age of foot binding through the communism of today, the role and rights of women have undergone drastic transformation in China. Women in China no longer have bound feet with them; they have high-heels instead. Chinese women’s status is rising steadily; statistics have shown that they were given more educational opportunities, more job opportunities and more opportunities to allow them to choose. During the early history of the US, a man virtually would own his wife easily and obtain all her property after marriage. US females today can enjoy equal rights as men and choose to have a family, a career, or both. Change was seen evidently from a period when the divorce law stated that the divorced husband should keep control of both children and property, to one which woman could officially sue her husband. It was in the World War II when hundred of thousands of women in Singapore helped to fill the roles of the menfolks who were on battlefields. They worked in fields, took the place of young men in factories and looked after the children and ran homes as the young men fought. Sixty years passed, in July 2007, the Singapore Air Forces launched an exhibition highlighting the contributions of women in the armed forces.
These examples showed vividly that status of women globally had indeed progressed. But what exactly was this change in ‘choice’ behind every woman in China, US and Singapore? Does every woman want this changing role? What relationship does this change has with men in society? Along with the changes in females’ roles, are there any changes in society’s concepts then? What may be the possible consequences of this changing role of women? This reflective journal will be exploring all of above questions.
During class discussion, we brought out the point that gender equality in China means the choice of present generation of women in China to dress against norm, to able to work and to enjoy opportunities given to men which women do not enjoy in the past. Parliamentarian Madam Halimah Yacob, when commenting on Singapore’s rank in the world gender gap index by the World Economic Forum, said, “From our (women’s) perspective, there seems to be no widening of the gender gap... But we will always be mindful of gaps. For example, the lack of women representation in top echelon of companies needs to be addressed.” On the other hand, in Tutorial 4, I wish to highlight a sentence from an American woman: “It’s just a choice she has to make that he doesn’t.” She elaborated using evidence during the 2008 presidential elections: Hillary Clinton had to choose between hiding her womanliness and enhancing it, a decision Barack Obama would never have to make.
What similarities or differences can we see in these three sources? Yes, they want and may have experienced change in their roles, their rights and their responsibilities today as compared to the ‘unfair’ past. But in my opinion, what differs here is the nature of ‘choice’. Chinese women want or are having choices to be similar of men, Singaporean women want or are having choices equal to that of men’s whereas American women may not want but are probably unintentionally ‘having choices more than men’ (quoted from ‘Feminism Now Defined By Each and Every Woman’ by Andrea Tantaros). Now US’s case is very special. I am just wondering, are American women too greedy? They want great changes, and they want to choose. Are they their own obstacle when it comes to taking full advantage of these choices? Saying goes, “With choices come responsibilities”. I certainly feel that the vice versa applies to US women – With more craved responsibilities come more difficult and complex choices. Eileen Conlan, assistant edition at Marie Claire, says, “You hear stories about women who are racked with guilt about not staying home with their kids, and others who feel stunted when they choose to stay home.” Certainly American women today may have to make more decisions than men now. Of course, Singaporean and Chinese women would soon experience this phase, as soon as the fight for equal rights goes out of hand and they start putting pressure on themselves.
How is this symbolic? I would think that the current status women are experiencing right now could significantly portray the extent of change in women’s role in respective countries thus far and represent how much effort on feminist movements, actions and changes had been taken to appeal for gender equality. The Global Gender Gap Report 2007 proves my point: According to the 2007 Rankings, the United States was ranked 31st out of 128 countries, with Gender Gap Index of 0.7002 (whereby 1.00=equality whereas 0.00=inequality), Singapore was ranked 54th, with Gender Gap index of 0.6797 and China was ranked 73rd with an index of 0.6643. This piece of evidence does prove that these three countries do have different status at which gender equality is exercised in them. Progress may be the slowest in China among the three countries, due to the hindrance of traditional beliefs and the strong emphasis of conservatism on Chinese women. Singapore, probably do not ‘suffer’ as much as China though she has many Chinese with her too; we could confidently say that she is influenced by the West too. In US, the extent of the change in women’s role can be said to the most significant as I would think that democracy played a huge factor in this -- the fact that everyone has a say puts gender gap issues forward for open discussions and that might be probably the reason for the fast advancement in her attempt to strive for gender equality. This links back, after all, to the extent of change different women are facing now.
Now to my second point: do all women want this ‘changing role’? My answer is no. I believe there are females in China, America and Singapore who do not aspire to be those ‘wonder women’ fighting for success in career and balancing family at the same time. One interesting point I took up from Tutorial 4 was the fact that in many instances, securing success in careers had made women try to appear as ‘manly’ as their male counterparts. Competing toe to toe with men apparently also forced many to be as rough in language and manner as their male colleagues.
