Today, I'm no longer President of AWARE. The AGM was yesterday, and there is a new President. Today, I'm just mummy... Which means the world to my daughter and me, but not much to the rest of the world. Today I revert to a life of annonymity and learn to let go, of my successes and my failures, my triumphs and my mistakes, and also of things I have yet to accomplish. I embrace this with a (thankfully diminishing) sense of loss, as well as relief and hope (of things to come).
As I step down as the youngest ever (for now) AWARE President, I am amused that I shall be Immediate Past President to the current President, someone whom I've always respected and regarded as one of my mentors! I am also very grateful for all the experiences I had over the last year, and the support and friendship I received.
I had wanted to blog several times in the last few months, but with my life being hectic as it was, I didn't get round to doing so. And thus, these reflections will never see the light of day on this blog... I shall leave this blog as it is, pages frozen in history (until blogspot deletes it!), a memory of a very memorable year for me.
But, having had a taste of blogging, I shall re-surface elsewhere on the web, more annonymously, where I can be totally un-PC and unrestrained because I will no longer be associated with AWARE!!
Before I go, I shall give my narcissistic self full rein, and tell you about another blog... a university student, male, who found my talk sufficiently interesting to blog in full about it!! http://soulgroovesg.blogspot.com/2006/10/please-read-till-end.html
It is moments like this that keep me inspired and keep me going. Someone in the audience heard me. If I have touched one person at each talk I gave, I am content.
Now for some advertising...
A website that has absolutely nothing to do with feminism www.artofliving.org and www.artofliving.org.sg
I did the basic course a few weeks before I became President, and the advanced course a few weeks after I did, and I was very glad for it. Really helped me to regain my centre and to find calm. I think of the founder as a very wise person, and have read several of his books.
Another website offering self-awareness(but more commercialised and sleek - it is American after all!) is www.option.org.
Finally - go watch Cages, it's showing in cinemas now. www.cagesmovie.com and go buy a Singapore Dreaming DVD www.singaporedreaming.com. AWARE had charity film premieres working with the producers/directors of these two films, and they're great.
Signing off... for now!
Keep the flame burning!
Monday, 26 March 2007
Friday, 16 March 2007
SAFE's response
to the feedback given by The National Council of Churches (NCCS) on the proposed amendments to the Penal Code
_____________________________________________________
SAFE is a group of family and friends who affirm and support gay and transgendered people as persons with equal rights to respect, dignity, acceptance and empowerment in society.
SAFE is appalled at the NCCS's view that, not only should criminalisation of men who engage in same-sex acts be upheld, but that the government should further criminalise women who engage in same-sex acts as well. In the same breath, they claim to express their love for sinners, but hatred for the sin, as if it were possible for our sexuality to be separated from our personhood.
We strongly object to the NCCS calling "criminals", our adult gay sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, aunts, uncles and friends. That Christians would call for the criminalisation of gay people surely speaks against their faith ideals of love, kindness, compassion, acceptance, humility and justice.
Different religions hold different stands on homosexuality, from the Christian right's view that it is sinful to the Buddhist one that it is not immoral and has the same moral status as heterosexuality. The NCCS, by attempting to turn their Christian moral teachings into state law, contradicts what the government has been trying to build and strengthen - mutual respect and harmony in our pluralistic society, as evidenced in the Penal Code S298 and proposed S298A which oppose prejudice and ill-will amongst religious groups and call for religious harmony.
As is commonly recognized, homophobia largely emanates from the West's conservative evangelical Christian religious right, that is today, the main context for almost the entire Christian community in Singapore. This is evidenced not only by their stand on homosexuality but also their stand on the casino issue, stem cell research, and inter-faith dialogue. Hardly do they speak up for human rights, civil society and justice.
The NCCS is merely reflecting a traditional western conservative religious position on homosexuality, refusing to acknowledge their place in a multi-cultural and multi-religious Asian society, where in our history, same-sex love has been an integral part and parcel of Asian life; a society which respects and values the wisdom and tolerance of traditional yet diverse Asian cultures; and a society which upholds the Asian value of family against all odds.
