Sign up for a DBS credit card in support of the NEW Aware

[londontrader]

"That's a sweeping statement if I ever saw one. Many friends of mine who are Christian women are not 'completely subjugated by dominant male ideology.'"

Yes, it is a sweeping statement
but I keep recalling sermons that call for a supportive role for women (relative to husbands)
so maybe a grain of truth in that sweeping statement?
just my personal observation

"If anything, the reason why 'dominant male ideology' is present in almost all facets of society - workplace, religion, family, etc - is because most cultures are patriarchal in nature. The Bible was written by men, and not women, because men were the dominant movers in society back then."

Yes, that's what AWARE (at least the old version) was trying to fix

"That's the power of the media. And yes, humans' propensity to rush headlong suddenly into confrontations, over beliefs that were never even thought about before, is unbelievable isn't it?"

My own sister is one of those rushing headlong into sat's confrontation
it's got nothing to do with the media etc etc
it's got everything to do with supporting something that one took for granted for such a long time
so maybe you can give these women a little credit

 

[londontrader]

"Josie IS fighting for women's rights. It's just that her version of women's rights fall under the tight operational framework of Christian values."

Is she fighting for women's rights?
I couldn't tell from her rather lame public pronouncements thus far
Her CV is also rather bare for a feminist advocate
Am I to regard her as a former "closet feminist"

 

[scoopdreams]

Is she fighting for women's rights?
I couldn't tell from her rather lame public pronouncements thus far
Her CV is also rather bare for a feminist advocate
Am I to regard her as a former "closet feminist"

Do I have to be a cow before I can fight for bovine rights to better pasture?

No, she's not qualified to LEAD for women's rights advocacy, but as a woman, she is qualified to fight for women's rights. She's qualified to air her views - however lame her PR skills are - on women's issues..

If your statement reads : She is not qualified to _lead_ a women's rights advoacy group, then yes, I agree. But your statement reads: She is not qualified to _fight alongside_ other women for women's rights. Therefore, I beg to disagree.

 

[londontrader]

"Do I have to be a cow before I can fight for bovine rights to better pasture?"

I never suggested that Josie wasn't a woman
But then again, hmmmmmmmmmm

I did suggest that she didn't have obvious feminist credentials
hence the term a "closet feminist"

"No, she's not qualified to LEAD for women's rights advocacy, but as a woman, she is qualified to fight for women's rights."

At least we agree that she isn't quite fit to LEAD AWARE
She should be most welcome to join AWARE as a regular member and challenge their agenda (which is her right)
So, why didn't she????

"She's qualified to air her views - however lame her PR skills are - on women's issues.."

Pray tell what those views are????
She hasn't been very clear for a leading feminist (that's what she is right)

"If your statement reads : She is not qualified to _lead_ a women's rights advoacy group, then yes, I agree. But your statement reads: She is not qualified to _fight alongside_ other women for women's rights. Therefore, I beg to disagree.[/QUOTE]"

I think you misunderstood my point
see how easy it is for signals to get crossed
that's why people need to be open and prepared to clarify when asked (hint to Josie)

ok my clarification:

My statement was neither

1. She is not qualified to lead (which I tend to agree with)
nor
2. She is not qualified to fight alongside (I don't take that view)

My statement was "Is she fighting for women's rights?"
See the difference?
I question her contributions, future plans, motivations etc.....
all very impt questions for a feminist LEADER not a mere MEMBER
hope that is enough clarification for you

 

[scoopdreams]

"That's a sweeping statement if I ever saw one. Many friends of mine who are Christian women are not 'completely subjugated by dominant male ideology.'"

Yes, it is a sweeping statement
but I keep recalling sermons that call for a supportive role for women (relative to husbands)
so maybe a grain of truth in that sweeping statement?
just my personal observation

And just as there are sermons that tells husbands to love, care, and support their wives.

Basically this are sermons of love and understanding between a couple. Unless the sermon tells a woman to be supportive of her husband no matter how he beats, abuses, or behaves badly outside, in which case let me know, and I'll come in and engage in a debate with the pastor.

"If anything, the reason why 'dominant male ideology' is present in almost all facets of society - workplace, religion, family, etc - is because most cultures are patriarchal in nature. The Bible was written by men, and not women, because men were the dominant movers in society back then."

Yes, that's what AWARE (at least the old version) was trying to fix.

Agreed, and that's what must be fixed. We owe women too much for too long a period of suppression.

"That's the power of the media. And yes, humans' propensity to rush headlong suddenly into confrontations, over beliefs that were never even thought about before, is unbelievable isn't it?"

My own sister is one of those rushing headlong into sat's confrontation
it's got nothing to do with the media etc etc
it's got everything to do with supporting something that one took for granted for such a long time
so maybe you can give these women a little credit

What did your sister took for granted? That LGBTQ people have enjoyed equal rights in society? That organizations are not prone to power usurpations? That religion does not interfere with the workings of secular societies?