My view is that not only do these women’s personalities change, what is more disappointing and unfortunate will be the outcomes of those Chinese traditional beliefs that had been known for centuries. Qualities of women being temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous are slipping away. When emphasis on woman’s skills on job, independent survival and professional training become more and more important, concerns such as aesthetic education and cultural refinement were left at wayside. ‘It’s a shame that when our forefathers overthrew the last dynasty the profound culture and graceful etiquette passed on for thousands of years were also cast away,” Zhang Lehua, director of Youlan Women’s Institution in China, says. Same case goes for America. A study that compared female voices between 1945 and 1993 found that, in the latter half of the century, as young women entered the workforce in increasing numbers, their voices deepened, with the average pitch decreasing about 23 hertz. A question to ponder: if women are fighting for jobs like politicians which majority are men and turning more masculine to suit themselves better now, would it be possible to come to a time when men start to become more lady-like just to fit in jobs like nurses, secretaries or cashiers? Singaporean women are getting more strong-willed these days. From a blog article by an American entrepreneur, he commented, “Strong character is one of the most attractive features of today’s Singapore women. They are even entering the world of politics and are being welcomed with open arms by most of the male politicians. These women know that they need to act like equals to men in order to be seen as equals and are willing to sacrifice (anything) to do so.” Perhaps, they are the inevitable consequences for women themselves for the change in roles.
What relationship does this change has with men in society? Why is this change in women’s roles slower in China than in Singapore or in the United States? Probably, fragile male egos are holding Chinese women back. Probably, it lies in a concept that is unique and infamous in China: Face. Many men cannot accept their wives to have a high status than them. According to a survey done in Beijing, 79 out of 100 men do not want their wives to surpass them their own success. It is very possible for some women to restrain their ambitions to cater to some men’s shallow concerns for saving face, thus the slow change? In the West, there was a popular saying that went, “Men want their wives barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen” in the 1940s. But today those men who put their own egos ahead of being with a woman they like are categorized as a rare and dying breed. It is evident that progress of women in men’s eyes is being accepted. In 1983, Lee Kuan Yew sparked the ‘Great Marriage Debate’ when he encouraged Singapore men to choose highly-educated women as wives. Nevertheless, a match-making agency Social Development was set up to promote socializing among men and women graduates, allowing ‘men’s ego’ to set in as much. In conclusion, men could be either hindrance or catalyst to this change in women’s role.
Along with the changes in females’ roles, are there any changes in society’s concepts then? Yes, in fact, I feel that this change had challenged many outdated concepts. One concept would be that ‘Men call the shots while woman keep the house’. A survey had been done in China and 63% of women do not subscribe to it. Expectable and reasonable enough, we can easily see how urban women in the three countries have strongly developed sense of self-development and identity. ‘Women is not complete without a child’, 70% selected not quite in favour or quite unfavourable. It sets a contrast to the traditional thinking that had been accepted among the older generations of Chinese in Singapore that it is basic responsibility and natural duty of women to bear children. Then the US women argued for equal status in family other than in career. 80% supported strongly that husbands should undertake half of housework in family. I would think that there are increasing numbers of men who can accept this concept. But question is: is this change going to overthrow old concepts entirely as the society gradually revolves?
No matter what, the fact stays: women are changing, women’s roles are changing, and the change in women’s roles is going to change the society by in large.
Reflective Journal 1
Question: Reflect on youth apathy towards politics. Draw on examples from China, the United States and Singapore in your reflections.
Political apathy means to be lacking interest and concern in politics, showing indifference to political processes and that caring about progress in politics shall be the last priority in one’s life. It is known that young people have depressingly low levels of political interest and knowledge. Politics, the way the world works, is something done to the youth generation (Generation Z?), over which they have no control and want no control. Politicians are often viewed by young people as being out-of-touch, rich, old, upper-class and even uncaring about issues affecting the young. Youth like me feel cut-off through the age of politicians and alienated from government politics.
In my opinion, the youth’s apathy in politics does not only abject laziness; it also represents something that all young people will grow out of once they get older and more responsible, but part of a broader, and international, drift away from traditional politics. Regrettably, participation in politics is no longer part of the fabric of everyday life, something which I will do without questioning its importance. I have realised it has become many youth’s “lifestyle choice”; a decision that may carry barely more weight than clothes they wear and music they listen to.
Political apathy is quite a common phenomenon in many countries, such as America and our dear Singapore. Note that I do not mention China; and I shall explain my reasons in another paragraph. Based on the numerous guided discussions in class and the case studies we came upon in the tutorials, I realise that political apathy can only be present in a stable and prosperous nation. To put it more specifically, the level of political apathy is directly proportional to the well-bring of the nation.