S A F E
Supporting, Affirming & Empowering
our lgbtQ friends and family
http://safesingapore.blogspot.com/
email: safesingapore@gmail.com
_____________________________________________________
SAFE is a group of family and friends who affirm and support gay and transgendered people as persons with equal rights to respect, dignity, acceptance and empowerment in society.
SAFE is appalled at the NCCS's view that, not only should criminalisation of men who engage in same-sex acts be upheld, but that the government should further criminalise women who engage in same-sex acts as well. In the same breath, they claim to express their love for sinners, but hatred for the sin, as if it were possible for our sexuality to be separated from our personhood.
We strongly object to the NCCS calling "criminals", our adult gay sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, aunts, uncles and friends. That Christians would call for the criminalisation of gay people surely speaks against their faith ideals of love, kindness, compassion, acceptance, humility and justice.
Different religions hold different stands on homosexuality, from the Christian right's view that it is sinful to the Buddhist one that it is not immoral and has the same moral status as heterosexuality. The NCCS, by attempting to turn their Christian moral teachings into state law, contradicts what the government has been trying to build and strengthen - mutual respect and harmony in our pluralistic society, as evidenced in the Penal Code S298 and proposed S298A which oppose prejudice and ill-will amongst religious groups and call for religious harmony.
As is commonly recognized, homophobia largely emanates from the West's conservative evangelical Christian religious right, that is today, the main context for almost the entire Christian community in Singapore. This is evidenced not only by their stand on homosexuality but also their stand on the casino issue, stem cell research, and inter-faith dialogue. Hardly do they speak up for human rights, civil society and justice.
The NCCS is merely reflecting a traditional western conservative religious position on homosexuality, refusing to acknowledge their place in a multi-cultural and multi-religious Asian society, where in our history, same-sex love has been an integral part and parcel of Asian life; a society which respects and values the wisdom and tolerance of traditional yet diverse Asian cultures; and a society which upholds the Asian value of family against all odds.
S A F E
Supporting, Affirming & Empowering
our lgbtQ friends and family
http://safesingapore.blogspot.com/
email: safesingapore@gmail.com
Wednesday, 24 January 2007
Should we be glad?
I had intended to follow up on my last post with another on further discussions of rape, but that will have to wait now.
I am so incensed by the new amendments to the Children Development Co-savings Act which will entitle unmarried mothers to government-paid maternity leave (the last four weeks out of a total of twelve weeks. The first eight weeks are paid for by the employer and maternity benefits in general are governed by the Employment Act) if, and it's a big IF, they marry their child's father within three months of the birth of their child.
I was just about foaming at the mouth when various media contacted me for an interview.
Okay, someone reminded me that it is a good sign that the government is at least re-looking policies for single mothers. Something is always better than nothing, even if that something is so ridiculous. Okay, always look on the bright side of life. And give them the benefit of doubt.
But whichever way I look at it, I'm still furious:
1. If the mother could have married the father, she would have done so long ago, there's hardly a need to wait till the child is born.
2. So, do you mean to say that only a married mother is entitled to recuperate physically and bond with her child?
3. What about the father?
4. Do not pick on an easy target as a scapegoat. The woman is the one who gets pregnant, but hey, you need a man to have sex. So if pre-marital sex is so wrong, why only blame the woman?
5. Or is pre-marital sex only wrong and bad if you get pregnant?
6. The new amendment still suggests that a mother and her child are only worthy and deserving if there is a man around.
7. It is pure window dressing. They can say that they have already done something to help unmarried mothers - but what is the actual number of women that will benefit from this? Minuscule, I imagine.
(ok, I'm ranting. Back to reasoned arguments)
The Employment Act does not protect all employees - people in an executive, managerial or confidential position are not covered. The Children Development Co-Savings Act plugs this gap by awarding maternity leave to all Singaporean citizens whose children are Singaporean at birth, and who are married.
