Big Time in Little Street

Just watched a local tele-movie. Wasn't too bad.

I find that Singaporeans have a very strong tendency to criticise local productions. I personally find it hard to take some of the critical attitudes seriously when they appear to be the subtle precipitation of Western (or Hongkongese) indoctrination. The simple question to ask here is why should local products be held against foreign standards. I think it's good enough that our local shows have our own local flavour, that our local artistes have their own local accents and quirks, however discordant they may be with the language and behavior of Westerners. Sadly, it appears that many of us shun local productions out of 1) some wholehearted belief that our standards are always static and 2) that a failure to conform to Westernised expectations of a good drama or a good movie represents a complete failure to entertain.

If anything, I am quite receptive to local productions partly because I can easily relate to various features of the show. More importantly though, a large part of my receptivity is formed out of tolerance. The very concept of tolerance already suggests that local productions are poor and in need of some understanding. But I think this is precisely where many of us are unforgiving. It's fine to be not tolerant but it seems like many of us transform that lack of something into an active force of intolerance, leading to the many harsh critiques of local productions. As if that's not enough, we want to persuade others that our critique is right and that local productions are always distasteful, always off the mark. Instead of remaining passive we cultivate an atmosphere of criticism when we pass remarks such as "local dramas are so stupid". Such an atmosphere is not only harmful to the actors in the local media industry, it actively influences our own and others' attitudes, turning it almost into a trend to make fun of local productions.

For the record, I think local productions are quite poor in many aspects, most notably that of plot. But I am tolerant of that. My tolerance comes from the following considerations:

- A small population pool means a small pool of talent, as well as a small market to generate revenue needed for development.

- The industry, instead of catering to middle class tastes, caters instead to less demanding tastes. This could be because it makes financial sense to do so, but it could also be due to the lack of resources to develop more refined products. It may be interesting to note that the creators may possibly be misinformed as to what the local audience really wants too.

- I'm no media expert, but I would venture that artistic development occurs in natural and progressive stages. We need to be in that phase of "constant attention to economic and social issues in society" before we can shrug that off and develop products which explore more imaginative issues. One may also argue that the current preoccupation with money, unemployment and extra-marital affairs reflect the state of society we are in now. To put this into perspective, consider that once upon a time America was preoccupied with dramas such as Days of our Life and Baywatch, before moving on to the many stellar dramas they have now.

- A harsh atmosphere, as outlined above, affects the artistes and directors' confidence. I would think that many artistes are unnecessarily self-conscious of their performance with respect to Western ideals, to the extent that they over-compensate in terms of local quirkiness and slapstick humour, and crude jokes.

It should be noted that I'm not pushing one to watch local tv productions. Instead, I'm encouraging us to not create and perpetuate an atmosphere of criticism. In the event that criticism is made (and, believe me, I do have my fair share of grievances), one should be aware of the foreign schemas which structure our judgements of local productions.

Strike at the right places at the right time

From: http://thevoiddeck.org/?p=568

"On another front, Thio claimed, Christians face an emergent threat to social harmony whereby a non-religious group uses the religious card on Christians to raise emotions and divert away from the issue at hand. Thio stated that the AWARE incident was a perfect example where there was no religious issue as it was about a private takeover of a NGO and a debate over public values. But someone threw the religious card into the debate and when that happened all rationality was lost. The non-Christian who threw in the religious card, Thio argued, used religion to incite hatred over a group and such an act was dangerous tantamount to playing with fire."

I argued previously that we only have, at best, circumstantial evidence for proving that Josie Lau and company overtook AWARE on religious grounds, and that that is neither necessary nor sufficient for the indictment the new guard faced. Consistently, I hold that Thio Li-Ann is right here in saying that 'someone threw the religious card into the debate and when that happened all rationality was lost.' As much as I am a proponent of secularism, and as much as I felt quite riled up over the matter, I do not approve treating the AWARE issue as a religious one.

By doing so secularists have exposed one flank to a backlash from a certain group of Christians, a backlash that is perhaps inevitable. Hence now this group can turn around and portray the public as the aggressors. Hence we have:

'Thio also shared on how she has been maliciously targeted online and had to “turn her cheek” many a times as a good Christian.'

'The non-Christian who threw in the religious card, Thio argued, used religion to incite hatred over a group and such an act was dangerous tantamount to playing with fire.'

'The same, Thio continued, could be said of TOC when they victimized her (no specifics) by playing the religious card and accused her of imposing her Christian values when she was merely debating on a public values as a citizen. She termed the TOC coverage as a lie and irresponsible reporting and said that TOC was not interested in public debate and was only interested in creating confusion.'

