Preference and Discrimination

Yesterday we were discussing the topic of preference and discrimination in class. I was recounting a story to Su and XP about how I was at a Suntec City toilet when this mother with her 4-year-old (thereabout) son was in the line. I overheard the boy saying something like “the flower one fatty bom bom” (I was wearing a shirt with flower prints that day.). Not only that, he went on saying “fatty bom bom, bom bom bom, bom bom bom …” as though it was amusing. Frankly speaking, it was amusing, even though I was the object of insult. I knew the boy was being rude, but I couldn’t be arsed to do anything about it. Because if I had said anything, it would have meant (1) I admit it was me, aka. I think I am a fatty bom bom myself; (2) I am being intolerant towards guileless young children; (3) I am generally a nasty person. So I ignored the child. His lack of manners obviously stems from something else. The mother did not stop him, which adequately shows how much respect SHE has for other people (i.e. me). So if I had tried to say anything, how would such a parent retaliate? Or deflect the accusation by feigning ignorance? Get me right, I am not condoning the act, but I took a step back and decided not to act because I gave the issue some thought: (1) this is ill upbringing, which is something I can’t be arsed to interfere with, because without insensitive asses like these, there are no GOOD people in this world (relatively, of course.) (2) A child with ill manners will never make it big in life anyway, so that’s good enough justice. (3) Stealing a quote from a friend, I only have endure this lousy attitude for 5 minutes, the child and his parents will have to endure it for a lifetime. Aw. So sad right? Now, don’t chide me for having vengeful thoughts and being mentally evil, that is my right as a thinking creature.

Anyway, back to the topic on preference and discrimination. At the end of the discussion we sort of came to an agreement that it’s a very thin line between what’s preference and what’s discrimination. The rationale is that, when you use a certain variable (e.g. physical attributes) as a basis to judge another variable (e.g. work performance), you are discriminating. For example, guy A abhors fat women. In being the boss of a radio station, he admits a twiggy DJ over a fat DJ,even though they both have equal qualifications. That is discrimination because size is not a relevant nor justified basis of rejection here. However, the tricky part comes when it’s choosing a romantic partner. if I said I preferred rich men, and so refuse to go out with this poor fella, is that discriminating? I don’t think the crux lies in whether the choice is rationally justifiable, but then again I’m not sure what makes it NOT a discrimination then. So there’s that thin line between preference and discrimination.

On plastic surgery

I read this 100-page odd of comments on a fashion forum about how a Singapore blogger has had plastic surgery and refuse to admit it, cooking up all kinds of tales about her good looks being due to her heritage, make-up, etc. These commenters seem to hate her to the core, even talking about legal procedures concerning libel and how to go about suing her into admitting her farce. Before and after photos were rampantly posted on the thread, and let’s just say, so what if she’s had plastic surgery?

My view on plastic surgery - if you have the money and if it really can make you feel better, why not? Isn’t it cruel for us to decide that a particular sad little girl who has no self-esteem should not go for plastic surgery even if it can allow her to live with a bit more dignity and confidence? In chiding people for doing plastic surgery, and yet participating in the same societal behaviour to ostracise ugliness, we are the ones who ought to feel ashamed.

Sure, there are those who undergo too much plastic surgery that they are hooked to it. Well, in Chinese there’s a saying that goes “愿者上钩“ (only the willing shall, and can be hooked). It’s quite like smoking and doing drugs; it is not the responsibility of the people around you to keep you away from it - it is your own responsibility to say No. I guess it applies for these freaks who enjoy repeated facelifts and breast augmentations - they are the willing party, we did not force the knife down their throats.

I’m quite open to this issue, as it seems. Not that I’d want to go for plastic surgery, but I’m definitely not one of those who feels they are superior because they are au naturelle.

Why do people have children?

I still can’t wrap my mind around that issue.