Hence, unmarried mothers who are employed in an executive, managerial or confidential capacity are not entitled to any paid maternity leave at all.
It is inhumane.
The health and well being of citizens (especially new born babies) should be paramount consideration, instead of conservative dogmatic ideology. There are other ways to signal official displeasure at unmarried motherhood that do not jeopardise health and safety.
Singapore is a country that depends on its human resource. Let's not throw away valuable human potential just because of ideology.
In any case, it would appear that the numbers of birth registered where the father is not named has remained more or less constant over the years. The extreme stigmatisation and discrimination has not resulted in the desired outcome. Surely civil servants can come up with more creative ways of discouraging births out of wedlock!
It is also ridiculous to imagine that women would decide to have babies willy-nilly. Having a child is a huge responsibility - physical, emotional and financial. Even married couples decide after careful consideration. For unmarried women, the decision becomes even more fraught, a choice between abortion, having the child and then giving him/her up for adoption, or keeping the child.
Surely two wrongs do not make a right, as the current situation would suggest. The women who decide on an abortion remain anonymous. Whereas the women who choose to have their babies and become mothers become statistics and are held up for public reprobation. It is ironic that the religious groups are so vociferous in their condemnations. Surely they can't believe that ending a life through abortion is preferable to single motherhood? Though this is what their reactions would suggest. Otherwise, we're back to easy scape-goating, and appearance over reality.
In any case, everybody makes mistakes, and deserves a second chance. And nobody is asking for special favours, just the absence of discrimination.
I have spoken to the founders of Flyin' Solo, a support group for single unwed mothers, and to several of their members. For most of them, their boyfriends fled without a word when they found out about their pregnancy, especially when they did not go for an abortion. All of them agonised over their decision to carry on with the pregnancy and to raise the child solo, weighing up the social and economic consequences with their sense of responsibility towards their unborn children. It was not an easy decision for any of them.
In a survey done in 2004, most respondents said that they found the cash incentives for having children distasteful and do not form part of the considerations when they decide to have children (after marriage). Likewise, I seriously doubt that unmarried pregnant women pay too much heed to the discriminatory measures when they consider whether or not to carry on with their pregnancies.
As always, there is a dearth of data available to the public. Perhaps the government can consider a study to find out if their discriminatory measures have the effect of cutting down the numbers of unmarried women having babies, in addition to simply making life very hard for them. Perhaps they could do a survey at all government hospitals, asking all unmarried women who have abortions if the government policies had a major impact on their decision to abort.
Okay, I suspect this post is not as well-reasoned as my other ones. I may re-write it all when I'm less emotional, and tired. Comments welcome, as always.
I am so incensed by the new amendments to the Children Development Co-savings Act which will entitle unmarried mothers to government-paid maternity leave (the last four weeks out of a total of twelve weeks. The first eight weeks are paid for by the employer and maternity benefits in general are governed by the Employment Act) if, and it's a big IF, they marry their child's father within three months of the birth of their child.
I was just about foaming at the mouth when various media contacted me for an interview.
Okay, someone reminded me that it is a good sign that the government is at least re-looking policies for single mothers. Something is always better than nothing, even if that something is so ridiculous. Okay, always look on the bright side of life. And give them the benefit of doubt.
But whichever way I look at it, I'm still furious:
1. If the mother could have married the father, she would have done so long ago, there's hardly a need to wait till the child is born.
2. So, do you mean to say that only a married mother is entitled to recuperate physically and bond with her child?
3. What about the father?
4. Do not pick on an easy target as a scapegoat. The woman is the one who gets pregnant, but hey, you need a man to have sex. So if pre-marital sex is so wrong, why only blame the woman?
5. Or is pre-marital sex only wrong and bad if you get pregnant?
6. The new amendment still suggests that a mother and her child are only worthy and deserving if there is a man around.
7. It is pure window dressing. They can say that they have already done something to help unmarried mothers - but what is the actual number of women that will benefit from this? Minuscule, I imagine.