I agree that these are all valid charges. What's done is done, and I don't think there's any good way to successfully defend against these charges without attacking the ethos of the charger.

Secularists, however, have yet to play their strongest deck. The deck has just simply these 3 cards:

1) Democratic debate has to be based on reason.

2) Religious assertations are not based on reason.

3) Religious assertations have no place in democratic debate.

This isn't logically tight, at least in a formal sense. But you get the idea. Why are religious assertations not based on reason? That's because they ultimately fall back to God(s). Now, unless we can verify the existence of God, I don't see how falling back to the word of God is any different from saying, All heterosexuals must be locked up because my God says heterosexuality is a sin. And I don't think religious groups would want to refute that card because the moment religion is brought down to scientific scrutiny, the whole entity just dissipates, unless one can scientifically prove the existence of God. Cards 1 and 2 are relatively vulnerable though, but it remains to be seen if religious people can exploit those vulnerabilities.

***

Anyway, here's something funny for both camps to laugh over:

Dr Laura Schlesinger is a US broadcaster who dispenses advice to people who call her radio show. On one of her shows she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, she held that homosexuality was an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and she could not condone it in any way.

The following is an open letter to Dr Laura from a US citizen which was posted on the internet:

'Dear Dr. Laura

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25-44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10)it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your faithful listener'

- Vanessa Baird, "Faith and Fundamentalism".

I need to mention, as a final note, that secularists must be extremely careful in attacking Singanews, if ever they should want to attack it. I think it may be wiser to just leave it alone. Let them over-reach themselves. Let them grow confident, let them slip in things that an objective reporter wouldn't slip in. If they don't, then all's good. If they do, then it's time to fight. Oops, I meant debate.

Thinking Sex

Do read the following excerpts. Emphasis, headings, and grammatical mistakes all mine unless otherwise indicated.

(1) Sexual Morality

Most systems of sexual judgement - religious, psychological, feminist, or socialist - attempt to determine on which side of the line a particular act falls. Only sex acts on the good side of the line are accorded moral complexity. For isntance, heterosexual encounters may be sublime or disgusting, free or forced, healing or destructive, romantic or mercenary. As long as it does not violate other rules, heterosexuality is acknowledged to exhibit the full range of human experience. In contrast, all sex acts on the bad side of the line are considered utterly repulsive and devoid of all emotional nuance. The further from the line a sex act is, the more it is depicted as a uniformly bad experience.

As a result of the sex conflicts of the last decade, some behavior near the border is inching across it. Unmarried couples living together, masturbation, and some forms of homosexuality are moving in the direction of respectability. Most homosexuality is still on the bad side of the line. But if it is coupled and monogamous, the society is beginning to recognize that it includes the full range of human interaction. Promisccuous homosexuality, sadomasochism, fetishism, transsexuality, and cross-generational encounters are still viewed as unmodulated horros incapable of involving affection, love, free choice, kindness, or transcendence.

This kind of sexuality morality has more in common with ideologies of racism than with true ethics. It grants virtue to the dominant groups, and relgates vice to the underprivileged. A democratic morality should judge sexual acts by the way partners treat one another, the level of mutual consideration, the presence or absence of coercion, and the quantity and quality of the pleasures they provide. Whether sex acts are gay or straight, coupled or in groups, naked or in underwear, commerical or free, with or without video, should not be ethical concerns...

Most people find it difficult to grasp that whatever they like to do sexually will be thoroughly repulsive to someone else, and that whatever repels them sexually will be the most treasured delight of someone, somewhere. One need not like or perform a particular sex act in order to recognize that someone else will, and that this difference does not indicate a lack of good taste, mental health, or intelligence in either party. Most people mistake their sexual preferences for a universeal system that will or should work for everyone.

This notion of a single ideal sexuality characterizes most systems of thought about sex. For religion, the ideal is procreative marriage. For psychology, it is mature heterosexuality. Although its content varies, the format of a single sexual standard is continually reconstructed within other rhetorical frameworks, including feminism and socialism. It is just as objectionable to insist that everyone should be lesbian, non-monogamous, or kinky, as to believe that everyone should be heterosexual, married, or vanilla - though the latter set of opinions are backed by considerably more coercive power than the former.

- Gayle Rubin, "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality", pg 14-15.