What exactly did she take for granted, that the recent AWARE debacle so clearly violates, and motivates her into action?

And when you rush to defend something that you have "taken for granted for such a long time", it means that you have not bothered guarding that same something that you suddenly find so dear.

And without the media, would she have known about this? Would she have discovered the things she took for granted is actually all the while in danger? Would the king know the barbarians are at the gates, should there be no messenger to tell him?

Don't get me wrong, I am not disrespecting those who will attend this afternoon's EOGM. However, I am not giving them my respect too. Respect becomes meaningless if given to too many people, and given too carelessly.

I will reserve my respect only for those people who have been eternally vigilant, and fighting all the time, for their beliefs, no matter how small. I will give my respect only to those people who have not took things for granted, and who knows that even should you just let your guard down for a minute, it will be gone.

 

[londontrader]

"Basically this are sermons of love and understanding between a couple. Unless the sermon tells a woman to be supportive of her husband no matter how he beats, abuses, or behaves badly outside, in which case let me know, and I'll come in and engage in a debate with the pastor."

It's a question of delivery and personal bias
Some pastors don't have a balanced view of a woman's role
I was at a recent wedding and the pastor was busy advising the bride to always obey your husband, don't make him feel bad by earning more than him, stay home and look after the family, things like that. Maybe he meant well, but the bride (a personal friend) didn't take it kindly! Sometimes a sermon of love (not delivered properly) can achieve the opposite.

"Agreed, and that's what must be fixed. We owe women too much for too long a period of suppression."

That's why I hope Josie & Co get the boot
These jokers are not fit to lead AWARE

"What did your sister took for granted?"

She is a closet feminist but never bothered to make a contribution (typical Singaporean right?) I guess she had no confidence in Josie & Co. so decided to finally make a contribution.

She is also a Christian and was disgusted by the tactics and attitude employed by those women.

"What exactly did she take for granted"

Took for granted that capable women will lead the feminist cause so that women like her can benefit
got a shock when those capable women are presented as Josie & Co

"And when you rush to defend something that you have "taken for granted for such a long time", it means that you have not bothered guarding that same something that you suddenly find so dear."

means that you were lazy
typical Singaporean attitude right?
always nice to have some one else fight your battles for you

"And without the media, would she have known about this? Would she have discovered the things she took for granted is actually all the while in danger? Would the king know the barbarians are at the gates, should there be no messenger to tell him?"

Ok I get your point about the media
my mistake
sorry ah

"Don't get me wrong, I am not disrespecting those who will attend this afternoon's EOGM. However, I am not giving them my respect too. Respect becomes meaningless if given to too many people, and given too carelessly."

I respect people who stand up for what they believe in an honest way
Josie & Co would have some of that respect if they had challenged AWARE in an open and honest manner.

"I will reserve my respect only for those people who have been eternally vigilant, and fighting all the time, for their beliefs, no matter how small. I will give my respect only to those people who have not took things for granted, and who knows that even should you just let your guard down for a minute, it will be gone.[/QUOTE]"

Agree!

 

[scoopdreams]

I never suggested that Josie wasn't a woman
But then again, hmmmmmmmmmm

Mate, don't go there. Don't imagine even, you'll have nightmares.

At least we agree that she isn't quite fit to LEAD AWARE
She should be most welcome to join AWARE as a regular member and challenge their agenda (which is her right)
So, why didn't she????

And that was the original question of the whole AWARE issue, why did not they pursue a more proper method for their views to be heard and/or implemented. I have a suspicion the answer starts with a certain "Thio...".

Pray tell what those views are????
She hasn't been very clear for a leading feminist (that's what she is right)

She's not a leading feminist. Not even now, when she's AWARE's president (and not for long, I sure hope!). Her views... what views? She got no views!

I think you misunderstood my point
see how easy it is for signals to get crossed
that's why people need to be open and prepared to clarify when asked (hint to Josie)

ok my clarification:

My statement was neither

1. She is not qualified to lead (which I tend to agree with)
nor
2. She is not qualified to fight alongside (I don't take that view)

My statement was "Is she fighting for women's rights?"
See the difference?
I question her contributions, future plans, motivations etc.....
all very impt questions for a feminist LEADER not a mere MEMBER
hope that is enough clarification for you

Apologies for misreading your question(s), and am glad you took the effort to clarify.

To hopefully be clearer, let me rephrase your "Is she fighting for women's rights?" question to what I understand it to be a few questions rolled into one:

What was the primary motivation for the Thiolibans hijacking of AWARE - was it to "eliminate the pro-gay bias", or was it to improve women's rights in accordance to the Christian context?

I believe their primary motivation is to eliminate the pro-gay bias.

What are the Thiolibans' plans for AWARE after they have removed the pro-gay bias in the organization?