(ok, I'm ranting. Back to reasoned arguments)
The Employment Act does not protect all employees - people in an executive, managerial or confidential position are not covered. The Children Development Co-Savings Act plugs this gap by awarding maternity leave to all Singaporean citizens whose children are Singaporean at birth, and who are married.
Hence, unmarried mothers who are employed in an executive, managerial or confidential capacity are not entitled to any paid maternity leave at all.
It is inhumane.
The health and well being of citizens (especially new born babies) should be paramount consideration, instead of conservative dogmatic ideology. There are other ways to signal official displeasure at unmarried motherhood that do not jeopardise health and safety.
Singapore is a country that depends on its human resource. Let's not throw away valuable human potential just because of ideology.
In any case, it would appear that the numbers of birth registered where the father is not named has remained more or less constant over the years. The extreme stigmatisation and discrimination has not resulted in the desired outcome. Surely civil servants can come up with more creative ways of discouraging births out of wedlock!
It is also ridiculous to imagine that women would decide to have babies willy-nilly. Having a child is a huge responsibility - physical, emotional and financial. Even married couples decide after careful consideration. For unmarried women, the decision becomes even more fraught, a choice between abortion, having the child and then giving him/her up for adoption, or keeping the child.
Surely two wrongs do not make a right, as the current situation would suggest. The women who decide on an abortion remain anonymous. Whereas the women who choose to have their babies and become mothers become statistics and are held up for public reprobation. It is ironic that the religious groups are so vociferous in their condemnations. Surely they can't believe that ending a life through abortion is preferable to single motherhood? Though this is what their reactions would suggest. Otherwise, we're back to easy scape-goating, and appearance over reality.
In any case, everybody makes mistakes, and deserves a second chance. And nobody is asking for special favours, just the absence of discrimination.
I have spoken to the founders of Flyin' Solo, a support group for single unwed mothers, and to several of their members. For most of them, their boyfriends fled without a word when they found out about their pregnancy, especially when they did not go for an abortion. All of them agonised over their decision to carry on with the pregnancy and to raise the child solo, weighing up the social and economic consequences with their sense of responsibility towards their unborn children. It was not an easy decision for any of them.
In a survey done in 2004, most respondents said that they found the cash incentives for having children distasteful and do not form part of the considerations when they decide to have children (after marriage). Likewise, I seriously doubt that unmarried pregnant women pay too much heed to the discriminatory measures when they consider whether or not to carry on with their pregnancies.
As always, there is a dearth of data available to the public. Perhaps the government can consider a study to find out if their discriminatory measures have the effect of cutting down the numbers of unmarried women having babies, in addition to simply making life very hard for them. Perhaps they could do a survey at all government hospitals, asking all unmarried women who have abortions if the government policies had a major impact on their decision to abort.
Okay, I suspect this post is not as well-reasoned as my other ones. I may re-write it all when I'm less emotional, and tired. Comments welcome, as always.
Monday, 22 January 2007
Victims thrice over?!
Since the position paper on the penal code amendments (see earlier blog "Rape is Rape") I have been thinking about rape on and off. Hearing from someone recently about her friend's date rape has sparked my pondering again, as had postings in another blog about rape.
The idea that we were deceived as teenagers keeps coming back to me again and again. (I don't mean intentionally, I'm sure school teachers and principals and family members meant well and were themselves deceived.) There are two prongs to the deception.
First is that the biggest danger lay in being attacked by strange men lurking in bushes on our way home from school. Granted that many of us had been flashed at from said said bushes after dark, and possibly an equal number had been molested on buses at some point in our lives, but the likelihood of actual rape was probably a lot more remote. By today's statistics, over 90% of rape survivors knew their assailants (a significant number of whom are their own husbands). Unless the situation was dramatically different in the 80's, we were at far greater risk of rape when we were in supposedly safe and familiar environments rather than at bus stops.
