Ageism + sexism=axeing older women?
ref: When Ladies' Night isn't for all ladies, STimes, 11 July 2007

Recently, a local nightspot refused to give a woman the free drinks they promised to all ladies on a certain day of the week. The reason given was that she was 55, over the age limit of 35 to qualify.

This prompted a reader to ask the author of this article, which mattered more, the age or gender discrimination in this case?

The author recognised this as a hybrid of both and proceeded to explain why. however, let me give you my interpretation of this case as both ageism and sexism.

The ageism part is definitely quite clear, as the nightspot refused to grant a woman the privileges they accorded to other women just because she was older. The case of sexism however, is not so clear, but i assume it is because older men do not get the same discrimination older women get, in this case in the context of a nightspot.

For example, you don't see older men get barred from entering clubs and nightspots, whereas there have been cases where older women were barred. Men of all ages are welcome to these places, whether you are a hip youngster, a rich middle-aged business men or a chee koh pek (hokkien for dirty old men) looking for some fun. Women, however, do not recieve the same equality as men. Older women are frowned upon in nightspots simply because they are not as attractive, sexy or nubile as their younger counterparts.

This problem of ageism plus sexism isn't just restricted to the nightlife. In our workplaces and communities, gender and age lines are still drawn, albeit subtly and sometimes unknowingly. For example, many companies still favour younger workers than older ones, and male ones at that. It seems that our impression of males is generally that of being strong, decisive and in charge, whereas women are often viewed as weak willed and dependent on men. Thus, it is no wonder that society still favours men and younger women, as older women are seen to be less efficient, slow and dependent, when in reality many of them are as independent and intelligent as the men.

The tendency for the media today to publicise the "beauty is youth" idea has further encouraged this discrimination. Advertisements and magazines today are filled with images of sexy, young women from cover to cover, emphasizing the idea that beauty comes with youth. In appearance related jobs, older women are shunned, naturally, as who wants to see women ravaged by the sands of time appearing on their magazines?

As such, due to the stereotyping of older women by men and younger women, older women have the disadvantages when competing against them in jobs and elsewhere. However, there are currently no laws protecting them from the combination of sexism and ageism. Should the law then recognize such discrimination?

On one hand, to be equally fair to everyone, it should, so as to ensure the protection of older women's privileges. However, such laws would be hard to enforce as this discrimination is hard to distinguish from more legitimate measures taken for practical reasons. For example, companies which refuse to hire older workers could be doing so purely because they needed qualified workers and older women who applied just didnt make the cut? Should the government adopt measures to control the demographics of employees just to prevent age-gender discrimination and in the process compromise their much extolled principle of meritocracy?

Personally I feel that moves to criminalise such discrimination, though noteworthy, is little more than useless nitpicking. After all, companies and firms do have the right to protect their own interests and that includes being able to hire people that are qualified enough to do the job, regardless of gender or age. Putting too much restrictions on them will only serve to hinder their progress. Employing legislature to ensure older women as a separate group have their privileges protected is too tricky. The government needs to find other ways to change this phenomenon.

In my opinion, what is most needed is a change in mindset of society. We must stop labelling these women as incapable, dependent people who have passed their expiry date. Older women have every right as the rest of us to lead independent, productive lives. We must realise that beauty does not come with youth, rather inner beauty is more important and valuable and is enriched only by age.

Older women have the advantage of being more experienced and thus more qualified to set role models especially to younger women. It is thus a shame that society often brands them as useless and does not give them a chance to excel.

The government can come up with all kinds of policies and measures to prevent discrimination but in the end, it all boils down to a change in the way we view older women. We recognise women's equality with men, we recognize men to be effective regardless of age, why can't we do the same for women?

After all, ageing is but a necessary process we must all go through. If we want our children to treat us with respect, we must first treat our elders, especially females, with the same kind of respect.

Giving Birth to Your Sister-Right or Wrong?
ref-Daughter may give birth to mother's child and The disease only girls get, Straits Times Mind Your Body, 11 July 2007

Recently, a Canadian mother has recieved much flak for her controversial decision to donate her eggs to her seven year old daughter.