That is something they have not stated clearly yet, and it would be unfair for us to say they will not do a good job, because it is all speculative.

Are the Thiolibans qualified to lead a group focusing on women's rights advocacy?

Inasfar as we consider their qualifications, no.

Do you think they will do a good job if they were to continue leading AWARE?

Based on their qualifications, no.

Can any of the Thiolibans fight for women's rights, irregardless of the nature of the rights they are fighting for?

Yes. I firmly believe they have the right to fight for whatever women's issues they want to touch on, provided they do it in an open transparent way, and be respectful of other people's perspectives.

----
So yes, Josie IS fighting for women's rights, however that takes a back-seat to removing the pro-gay bias.

 

[scoopdreams]

It's a question of delivery and personal bias
Some pastors don't have a balanced view of a woman's role
I was at a recent wedding and the pastor was busy advising the bride to always obey your husband, don't make him feel bad by earning more than him, stay home and look after the family, things like that. Maybe he meant well, but the bride (a personal friend) didn't take it kindly! Sometimes a sermon of love (not delivered properly) can achieve the opposite.

Anything not delivered properly will backfire. Battle-hardened PR warriors know this all too well. Which is why I am hoping the Thiolibans continue to make severe tactical errors, haha. Which is also worrying, because they are learning from this, and the next time they re-surface, they will be better and smarter. AWARE, or any other organization, must be on their guard from now on.

She is a closet feminist but never bothered to make a contribution (typical Singaporean right?) I guess she had no confidence in Josie & Co. so decided to finally make a contribution.

She is also a Christian and was disgusted by the tactics and attitude employed by those women.

Good for her. However, it'll be great if she can join AWARE permanently, and start contributing long-term to advocating women's rights. Don't lose again what you have lost before.

Took for granted that capable women will lead the feminist cause so that women like her can benefit
got a shock when those capable women are presented as Josie & Co

So, did she know the names of the "capable women" that was leading AWARE before this?

means that you were lazy
typical Singaporean attitude right?
always nice to have some one else fight your battles for you

“There would be no passion in this world if we never had to fight for what we love.” - Susie Switzer

And that sums up Singaporeans - no passion in anything they do.

Ok I get your point about the media
my mistake
sorry ah

Mate, no offence given, no apologies needed. In a discussion, there is bound to be misunderstandings, but as educated people, we dismiss them as natural consequences of furthering one's mind. So, don't worry too much.

I respect people who stand up for what they believe in an honest way
Josie & Co would have some of that respect if they had challenged AWARE in an open and honest manner.

And it might have been very different for them if they had done so like you said.

 

[Lydia]

One of the lessons we can learn fr the Aware uproar is that many Christians don't think for themselves. They adopt their spiritual leaders' perspectives unquestioningly and zoom off like kamikaze pilots to destroy the old Aware.

We need a mental revolution in the church.

 

[scroobal]

This has been an interesting thread together together with some others. The views, arguments and counter arguments have been refreshing. Its good to see people having strong feelings and trying to make their point. Hopefully others will come in and cover other areas.

 

[londontrader]

One of the lessons we can learn fr the Aware uproar is that many Christians don't think for themselves. They adopt their spiritual leaders' perspectives unquestioningly and zoom off like kamikaze pilots to destroy the old Aware.

We need a mental revolution in the church.

A good number of women who voted down the AWARE Ex Co on Sat are Christians. The kind who have the critical faculties to reject that nonsense spouted by irresponsible pastors (who look very contrite now!). I find that quite encouraging.

I think the mental revolution should apply to Singaporeans in general. Its time to reflect and think independently before marking that X on the ballot paper (those of us who actually get to touch ballot papers that is!)

 

[londontrader]

Dear Scoopdreams,

We seem to have found common ground on the impt issues
That's a nice way to end a discussion

Just a bit more...

"So, did she know the names of the "capable women" that was leading AWARE before this?"

She is well acquainted with Kanwaljit Soin and the old guard. Not so much with the younger leaders. She did become quite well informed about Thio Su Mien and Josie Lau, since we have friends in DBS and Drew & Napier (Thio was previously Managing Partner till 1997). The first hand accounts of life working under Thio at D&N make for interesting reading! Josie on the other hand is decidedly small fry!

"And that sums up Singaporeans - no passion in anything they do."

I think Singaporeans have a lot passion when properly motivated. Chasing money always seems to light a fire for most singkies.
What's encouraging about Sat's AWARE EOGM was the strong sense of justice amongst the members (new and old). Now if we can have some of that spirit come General Election time.........

 

[londontrader]

Dear kakowi,

The dust has settled
The lies have been exposed
So any comments?
You still haven't addressed the pertinent questions put to you

 

[Leckmichamarsch]

Did the new team lie? I find no evidence.
I salute Josie and her team for taking over the helnm of AWARE. And of course to Thio Su Mien for guiding them. Kudos!!