Recently I passed by a parenthood fair at Marina Square, and there were many parenthood related booths around, from expensive baby formulas to immunization, diapers to playthings. What caught my attention was the cord blood banking booth. As we all might know, cord blood contains stem cells from which all cells can be borne, and is hence potentially the cure to immune diseases, and cancers. Cord blood banking is expensive, running into thousands a year. So I was wondering, if parents cannot afford to store their child’s cord blood, and most unfortunately the child might need it in future, then what happens? Whose fault is it? Maybe I shouldn’t talk about “fault”, but who will feel the most guilt? The parents, of course. Just because they did not have the financial ability to provide their child the best.

Is that what parenting is about, then? Providing the best money and time can afford? I’m sure these two sacrifices, time and money are given willingly by these parents out of sheer love for the child. Sending the child to Shicida classes at age 1, teaching  them a third language at age 2, sending them for music classes at age 3 … just so that they can become superior to their not-so-rich peers, isn’t it. The sheer love for the child translates to giving them more than a headstart, more like a false start or steroidal boost in life, so that children can become the adults ideal in the parents’ eyes.

What’s sad is that all these parents have eyes for are the future, far away beyond the horizons, and they forget to look down just before their eyes at the innocence of their child.

Holy Grail Conspiracy

I’ve recently been reading quite a lot of holy grail and Christianity conspiracy novels. And I’d have to say, they make some sense. Not in terms of the existence of some relic, or bloodline, but how they view religion.

There is one particular book, The Templar Legacy by Steve Berry that mentions how the entire Christian faith is predicated on rising from the dead. It is that precise moment where the son of God came back that people believed that he’s not a quack. Sure, he’s done his share of miracles, but non-believers wrote these miracles off as witchcraft, magic, that shouldn’t be performed. But coming back from the dead is different. And so the bottomline is, what if he didn’t come back from the dead after all? That it is all the wishful thinking of the apostles, or even worse, mistranslation from Old Hebrew?

And then there’s Kathleen McGowan’s The Expected One which revolves about how Mary Magdalene is, and should be considered an apostle of Christ because she was one of those who watched him die, and the first to watch him rise from the dead. Yet the Church and human authority wrote her off as a prostitute. What if Kathleen McGowan is right, that there is a conspiracy? Not the one about bloodline, but the one about how the Bible as we know today is a pure construct of man? What if it isn’t meant to be?

And I just finished finished Matthew Reily’s Seven Ancient Wonders at 1.30am this morning. It isn’t strictly what I would consider Holy Grail literature, but it is certain every bit a relic novel. This book mainly involves the seven ancient wonders of the world, and midway Reilly had to crack Da Vinci Code jokes (in his own word) and make links to the Christian faith. Although a little incredulous, but according to this novel, Catholics are sun worshippers. How when Christians say Amen it actually means Amun which is one of the gods of ancient Egypt. Well, Egyptian Orthodox Christians maybe?

Nonetheless, these books are great fun to read. The adventure, the globe-trotting, the amazing amount of information the protagonists store in their heads … I know atas literature students and arty farters scorn these books. I think they themselves are in denial about reading for pleasure.

Mango Sale

So, the Mango sale started yesterday at 2pm islandwide.
My friend Angela and  I decided to go observe women mob behaviour at this highly rated sale event. So we planted ourselves at the McCafe outside the Shaw Towers branch and waited for the crowd.

And we weren’t disappointed. At 2 pm:

Hundreds of women queuing up at the security station where big bags will be sealed in white plastic bags to prevent theft. Since all the items will not bear security tags, so I guess such measures were necessary. Simply because it’s mayhem inside the store. But I was explaining to Angela how it wouldn’t really deter a hardcore kleptomaniac - the cable tie can be carefully slipped off the bag, and be slipped back on if it isn’t tied tightly enough.

The queue was pretty long; it took about half an hour before it cleared. And the scary thing is, we didn’t see anyone come out of the store. It was an extreme fire hazard. It would have been great fun to let loose 5 skunks in the store and block off the main entrance.