Ms Melanie Biovin, a 35 year old mother of 3, has decided to freeze her eggs so that her seven year old daughter Flavie, who suffers from Turner's syndrone, can one day be a mother through pregnancy.

Turner syndrome is a genetic condition occuring in girls which renders them unable to develop ovaries and eggs, thus they are not able to concieve and have children naturally. They can, however, be impregnated with other people's eggs and carry the foetus to full term.

This is the first time that a mother to daughter donation has been made. This of course brings up many ethical questions on motherhood and parenting.

For example, would the child be considered as Flavie's daughter or her sister? Biologically speaking, because they both came from 1 woman's eggs, they should be sisters. However, when one gives birth to one's sister, psychologically the relationship is mixed.

Would the child think of Flavie as her mother, or sister? After all, although she gave birth to the child the eggs are not hers. In fact Flavie would only be used as a vessel to bring the child into the world, and this is little more than surrogate motherhood. The child would be confused as to wheter to treat Flavie as mother or sister, and whether to treat Ms Biovin as a grandmother or the biological mother.

Personally I think such a decision is unethical and does little to help either mother or child. Sure, Flavie may be able to experience the miracle of pregnancy and childbirth, but she will have to live with the fact that the child is not really hers. And although she will care for the child, this does little to distinguish her as the mother. Even big sisters now care for their siblings as they would their own children. What does this say about the whole concept of motherhood then? Has motherhood become so shallow that so much of it depends on the parents ablitity to concieve and for the mother to get pregnant? Flavie could have adopted or fostered children. However the fact that Ms Biovin willingly subjected herself to egg harvests so that Flavie could give birth to a child shows how much emphasis is being placed on pregnancy and childbirth as an essential part of motherhood.

Also, the interests of the unborn child have not been taken into consideration. Aside from the identity crisis the child would have, the way that the child views both women would drastically affect their family relationship. The child could suffer from insecurity and low self esteem, especially when there are conflicts within the family and the child does not know who to defer to.

If the unborn child is born, this could seriously mess up the family relationships. Defenders of Ms Biovin who say that there is nothing wrong with this by likening it to surrogacy are totally wrong. In surrogate motherhood, the birth mother is merely used as a vessel to bring the child into the world. She will have no part in the process of procreation and is very unlikely to play a role in the child's life after the birth. However, while surrogate motherhood has become a necessary evil of society, surrogate mothers from the child's direct family is an abomidable and should not be encouraged at all. Surrogate mothers who come from the same social circle as the child will seriously affect the relationships between child, birth mother and genetic mother, as they are likely to come into close contact and play future roles in the child's life. This is not natural at all.

Of course, Ms Biovin has no ill intention in doing this. All she wants is to allow her daughter to have a chance to become pregnant and bear a child. In the article, she said that she was motivated by love for her daughter. However, while her intentions are honourable, and her love for her daughter admirable, the way she chose to express it is not right. Also, we cannot be sure that her intentions are not tainted. Could it be a form of natural human selfishness that also influenced her in her decision? Might she in her own way tried to ensure the continuation of the family bloodline by giving Flavie the option of eggs from within the family rather than a stranger's?

It is up to anyone's guess how this drama will play out. However for the sake of the family I hope Flavie will accept the fact that she can never truly have her own children, and that it is not whether a woman can bear her own children that is important.

How Free Exactly Can Free Speech Be?
ref: Free Speech, Muhammad, and the Holocaust-Peter Singer, Project syndicate
Publishing those cartoons was a mistake- Zsofia Szilagyi, Int. Herald Tribune, 3 Feb 2006

The contention for the right of freedom of speech is nothing new. Democracies advocate it. Communist regimes fear it. and evrywhere, people are continually testing the limits of what is called free speech. The much debated question then is, To what extent can free speech truly be free and unrestricted?

These two articles reviewed are based on separate incidents of people taking the liberties of free speech a step further than what was acceptable by society. Both express different views on the extent of restriction of free speech. However, both are relevant to the issue on how far we can allow free speech and expression to be given free rein.

