Ok so I was looking through hashtags and discovered these?!?!
I think sexism and feminism (and the blurred line in between) has gone too far in that some has resorted to reducing men to mere animals who cannot control their own desires.
Like the whole point of whatever movement is not to exert superiority over the other, it’s about equalization and maturity, of thought, of psychological depth (or perception of it).
I am a huge feminist myself but men are equally capable of love and sophistication.

Yes this. I think a lot of people don’t understand that feminism isn’t about women being powerful or capable or wanting to prove their worth. But the fundamental fact that we are all people. (Quote Asey from her passionate speech during GP lesson recently) People meaning human beings with the right to be respected and treated with dignity as people, men included. Feminism isn’t out to subject men to baser terms (which people often misunderstand) and people need to understand that. If you disregard men to assert matriarchy then it’s just plain sexism, no different from those exacerbating patriarchy in society (well, except that you’re on board another ship that’s pretty much sinking/ non existent - considering we haven’t actually achieved complete gender equality yet so matriarchy is ruled out as of now)

And not just these hashtags, men actually face (violent) discrimination in reality; for instance, hate-crime incidents for gays in South Africa, that often goes unreported because of the fear of being castigated and belittled in their society etc (this example intersects the issues pertaining to LGBT but regardless, the fundamental of human rights still apply.) All of these belie the deep-seated misogyny in our culture and the double standards imposed on both genders (yes not just women). It’s easy to overlook the gender counterpart when we have become so accustomed to thinking how ‘privileged’ men already are, or appear to be; this is a good reminder to not forget that.

1 day ago
5 notes
Maybe I love too much and maybe I show it too little.

R.M. (via ideacycling)

 yes dear 

(Source: boldrisks, via sun-moonflowers)

1 day ago
47,068 notes


going to school mainly for Council tomorrow, because gp is cancelled and so I’m only left with math and history - hehehe warm and fuzzy warm and fuzzy!! 

1 week ago
0 notes

and the tango makes three - from a 3rd party’s perspective

One of my good old pals happened to voice his opinions regarding the recent removal of two library books that explored the relationship between two same gendered characters, and his comments sparked my whole canon of thoughts. This is definitely not directed at you dear, but more so for me to gain coherence over all that’s running through my head right now -    

Yes I do think that we probably should not be pointing so many arrows at NLB as the organisation’s “approach is only to reflect existing social norms, and not to challenge or seek to change them” (as our Minister for Communications and Information, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has clarified). Perhaps we should be devoting time to examining the crux of the issue of how society perceive and whether the people accept the LGBT community, but because it is the NLB involved, that we are getting into heated debates and I am so overwhelmed to have the need to organise my thoughts and pen them down.

The issue lies precisely in the fact that this is viewed as a reflection or even a manifestation of “existing social norms”. We all understand that society is constructed by people and our actions, but if so what are the “social norms” that we are abiding by? Is it that we are not ready to confront this issue, believe that these differing concepts will destroy the family values, or that children are too young to be exposed to such complexities? For one, our society has been engaging in this conversation for the longest time since the debate on the repeal of Section 377A in 2007. Yet this time round because it involves the statutory board (NLB as the agency under the MIC), our children and  the issue of exposure and awareness, I don’t think we can dismiss the significance of this incident and focus on the larger issue at hand instead.

The very act of removing the books is very appalling to not only the supporters of the LGBT community but all who are either tolerant or accepting of them as well because it is sending out a message that as a society we have agreed upon the fact that we are going to avoid exposing our children to the LGBT issue all together, since

"young children are among our libraries’ most frequent visitors", "many of them browse books in our children’s sections on their own", we need to take "a pro-family and cautious approach in identifying titles for our young visitors". (NLB) 

(Here in the previous paragraph note that “tolerant” and “accepting” are clearly two words with different meanings which I’ll attempt to elaborate later.)  

When we insert the phrase “pro” into anything (e.g. “pro- family”, “pro-LGBT”), there is a underlying concept of support. Yet these children books only serve to expose the young readers to different family compositions and perhaps (if young children do take the books this far), introduce the concept of their freedom of choice in terms of sexual orientation. In fact they teach children to be accepting of the different people that exist in society (okay even at this point I feel uncomfortable using the word “different” because these people are not different- they are only so because we label them to be; they are and should become just part of us). It is only because we continue to cover up these issues that as a society we are not accepting towards this group of people, only tolerant or some even repulsed. It’s one thing about being anti-gay and another about not letting our children have awareness that this concept exists. It is not only the action in itself that scares me, but how society is forgetting to teach children how to embrace these differences - how to love. Somehow or another I am again reminded of our issue with foreigners, where in a talk that I attended today, it was mentioned that “tolerance” was taken to be our attitude towards the new immigrants. But in my mind I was wondering why so? “Acceptance” and “tolerance” are two different concepts, where the former deals with love and the latter just testing our patience. Yet we are not going to learn to embrace people who are a little different, we are not going to learn to love?