(2) Persecution of sexual minority

Feminist anti-pornography idealogy has always contained an implied, and sometimes overt, indictment on sadomasochism. The pictures of sucking and fucking that comprise the bulk of pornography may be unnerving to those who are not familiar with them. But it is hard to make a convincing case that such images are violent. All of the early anti-porn slide shows used a highly selective sample of S/M imagery to sell a very flimsy analysis. Taken out of context, such images are often shocking. This shock value was mercilessly exploited to scare audiences into accepting the anti-porn perspective.

A great deal of anti-porn propaganda implies that sadomasochism is the underlying and essential "truth" towards which all pornography tends. Porn is thought to lead to S/M porn which in turn is alleged to lead to rape. This is a just-so story that revitalizes the notion that sex perverts commit sex crimes, not normal people. There is no evidence that the readers of S/M erotica or practising sadomasochists commit a disproportionate number of sex crimes. Anti-porn literature scapegoats an unpopular sexual minority and its reading material for social problems they do not create...

The ultimate result of such a moral panic would be the legalized violation of a community of harmless perverts. It is dubious that such a sexual witch hunt would make any appreciable contribution towards reducing violence against women.

-pg 25-26.

(3) Sexual hierarchy and how the law perpetuates it

As I mentioned earlier, a great deal of sex law does not distinguish between consensual and coercive behavior. Only rape law contains such a distinction. Rape law is based on the assumption, correct in my view, that heterosexual activity may be freely chosen or forcibly coerced. One has the legal right to engage in heterosexual behavior as long as it does not fall under the purview of other statutes and as long as it is agreeable to both parties.

This is not the case for most other sexual acts. Sodomy laws, as I mentioned above, are based on the assumption that the forbidden acts are an "abominable and destestable crime against nature." Criminality is intrinsic to the acts themselves, no matter what the desires of participants. "Unlike rape, sodomy or an unnatural or perverted sexual act may be committed between two persons both of whom consent, and, regardless of which is the aggresso, both may be prosecuted." Before the consenting adults statute was passed in California in 1976, lesbian lovers could have been prosecuted for committing oral copulation. If both participants were capable of consent, both were equally guilty...

In a famous S/M case, a man was convicted of aggravated assault for a whipping administered in an S/M scene. There was no complaining victim. The session had been filmed and he was prosecuted on the basis of the film. The man appealed his conviction by arguing that he had been involved in a consensual sexual encounter and had assaulted no one. In rejecting his appeal, the court ruled that one may not consent to an assault or battery "except in a situation involving ordinary physical contact or blows incident to sports such as football, boxing, or wrestling." The court went on to note that the "consent of a person without legal capacity to give consent, such as a child or insane person, is ineffective," and that "It is a matter of common knowledge that a normal person in full possession of his mental faculties does not freely consent to the use, upon himself, of force likely to produce great bodily injury." Therefore, anyone who would consent to a whipping would be presumed non compos mentis [emphasis hers] and legally incapable of consenting. S/M sex generally involves a much lower level of force than the average football game, and results in far fewer injuries than most sports. But the court ruled that football players were sane, whereas masochists are not.

Sodomy laws, adult incest laws, and legal interpretations such as the one above clearly interfere with consensual behavior and impose criminal penalties on it. Within the law, consent is a privilege enjoyed only by those who engage in the highest-status sexual behavior. Those who enjoy low-status sexual behavior do not have the legal right to engage in it. In addition, economic sanctions, family pressures erotic stigma, social discrimination, negative ideology, and the paucity of information about erotic behavior, all serve to make it difficult for people to make unconventional sexual choices. There certainly are structural constraints that impede free sexual choice, but they hardly operate to coerce anyone into being a pervert. On the contrary, they operate to coerce everyone toward normality.

-pg 30-31.

(4)

In Western culture, sex is taken all too seriously. A person is not considered immoral, is not sent to prison, and is not expelled from his or her family, for enjoying spicy cuisine. But an individual may go through all this and more for enjoying shoe leather. Ultimately, of what possible social significance is it if a person likes to masturbate over a shoe? It may even be non-consensual, but since we do not ask permission of our shoes to wear them, it hardly seems necessary to obtain dispensation to come on them.

If sex is taken too seriously, sexual persecution is not taken seriously enough. There is systematic mistreatment of individuals and communities on the basis of erotic taste and behavior. There are serious penalties for belonging to the various sexual occupational castes. The sexuality of the young is denied, adult sexuality is often treated like a variety of nuclear waste, and the graphic representation of sex takes place in a mire of legal and social circumlocution. Specific populations bear the brunt of the current system of erotic power, but their persecution upholds a system that affects everyone.

-pg 35.

(5)

The state routinely intervenes in sexual behavior at a level that would not be tolerated in other areas of social life.

-pg 18.

A must-read for PAP members.