You won't find them unless you looked into your anus! Kekekekek

 

[kakowi]

Dear kakowi,

.........
You still haven't addressed the pertinent questions put to you

Dear Londontrader,

I thought I had made my position very clear.

And addressed Scroobal's questions and accusations of me the best I can.

But I am not interested in addressing further questions and/or accusations of me.

What if I did.

Will it change your mind?

Kakowi

 

[scroobal]

You have not addressed anything to any one. You made claims and have yet to substantiate these claims. What you have done is labelled and smeared a group of people and you do not have the decency to make an attempt to explain what led you to make those claims.

If you feel cornered or have difficulty articulating your claims, I would understand that and I think most people will, this being an emotive topic. But by claiming that you have addressed it is being dishonest to yourself.

You got to ask yourself each day that you wake up, if you had done wrong to these people who were volunteers and who made a difference to society not matter what the creed, colour or religion of the people that they were serving. Did they deserve it? This group was formed as a direct result of concerns arising from the great marriage debate where the issue of social engineering where man manipulates family formation reared it head.. Something that all religions do not condone.

If you have been misinformed, erroneously jumped to conclusion or ended up with a certain perception and therefore made the claims, it is quite understandable. However when you referred me to point 2.1 and made the claim that you answered it, you crossed over to a zone when your integrity becomes questionable.

Don't worry about changing our minds. Decency calls for an attempt to explain those claims. And you have made no attempt.

Dear Londontrader,

I thought I had made my position very clear.

And addressed Scroobal's questions and accusations of me the best I can.

But I am not interested in addressing further questions and/or accusations of me.

What if I did.

Will it change your mind?

Kakowi

 

[kakowi]

You have not addressed anything to any one. You made claims and have yet to substantiate these claims. What you have done is labelled and smeared a group of people and you do not have the decency to make an attempt.

If you feel cornered or have difficulty articulating your claims, I would understand that and I think most people will, this being an emotive topic. By claiming that you have addressed it is being dishonest to yourself.

You got to ask yourself each day that you wake up, if you had done wrong to these people who were volunteers and who made a difference to society not matter what the creed, colour or religion of the people that they serving. Did they deserve it.

If you have been misinformed, erroneously jumped to conclusion or ended up with a certain perception and therefore made the claims, it is quite understandable. However when you referred me to point 2.1 and made the claim that you answered it, you crossed over to a zone when your integrity becomes questionable.

Scroobal, you refused to see the possibility that your reading has erred.

You made your basis on the posts i made. And highlighted the particular points in these posts where you cite as evidence.

I took out the entire posts and highlighted the main points. Read your highlighted points in the light of the highlighted points by me and you may see that you have read in error.

But you insist that your reading is right.

And you want me to say that you are right in your points.




That point 2.1 is an important point and if you have doubts, then you should re-read it again. Read it and the basis of my stand in the context of my own statement about the earlier points which you say is evidence.

Read it and if you still feel that my integrity is questionable, then you should not be talking to me.

Neither should I degrade myself by talking to someone who questioned my integrity.

If that is your stand, then this is the absolute end of our conversations.

 

[londontrader]

Dear Londontrader,

I thought I had made my position very clear.

And addressed Scroobal's questions and accusations of me the best I can.

But I am not interested in addressing further questions and/or accusations of me.

What if I did.

Will it change your mind?

Kakowi

Dear Kakowi,

You had a lot to say in this thread
So, I'm just asking for a little clarification
On the basis of evidence thus far, do you find that AWARE had (or has) a Pro Homosexual stance.
You talked a lot about having a BALANCED view
Unfortunately, you came across very SKEWED
So how's about laying the cards on the table

"What if I did.

Will it change your mind?"

I'm a very open minded person
I'm interested in what you have to say
If you present a good case and the evidence is compelling
(Bear in mind that MOE is already having a second look into these matters)
Why wouldn't I change my mind?

Cheers

 

[londontrader]

Dear Kakowi,

"Scroobal, you refused to see the possibility that your reading has erred."

I read all your posts again and conclude that you spent an inordinate amount of bandwidth on OLD AWARE's alleged Pro Homosexual stance.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and will not claim that you explicitly accused AWARE of being Pro Homosexual
Is that fair enough for you?

You brought up the issue that they MAY have been Pro Gay
So, my question is simple
Based on what we know (a lot more than when you first raised the issue), do you think that AWARE has a Pro Homosexual stance. If so, why?

Best

Londontrader

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Cut to the chase...I would like to know that based on on all that has transpired...in fact I think Sat's ST Insight article provided quite a balanced overall take...does Kakowi think what Dr Thio and Josie and her Pussycats did plus apparently supported by Pastor Hong (implicit from his so called mea culpa regret statement on Sat) was the right approach to further their cause?