Here I am going to refrain from being sucked into the entire debate and continue to keep things in the context of this incident. In any case, I am still pretty bewildered at how this even happened. I’d just quote Donald Low, an author who had pulled out of the Singapore Writers’ Festival in November to protest the decision -

"I see no evidence of a significant segment of Singapore society objecting to these books being in our public libraries, even if the majority of Singaporeans are conservative".

Perhaps more accountability could be given regarding how the decision was made as a response to the feedback from the public, how books were selected etc rather than not responding to queries as to how many complaints were received about the titles and why the titles were offered in the first place?

Personally, I view what’s being done as very defensive. But if the LGBT community are not ashamed of what’s part of their identity (or at least they should not be), then why are we taking the active call to shield from our children from the realities that do exist? Gaining awareness is different from being pro-LGBT, and I am not drafting this because of my personal preferences or stance on this issue, but because I believe in the right for children to know (and then make their choices - if parents do give them the freedom to choose - later in their lives). Again I draw parallels - it’s like although we are not actively encouraged to practice pre-marital sex, we acknowledge its prevalence in the younger generation and provide sexual education for children starting from primary school so that they will have the sufficient knowledge even though parents may feel that they are not ready to practice it.

If we going ahead to examine the contents in the books, the question is as to how much can these books really impact the kids if one’s parents persist in instilling their own family values? (Perhaps the entire family together with the child will grow up to feel repulsed, but that I don’t know because I cannot assess such hypothetical situations and yes this argument is built on various assumptions as well.) What harm is done then, by leaving them to read these books only to gain important exposure? Going by this logic we should probably be examining whether the children books contain any kind of violence or inappropriate sexual contents too, because children being children are not (maybe never) going to be ready for the more “harmful” contents as defined by society (since violence do cause body harm and those who sleep with many partners are viciously termed “sluts”, or “man-sluts”, etc).  I’m probably taking this too far, but in any case, the LGBT community do not cause harm. They do not impose. In fact we are the ones defining people by sexual orientation making their lives more difficult than they already are.

On  a lighter note, I never really took notice that the two penguins were both males - but well, now we know. Perhaps before this incident happened maybe just a handful of the young ones had come into contact with the books, but now the whole world knows about it (literally, with Guardian and BBC reports). Well on the other hand we also cannot dismiss the fact that the public library board has associations to the government, which adds another layer to this kueh-lapis cake. But I guess it’s probably wiser to stop here for now, because this is unintentionally already a 1300+ essay while I leave my 3000 word H3 in the lurch, and for reasons you might have already guessed. 

1 week ago
2 notes
It’s a terrible thing, I think, in life to wait until you’re ready. I have this feeling now that actually no one is ever ready to do anything. There is almost no such thing as ready. There is only now. And you may as well do it now. Generally speaking, now is as good a time as any.

Hugh Laurie (via larmoyante)


(via tan-jj)


(via tan-jj)

1 day ago
14,846 notes

chasing time

keeping some work life balance - want to do so many things at once I need to stop feeling motivated for short periods of time and subsequently lose focus

lit was never so bad and math too everything’s so poor except IH maybe - I know what went wrong, that I did not put in enough effort for the other subjects while working on one - ohh but at least I know what was bad and that I CAN DO IT (!!)

gon plan my schedule for the next two months tonight everyone’s doing so well don’t just let go cut yourself slack and leave yourself behind  

1 day ago
0 notes

 ”There’s a sense that we’re all ‘too’ something, and we’re all not enough. This is life. Our bodies change. Our minds change. Our hearts change. Things are always evolving.”


 ”There’s a sense that we’re all ‘too’ something, and we’re all not enough. This is life. Our bodies change. Our minds change. Our hearts change. Things are always evolving.”

(via sun-moonflowers)

1 week ago
660 notes
24 plays

this sounds boring - i think it was promos? (anyway yay I’ve finished my exercises for my coursework, just down to cleaning up AND FREE COMPOSITION wish I had mac and keyboard and home zz) 

(not posting the most recent one cause it sounds like dung)

1 week ago
2 notes