Arguments I am going to put forth for Singaporeans apply for Americans to a certain extent as well.
For me, I am proud and, at the same time, worried to say that Singapore is the perfect example for the right-end of the spectrum. It is undoubtable that Singapore is a developed nation, our economy is heavily-reliant on exports, and fortunately or perhaps unfortunately we have a very reliable and trustworthy government. This is very evident in how they reacted fast and appropriately to the economic crisis this year.
Given that our lives have largely remained untouched even in this global economic crisis, the impression that we can well continue in such a form of governance is reinforced among Singaporean youths like me. Moreover, though Singapore is a small country, we have good and peaceful diplomatic ties with all other countries, thereby ensuring a good stable life for most of us. Thus we won’t bother to question the PAP’s soft authoritarian rule simply because we have nothing much to complain (except on the issue of freedom of speech which I do not really feel so strongly about it).
Why are Singaporean youths not interested in politics then? Based on my observation in the media in Singapore, political participation of youths is not publicized; the state controlled media of Singapore rarely feature youths whom are politically active, do you agree with this? The media turns a deaf ear towards the youth who actively participate in politics. I have also noticed that the media only showcases and propagates youth to join the Young PAP. The youth wings of other political parties have gone unheard by the media. In fact, they are indispensable.
Personally, reason why I refuse to participate in area of politics is because of political correctness; it has made me more fearful of opening up in public. I have always thought that without any proper education in political theory, youths are pressured to make politically correct statements if they are involved in political activities. Deterrence it may be, parents of many youths also prevent their children from involving in politics and as a result, the youths tend to shun politics because of the ramifications such as libel suits.
The conditioning of young minds through the education system that
Singapore is a free society is no longer a fact in reality as we do witness many youths getting in trouble for criticizing the government. Recently three teenagers were sent for questioning primarily due to sending out pamphlets about staging a protest during the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in
Singapore, for example. On the other hand, the youths in
Singapore are very enthralled by the comfortable lifestyles they have so much so they are not bothered about their own country in which they would be the future leaders of.
Another reason would be that the politics is not like ‘pop culture’ for entertainment; it consists of heavy subject matter and may be boring. We would have heard many of our fellow friends engrossed in the recent World Cup or the latest trends fashion, but never interested in discussing politics. Possibly, the only reason is because politics is a dry and boring subject.
This does not only reflects, the shallowness of the society but also the lack of maturity of a global citizen which Singapore aspires to be.
Looking backing in youth participation in politics in Singapore, it is indeed worrying given current situations. Most people do not even know who their ministers are (I am guilty to be one of them), let alone having the passion to take stepping into the political arena as their goal. We are not too concerned over how future leaders are going to be trained, nor are we very critical of the governmental system. As long as our standard of life does not drop too much, we are pretty much contented. However, it is impossible that such political apathy would create suitable conditions for training future politicians. It is hard to imagine what PAP will be like when there are no capable leaders like Mr Lee Kwan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong. It is even more unthinkable if PAP is unable to satisfy the needs of the people and there are no viable alternatives.
Now to China, I believe that Chinese youths are not politically apathetic simply because politics is a taboo; in fact, I think they are actually enthusiastic and well-informed on political issues. The youths in China actually participate actively in online forums regarding the policies that the Hu administration implements. They are really more knowledgeable in current affairs than Americans and Singaporeans. Moreover, the very fact that young netizens create softwares to break the internet firewall shows that they are determined to protect their rights to talk about sensitive political issues. Hence, political apathy should not be measured by what we see on the surface but instead by what we feel within the hearts of the youths. The tutorial on China also proves my theory. As there has been much corruption and limited freedom, the majority of Chinese could not enjoy the kind of life they desire; hence it is only logical that they will not be apathetic toward politics since they are eager to see a change.
Are all the youths apathetic? I beg to differ. In my opinion, there is actually an increase in the number of youths who are politically active. Though the increase is not very insignificant, it is substantial. Many youths are not very politically inclined; they are indeed oblivion to the political situation in their own country. The fact that they choose not to get involved indicates not a mass attitude problem on the part of young people, but the deathly state of contemporary politics. The modern political process is shifting from parties catering for classes and broad groups of people to parties providing for all people. Whilst young people may be generally apathetic towards political parties, they are far more engaged with the modern political process - one which isn't the same as politics several decades ago.
Is youth’s apathy a bad thing after all? Young people’s disengagement with politics is indisputable, but how much of a problem is this, really? So what if young people’s attitude to politics is ‘so what’? Surely it is important to take an interest in politics to uphold a democratic and just society. Surely it is imperative to understand the political culture of our city state. But perhaps it’s not. Perhaps it’s best for politicians to deal with politics, and for young people in particular to enjoy the time they have, the privileges we all have when we are young.