The first article by Peter Singer addressed the issue of the imprisonment of one Mr Irving in Austria for his denial of the Holocaust. The writer feels that freedom of expression and speech should be an essential part of any democracy and this includes the right to express unpopular, untrue and even offensive opinions. In essence, it is necessary for everyone to give their unrestricted views in order for society to progress. To ensure that other peoples' minds are not clouded by these views, he argues that countries should instead teach their citizens the facts of history and allow them to come to an objective judgement, instaed of clamping own on the airing of unorthodox views.

I, however, beg to differ. In today's world, where the spread of information through the mass media is faster than that of an epidemic, giving just one person one hour of complete freedom of speech can translate into weeks of airtime and an audience of millions. Thus, giving the right of total free speech to everyone is a ticking time bomb. Knowledge is power, and the expression of knowledge by the wrong hands is akin to the abuse of knowledge, and thus abuse of power. And absolute, unrestricted expression of knowledge leads to the wielding of absolute, unrestricted power, and we all know what they say about absolute power. Thus, giving anyone this authority of total free speech is a huge danger to the harmony of society.

Furthermore, words often have more power than deeds to stir up tensions and create chaos and strife. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword. More strife and conflict has been caused by inflammatory or denigrating words then by armed warfare in recent times. The fragile fabric of society will be shredded if anyone could just stir up peoples emotions and feelings by wielding total freedom of expession. Thus, no one should be given total freedom of expression.

On the other hand, Szilagyi in the second article about the cartoons of Prophet Muhammed published in Denmark contends that more emphasis be put on social responsibility rather than freedom of speech, in order to preserve the cohesion and harmony in and amongst communities. People must strike a balance between airing their views freely and protecting the interests of society. This is especially crucial as in the fast spread of information, just one slip of the tongue could result in trouble. Also, there is the tendency for different interpretations of the same information to suface, some of them bent and manipulated to serve radical ends.

I personally agree with him as freedom of speech with no controls is like a wildfire, once set aflame, impossible to contain. Any tensions or conflict arising in one country will affect all of us as we are so closely interconnected.If the media would put its priority on serving the interests of society rather than being firestarters and attention seekers, many tragic and senseless conflicts could be avioded today.However, placing too much emphasis on social responsibility in freedom of expression may cause the community to become pampered and shelterd from the realities of life and the world. As a result they may grow complacent about issues such as foreign affairs as they are only exposed to the "safe" information.

Thus I think that freedom of expression and protecting society have to balance each other. In Singapore's context, this is even more important as being a diversified island of race and religion, we are a veritable minefield, and any hint of verbal attack or discrimination will set aflame social conflict. The Government has already put in measures to ensure freedom of expression is carefully controlled. Though some many argue that this negates its "freedom", the alternatives are much worse. In the end, it is the individual's responsibility to judge soundly what is fit for public consumption and when it is better to be an armchair critic in private. Only when indiviaduals, and subsequently companies and the media, learn how to think of others first and rein themselves in , can such a problem be solved.

Comin' at Cha!!

Haha since now this blog has been entered for the AJC blogging competition, you can expect a lot more writeups comin THIS way!

My original aim of one writeup every two days now seems audacious, as there may be periods where there's nothing much in the news to write about. However, expect more soon, because today's Straits Times has a whole slew of fantastic reviews and issues I can feast my eyes and pour forth my feelings on!

Life's wonderful and exiciting isn't it?

I'll try to keep my posts coming, and since I like to write, I should be posting pretty often. One request I ask, that if you are reading this now, kindly read my other posts as well and give your valued feedback! It'll be much appreciated! Just post any comment you like.

Good luck to all the others in the blogging competition, especially Nigel Lim!

Yours truly, faithfully, honestly, sincerely, etc,

Jeremy

Live Earth: concerts causing climate crisis?
ref: Straits Times Life, 9 July, Is It Just Too Much?
Straits Times World, 10 July, Green concerts? Rubbish!