The second deception is that rape is the most degrading and awful thing that could happen to us. I'm not for a moment suggesting that rape is not a heinous crime and that rape survivors suffer from long-lasting and sometimes debilitating trama. It is an invasion of the privacy of (usually women's) bodies and most often a complete betrayal of trust. Yes, rape in and of itself is terrible. But I suspect that society makes it far worse than it already is, on several fronts:
1. Society places huge value on a woman's virginity and chastity. This may not be as bad now as it used to be, but a woman who has multiple sex partners is, well, still a slut. Therefore the loss of that chastity, even without the woman's consent, is a disgrace.
2. Except in the most indisputable cases (eg. where the woman had covered every inch of her body with unattractive clothing and she was raped literally in the bushes by an ugly man in broad daylight and suffered major injury as she struggled mightily to prevent the rape from happening), society will always wonder if the woman asked for it. Things that people have deemed asking for it include: wearing revealing clothing, walking alone after dark, being in a bar, accepting a lift from a man, having an alcoholic drink, inviting a man home for dinner/going to a man's home for dinner.. etc etc. Even the absence of clear injury will prompt people to ask, if she didn't consent, why didn't she struggle...
3. The fear of being pregnant or catching a disease. Unwed pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections are amongst the greatest taboos in society. Never mind how the woman got to be pregnant or infected, she still becomes a social pariah. Patriarchal notions of masculinity probably mean that the rapist won't be using condoms, increasing the likelihood of both scenarios.
Because these notions are so deep-seated and drummed into us through social conditioning since we were born, we may not even be able to break through them when our nearest and dearest has been raped, thus compounding the trauma and the sense of isolation for the rape survivor when even her own family judges her.
There probably aren't many crimes where the "victims" habitually get blamed, and where they blame themselves. (I don't like the word "victim" but cannot think of a more suitable word and so have stuck to it for now.)
This is reflected in the level of trauma experienced by rape survivors. I thought of kidnap with torture as a possible analogous crime. Both involve being restrained temporarily against the victim's will, and both involve a violation of the victim's body. Even where the kidnap lasts for over 2 weeks, and where the victim was denied basic amenities and was beaten up daily etc, the level of trauma usually still cannot compare with the trauma experienced by a woman who had experienced 10 minutes of rape. I have heard of complete breakdown and even suicide by rape survivors, but not of kidnap victims. For me, the reason must lie in society's perceptions and treatment of kidnap vs rape victims, and not just in the nature of the crime itself.
It is not possible to change society overnight. If women reject the prejudices described above, we would be in a much better position to support our sisters who have been raped, and God forbid, if this were to happen to us, we would at least be in a better position to live through it with our sense of selves intact.
The idea that we were deceived as teenagers keeps coming back to me again and again. (I don't mean intentionally, I'm sure school teachers and principals and family members meant well and were themselves deceived.) There are two prongs to the deception.
First is that the biggest danger lay in being attacked by strange men lurking in bushes on our way home from school. Granted that many of us had been flashed at from said said bushes after dark, and possibly an equal number had been molested on buses at some point in our lives, but the likelihood of actual rape was probably a lot more remote. By today's statistics, over 90% of rape survivors knew their assailants (a significant number of whom are their own husbands). Unless the situation was dramatically different in the 80's, we were at far greater risk of rape when we were in supposedly safe and familiar environments rather than at bus stops.
The second deception is that rape is the most degrading and awful thing that could happen to us. I'm not for a moment suggesting that rape is not a heinous crime and that rape survivors suffer from long-lasting and sometimes debilitating trama. It is an invasion of the privacy of (usually women's) bodies and most often a complete betrayal of trust. Yes, rape in and of itself is terrible. But I suspect that society makes it far worse than it already is, on several fronts:
1. Society places huge value on a woman's virginity and chastity. This may not be as bad now as it used to be, but a woman who has multiple sex partners is, well, still a slut. Therefore the loss of that chastity, even without the woman's consent, is a disgrace.