After we’ve had our fill of watching how people brave the rain to queue up around the Shaw building, we went shopping and at about 4.40pm, we passed by another Mango branch (not a part of the tree, thank you) inside Isetan at Wisma.

See the crowd.

It was warzone in a shopping centre. So we decided to brave the jostling women and went into the sale, just so I can undergo the most horrendous shopping experience of my life. What happened was that I was holding a bag in the bargain bin, and I opened the flap of the bag to look at the price. While my hand was still on the bag, and I had no intention to let go, whatsoever, this crazy bitch (she deserves to be called that) planted both her hands on the bag - one on the flap, and one on the handle, obviously planning to snatch it out of my hands. This is the first time in my life I’ve had an object snatched out of my hands (ok, maybe I might have been bullied when I was younger, but that’s not the point). I was so shocked at her brash behaviour I promptly let go of the bag. I will absolutely not lower myself to fighting over a bargain bag with a crazy bitch. Seriously. The things women do in a sale. Sure, there’s no unwritten (or written, for the matter) rule on shopping ettiquette, but I’m sure any civilised human being will know that it’s fundamentally offensive to snatch something out of people’s hands. There’s a reason why it’s considered a foul to grab the ball from your opponent’s hands in sports, all right? So I was miffed at that woman. It’s just too ridiculous.

So, I’ve experienced mob behaviour on Mango first-day sales. We should make it a coming-of-age rite for all shopaholics. It is the experience of a lifetime.

Foreign labour

That day I was in Charles & Keith, a homegrown shoe label, idling my time away when I overheard the store manager training their new employee. The manager had a piece of notebook paper, with the numerals 1 to 10 written on it, and she was reciting the numerals out to the staff in English, and making the staff recite it back.

I nearly died of shock. They employed a staff who clearly doesn’t speak enough English to even know the names of numbers. How justified is that? They must be paying her miserable pay, say 10% of what they pay a local Singaporean, right? If not I really don’t see the merit of employing someone like her calibre. Is it because she’s willing to scrub floors and kiss patrons’ smelly feet, among other things Singaporeans refuse to do? This really reminded of the recent Labour Day speech by the upperlings, about how we should appreciate foreign workers and not be antagonistic towards them, and not to think that they are “snatching our ricebowls” (i.e. stealing our jobs.) Well, taking things into perspectives, sure, we should appreciate foreign workers who toil at jobs Singaporeans refuse to work in, say the building industry, or dirty jobs like clearing gabbage. But this Charles & Keith example is really pushing the limit of foreign workers not stealing our jobs. Clearly, I’m sure Singaporeans wouldn’t mind working retail. So I don’t see why these foreign workers are favoured over our local community, since there is so much hassle in settling work permits. So I’m sure it can be inferred that these foreign workers must have been taken advantage of; given a lower pay and working more.

So is this still “appreciating” our foreign labour? Or are we giving industries the green light to employ foreigners for shit wages and increasing profit margins?

And retail is not an isolated industry. Recently too, I came across a few Chinese National bus captains. I was really miffed at that fact because these people can’t possibly know Singapore’s geography better than someone born and bred here. Being a bus captain is more than adhering to your bus routes and making sure people pay their bus fares. You need to be able to tell people the route your bus takes. I’m sure if I went up to these Chinese bus captains and asked them if a bus went to “Plaza Sing” or “Palais Rennaissance” (with the due French pronunciation) or “Dua Poh” (Hokkien for “big slope”, which is somewhere near Clarke Quay area), they wouldn’t know shit.

So while I understand it’s good that we have foreign labour willing to toil at menial jobs Singaporeans refuse to take up, and the expat professionals who are presumably able to contribute much innovation and intellects to Singapore, the examples I myself have encountered above aren’t justified at all. The only reason that I can think of remains at “low wages”. Is this conducive for the job market? Is this being fair to Singaporeans? Are the industries trying to force Singaporeans to push down their minimal wage to compete with these foreigners?

I don’t have commitment issues; I just can’t say no to a better offer

A plausible excuse?