Finally, after months of intense preparation, endless publicity and the message of saving our Earth reverbrating unceasingly in our ears, it is finally over.

I am, of course, referring to Live Earth, the 24 hour series of live concerts across the seven continents held on 7th of July 2007, organised to raise awareness of global warming and climate change. Featuring most of the greatest figures in music, the event urged viewers and concert goers worldwide to be aware of the damage mankind is doing to the earth and do something about it.

As the hubbub dies away, it is time to now evaluate the effectiveness of such a huge undertaking.

I do not deny that such an effort to raise awareness of the clear need to protect our earth from the stark realities is commendable. no one should ever underestimate the amount of pollution we are heaping on the planet. However, the fact that such a message had to be brought home through such a humongous event raises the question, how much is enough? And how much is too much?

One problem the critics surfaced was that the immense amount of power and resources in setting and running Live Earth, coupled with the pollution brought by the many concert-goers, served only to add to global warming. The amount of fuel burnt to provide power to the electric instruments, lighting, sound system, even to the thousands of cars driven by concert-goers, the amount of trash left behind by them, and the immense amount of gas burnt just for the travel of performer and spectator alike, doesn't it just exacerbate global warming. If so, what is the use of organising a concert to ultimately lessen global warming when actually it is adding to it?

The organisers of Live Earth have supported their decision by saying that the negative effects created would be reduced or even reversed by the awareness raised and the subsequent efforts worldwide to reduce global warming. The main champion of Live Earth, former US Vice-President Al Gore, also added that the good effects will in the long run outweigh the bad.

However, just how effective was Live Earth in helping reduce global warming? How many of those who went for the event or watched it at home would really take its message to heart? Many of these people are only watching for the pleasure of seeing their favourite celebrities perform. Those who are convinced may have been so saturated with the same message over and over again that they either give up on the cause totally, or mindlessly complies. Either way, not much of a concious effort is involved, and such efforts are only temporal. In the absence of such reminders, we all tend to forget the lesson learnt and go back to our old ways, as the lesson has not been driven home. Put simply, it is overkill.

Also consider the massive amount of rubbish the spectators left behind. At Sydney, a reported 20 cubic tonnes of trash was collected after the event. Apparently the spectators themselves did not seem to get the message. Increasingly it seems that most people showed up at the events just for a day of revelry and mindless entertainment. I think it would be justifiable saying 1 week from now, people will only recall the songs and singers, but few would remember the message well enough to put it into practice.

Yet another issue I feel is highly debatable about the concerts is raising awareness versus raising willingness. Live Earth called on many of us to wear green on 7 July in support of the green movement. Its main objective was to raise awareness of the need to reduce global warming. However, I feel what people today need is not awareness, but a willingness to change their lifestyle.

Who in the educated world today is not aware at least of the effects of global warming? Yet many of us still live everyday as if the earth's resources, clean air, good climate were all endless. Many pollution producing giants and their managers know about global warming, they just refuse to take steps to prevent it. Take the annual problem of forest fires in Indonesia. Farmers clear the forests by burning, heedless to the massive amount of greenhouse gases they produce, their only thought to get enough fertile land to plant their crops and support their families. Even if they were made aware of the danger of global warming, it is highly unlikely they would stop. What we need today is not awareness. Rather, it is the willingness to take steps, sometimes at our own cost, to protect our planet.

Despite its shortcomings, Live Earth did achieve its aim of raising awareness, which in the long run is bound to have some effects. How extensive and beneficial that will be, remains to be seen. Friends have told me that Live Earth was a poorly planned event, executed nobly. I rather feel that it is an excellent plan, executed poorly. The idea itself was good, but perhaps the organisers could spare thought to make it really effective and worth every bit of temporary pollution it causes.

I for one am glad its over. At least I will be spared from the vicious advertising. Next time, no need for concerts, just a simple, meaningful event will convince me to do my part for the earth. It may not be that far reaching, but it'll achieve better results.

And I'm sure Mother Earth would agree too.