2. Except in the most indisputable cases (eg. where the woman had covered every inch of her body with unattractive clothing and she was raped literally in the bushes by an ugly man in broad daylight and suffered major injury as she struggled mightily to prevent the rape from happening), society will always wonder if the woman asked for it. Things that people have deemed asking for it include: wearing revealing clothing, walking alone after dark, being in a bar, accepting a lift from a man, having an alcoholic drink, inviting a man home for dinner/going to a man's home for dinner.. etc etc. Even the absence of clear injury will prompt people to ask, if she didn't consent, why didn't she struggle...
3. The fear of being pregnant or catching a disease. Unwed pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections are amongst the greatest taboos in society. Never mind how the woman got to be pregnant or infected, she still becomes a social pariah. Patriarchal notions of masculinity probably mean that the rapist won't be using condoms, increasing the likelihood of both scenarios.
Because these notions are so deep-seated and drummed into us through social conditioning since we were born, we may not even be able to break through them when our nearest and dearest has been raped, thus compounding the trauma and the sense of isolation for the rape survivor when even her own family judges her.
There probably aren't many crimes where the "victims" habitually get blamed, and where they blame themselves. (I don't like the word "victim" but cannot think of a more suitable word and so have stuck to it for now.)
This is reflected in the level of trauma experienced by rape survivors. I thought of kidnap with torture as a possible analogous crime. Both involve being restrained temporarily against the victim's will, and both involve a violation of the victim's body. Even where the kidnap lasts for over 2 weeks, and where the victim was denied basic amenities and was beaten up daily etc, the level of trauma usually still cannot compare with the trauma experienced by a woman who had experienced 10 minutes of rape. I have heard of complete breakdown and even suicide by rape survivors, but not of kidnap victims. For me, the reason must lie in society's perceptions and treatment of kidnap vs rape victims, and not just in the nature of the crime itself.
It is not possible to change society overnight. If women reject the prejudices described above, we would be in a much better position to support our sisters who have been raped, and God forbid, if this were to happen to us, we would at least be in a better position to live through it with our sense of selves intact.
Tuesday, 2 January 2007
SAFE Singapore launch
The SAFE Singapore website was launched at the Pelangi Pride Centre's Community Fair on 9 December 2006, just hours before I was due to be on a flight (see "Super-personal Blog #1")...
Hence the lateness of this entry! My speech at the launch is pasted below, for more information, visit their website.
Before I became President of Aware, Hoon Eng had suggested that Aware host a gay-affirmative forum. It supposed to be on Valentine’s Day, to explore the different kinds of love, or rather, there different expressions of love. Lack of time and clashing schedules meant that I “inherited” the project, which was eventually called the Mothers’ Day Forum. It was even more poignant that the forum took place, well, the Sunday before Mothers’ Day, because of a mix-up in dates, because it was due to a mother’s great love and for both her gay sons and her determination to accept them unconditionally whatever the odds that prompted the event. I would just like to say that Hoon Eng is one remarkable woman!
The message that I wanted to convey through the forum was that it is rejection and stigmatization that tears families apart, not the fact, nor even the revelation, that certain family members are gay. At the forum, I was genuinely moved to tears at the honest and authentic sharing, and the courage of each and every person who spoke up. No matter how old and mature we think we are, there is still a little bit in all of us that still remains the little child, wanting and needing our parents’ love and acceptance. And I think it is this need that causes the most pain and longing.
And on the part of parents, we all want the best for our children. Through the lens with which we view the world, coupled with our own fears and insecurities, we make judgments for and about our children that we think will serve them best. Ironically, often by causing them pain, to dissuade them from their chosen cause of action. After the forum, I kept thinking about my own daughter… If she chose to be a cut-throat Wall Street stock broker or a politician (won’t mention which party) – will I still be able to love and accept her unconditionally? Or would I resort to threats and rejection to try to make her see the “error” of her ways?
Both parents and children need and deserve support and understanding, and not labels and judgment. Actually, that is my firm belief about just almost anything – if we truly want to find a solution, we have to drop the labels and stigma before we can see a clear way through to a workable, lasting solution – be it HIV/AIDS, single mothers, homosexuality, family violence etc.