Or does commitment really equate to saying no vehemently to better offers?
Is that commitment then, out of obligation, without true intent?

I don’t know. I am hardly commited to any cause, or to anyone. I live for myself, and while I promise myself, as well as other people, things, I hardly treat it like I’m committed to fulfilling these promises. Sure, a promise has to be realized, and that’s where sometimes genuine desire turns to obligation. So is commitment a promise?

Is commitment measurable? How is it judged?
Say, a man mentally cheats on the wife (i.e. fantasize about some other woman). Is that lack of commitment, or must it be something physical, that can be shown and proved? If yes, then is it fair to say that commitment, in the worst sense, equates to physical enslavement, where it is imperative that one does certain things as promised, but not mental enslavement, since one still has freedom to thought?

So, is commitment obligation?
When is it genuine desire and when is it not?

And this word, commitment. It cannot be translated, clearly showing an Anglo belief system which I refuse to impose unto myself.

Ridiculous scam mail

I received the most ridiculous scam mail today:

Seriously. I laughed so hard when I saw it because who in the right mind would expect someone to actually believe this? To believe that there’s serious political problems in Japan? And that someone would want to borrow a bank account for investment and give you 10% commission? This is so absurd it’s funny. Which suckers will fall for it?!

Profanities

Recently I was told to not swear so much, particularly using certain “four-lettered words”.

I don’t see why we can’t use profanities.

Does it change who we fundamentally are? Does spouting fuck and shit make us bad people?

From a linguistic point of view, for the lack of a better word, that’s bollocks. Words in a language like English is arbitrary, that is, its form (pronunciation, spelling) has nothing to do with its meaning. So why is it that fuck is profane, and copulation not? Is there something in the palatal plosive /k/ that makes fuck an undesirable word? That’s a pretty big claim, isn’t it?

Then they may say that it’s the idea and concept that’s put across that’s bad i.e. I shouldn’t be talking about sex when I’m trying to express exasperation. Meaning shift anyone? Just like how the word gay, which innocently meant “happy” in the 50’s has now acquired a more negative meaning, the sense to a word can change. Fuck need not only mean sex. From what I see, and what corpus evidence will duly prove, fuck has multiple senses and functions that are unrelated to the sexual act, like fuck being an interjection of speech. I don’t see what’s so different between “fuck I dropped the bowl!” and “oh no I dropped the bowl!”.

Oh then we can look at the sociolinguistic point of view, that the use of fuck and other profanities indexes undesirable values, which is, in simpler terms, the use of profanities equates a person to the likes of baddies. Which brings me back to my first question, does using profanities fundamentally change who we are? Perhaps gangster were the ones who started using profanities, but who’s to say that anyone who uses fuck is a gangster, or condones the act of being a gangster? To make such loose arbitrary connections is being pretty narrow-minded and subscribing to stereotypes, no? It’s just like claiming “all blondes are stupid” or “all girls like to cry”. Just because they co-occur doesn’t make them facts.

So I still don’t see why we can’t use profanities. Or why in the first place those words are singled out to be called profanities. What’s so different about them? Isn’t this some kind of discrimination? Who decides, anyway? Some stuffed-up clergy? Seriously. It’s the same thing with Singlish isn’t it? Always fearing that it’ll spill over to the oh-so-sanctified “formal” contexts of language that we can’t be left alone to codeswitch in peace. Who’s to say that I can’t keep my fucks out of my essays? (Oh, but I did write an A essay with fuck.)

So as crap as this shit is, it’s worth all da spunk in this fucking world, so suck it. (Or for the innocent eyes, for as weak as this argument may seem, it’s still worth everything I stand for in this world, so take it or leave it.)

A sexy man

Today I was reading this interview of some entrepreneur in the papers when something caught my attention. When asked if he would describe himself has “sexy”, he responded:

“No. Only women are sexy…”

Yeah right you chauvinist.
Women exist not to be objectified as “sexy” objects by you, ok?

I guess somehow describing men as being sexy is in itself a feminist move. To objectify the man, no?