It was in this spirit that we got together to start SAFE – supporting, affirming and empowering our LGBTQ friends. A big thank you to Regina de Rosario for helping us set up the website.
We hope that we can reach out to families who are worried about the lives their gay children will have, who are concerned about what the neighbours might say, who are scared silly that the police will come knocking one day brandishing s377A. Through providing information and resources and just good ol’ emotional support, we hope that these families will be able understand and affirm their gay children/siblings or even parents. Support from friends and activists is good, but support from family is great!
I read a passage that said: There is no lack of love in this world, just a lack of awareness that the love exists.
If SAFE manages to increase that awareness by just a bit, we would have succeeded.
Hence the lateness of this entry! My speech at the launch is pasted below, for more information, visit their website.
Before I became President of Aware, Hoon Eng had suggested that Aware host a gay-affirmative forum. It supposed to be on Valentine’s Day, to explore the different kinds of love, or rather, there different expressions of love. Lack of time and clashing schedules meant that I “inherited” the project, which was eventually called the Mothers’ Day Forum. It was even more poignant that the forum took place, well, the Sunday before Mothers’ Day, because of a mix-up in dates, because it was due to a mother’s great love and for both her gay sons and her determination to accept them unconditionally whatever the odds that prompted the event. I would just like to say that Hoon Eng is one remarkable woman!
The message that I wanted to convey through the forum was that it is rejection and stigmatization that tears families apart, not the fact, nor even the revelation, that certain family members are gay. At the forum, I was genuinely moved to tears at the honest and authentic sharing, and the courage of each and every person who spoke up. No matter how old and mature we think we are, there is still a little bit in all of us that still remains the little child, wanting and needing our parents’ love and acceptance. And I think it is this need that causes the most pain and longing.
And on the part of parents, we all want the best for our children. Through the lens with which we view the world, coupled with our own fears and insecurities, we make judgments for and about our children that we think will serve them best. Ironically, often by causing them pain, to dissuade them from their chosen cause of action. After the forum, I kept thinking about my own daughter… If she chose to be a cut-throat Wall Street stock broker or a politician (won’t mention which party) – will I still be able to love and accept her unconditionally? Or would I resort to threats and rejection to try to make her see the “error” of her ways?
Both parents and children need and deserve support and understanding, and not labels and judgment. Actually, that is my firm belief about just almost anything – if we truly want to find a solution, we have to drop the labels and stigma before we can see a clear way through to a workable, lasting solution – be it HIV/AIDS, single mothers, homosexuality, family violence etc.
It was in this spirit that we got together to start SAFE – supporting, affirming and empowering our LGBTQ friends. A big thank you to Regina de Rosario for helping us set up the website.
We hope that we can reach out to families who are worried about the lives their gay children will have, who are concerned about what the neighbours might say, who are scared silly that the police will come knocking one day brandishing s377A. Through providing information and resources and just good ol’ emotional support, we hope that these families will be able understand and affirm their gay children/siblings or even parents. Support from friends and activists is good, but support from family is great!
I read a passage that said: There is no lack of love in this world, just a lack of awareness that the love exists.
If SAFE manages to increase that awareness by just a bit, we would have succeeded.
Happy New Year!
Wishing everybody all the very best for 2007!! May there be more AWAREness in this world! :P
Have been on holiday for a while... Now it's time to get back to work! Finally "wasted" (for a techno-no-know like me) time learning about how to insert links on my blog, and finally noticed the "labels" option at the end of the blog... So hopefully you'll have a better experience reading this blog!
Thanks for dropping by! :)
Have been on holiday for a while... Now it's time to get back to work! Finally "wasted" (for a techno-no-know like me) time learning about how to insert links on my blog, and finally noticed the "labels" option at the end of the blog... So hopefully you'll have a better experience reading this blog!
Thanks for dropping by! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)