Own It!

My Facebook scroll has featured a growing number of posts/ articles that discuss public breastfeeding. Since I've never given birth and/ or breastfed, I haven't paid much attention to these posts, except be puzzled by why people are upset about public breastfeeding. I remember my mother breastfeeding my youngest sister in the hot, stuffy car, and on hindsight, believe it would have been easier on my mother and sister if she could breastfeed in public. But that was the extent of my "encounters" with breastfeeding as mothers usually breastfed in a private room.

Hence I didn't think much about it...until I watched this video produced by JoeySalads about a week ago (copy and paste https://youtu.be/sKjO0jZWkx4 if the hyperlink doesn't work). It recorded the reactions of people who passed a mother breastfeeding in public. I was shocked by the rude comments that men and women flung at the mother.

A week later, JoeySalads conducted another similar social experiment. This time, he recorded the looks/ comments of people who saw a woman dressed in a top with deep cleavage (I'll call her "the model"), and a mother breastfeeding in public. He first recorded the model and mother separately, then sat them next to each other. The results are in this video HERE. Please watch it. I was appalled by some of the comments made by people, especially the man who said that it was fine for the model to display half her boobs because it was "hot," but it was not okay for the mother because it was "disgusting."

Jaw
Drop.

In a rare twist, the comments section for both videos were very supportive about public breastfeeding, and I am impressed that the vast majority of the public seem to be comfortable with public breastfeeding. For once, the internet trolls are silent.

While I don't support the so-called "Free the Nipple" feminist campaign, there is nothing inappropriate in a mother briefly revealing her nipples to breastfeed her child in public, or showing half her boob while her child is sucking. Besides, how many mothers let their naked breasts "hang out" longer than necessary? Most of them either a) cover their child with a nursing cloth that I heard is hot and uncomfortable for the poor infant, or b) cover their breasts before and after the feeding as soon as possible. As JoeySalads and many others have pointed out, breastfeeding is natural and a non-sexual act, so no mother should feel guilty for baring her boobs in public within this context.

Furthermore, even if you disapprove of public breastfeeding, you should not make such rude comments to nursing mothers. This is basic etiquette. Public breastfeeding is not a moral issue, hence there is no need to correct these mothers. Leave quietly if you are uncomfortable with what you see.

So to you mothers who are breastfeeding, you continue doing so in public if you want to. Know that you have the support of the majority of the public (and me). And like what the video below says, OWN IT!

(Video link)

Finally a Kick-butt female protagonist and... WHERE IS SHE???

WARNING: MILD SPOILERS OF STAR WARS. Though all you need is to have seen a poster for Episode VII The Force Awakens to know who the major characters are going to be, and what this post is talking about. 

This piece of news has slid under the radar, but I'm so mad that I have to post about it. According to The Guardian, toy manufacturer Hasbro recently released another edition of its Star Wars monopoly game set, and it features Kylo Ren, Finn, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader as the character tokens. The article also mentioned that Target, the giant retail store chain, also released a toy figurine set that featured Kylo Ren, Chewbacca, Finn, Poe Dameron, a Stormtrooper and a TIE Fighter pilot.

To summarize, the characters featured in the new Star Wars toy sets are:
- Kylo Ren
- Finn
- Luke Skywalker
- Darth Vader
- Chewbacca
- Poe Dameron
- A Stormtrooper
- TIE Fighter pilot

Let's examine the official movie poster for Episode VII The Force Awakens (all images taken from www.starwars.com with my own modifications). I have identified characters featured in the poster that are part of the toy sets.

Missing from the poster (but included in the toy sets) are Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, but given the popularity of these characters, I understand why toy makers included them. In fact, I am delighted by the blending of old and new generational characters.

However, a closer examination of the poster reveals the glaring exclusion of a major character from the toy set despite its importance. This omission has to have been a deliberate choice on the part of the toy manufacturers because not only is this character a major part of the film, this person is THE protagonist. Even without seeing the film, viewers can already glean the importance of this character from his/her size and placement in the poster.

Readers, meet the plucky, courageous and resourceful Rey (played by Daisy Ridley). She is one of the best female protagonists I've seen, and I adore her. Film critics have praised both the addition of Rey into the franchise and Daisy Ridley's acting (e.g. see HERE or watch THIS@1:08 and THIS@4:30), and welcomed the addition of Rey into the pantheon of "strong, female leads" that girls can look up to (Rey should be loved by feminists who hate the Disney Princesses). One of the best moments in the film has got to be when she, Finn and BB-8 are escaping an attack on her planet, Jakku. Finn kept clinging to her, and amidst the shootings and bombings, the exasperated Rey snorted (I'm paraphrasing here), "Why are you holding my hand? Stop holding my hand!"  


Not to mention the climatic lightsaber fight against Kylo Ren. Her sudden mastery of the Force is unrealistic, but even taking away that aspect of her character, Rey is still smart, loyal, tough and overall kick-butt! Most of all, she is likable and kind-- remember how she saved BB-8 from captivity, and refused to sell it despite being tempted by the offer? 

I would feel comfortable letting my daughters dress up as Rey for Halloween or identify Rey as their favorite movie heroine, like this: 

Photo credit: Ryan Finley's instagram (@ryno1013). I almost died from the adorable-ness. 

Yet, her character was left out of the new edition of monopoly and Target Star Wars figurine pack. And yes, this is a gender issue. Returning to the list of characters with toys, we observe: 

- Kylo Ren: MALE
- Finn: MALE
- Luke Skywalker: MALE
- Darth Vader: MALE
- Chewbacca: MALE
- Poe Dameron: MALE 
- Stormtrooper: can be male or female but we do not see their faces/ gender + insignificant character
- TIE Fighter pilot: can be male or female but we do not see their face/ gender + insignificant character

This lists is evidence that toy makers would rather merchandise insignificant, "gender-less" characters than produce toys featuring a likable strong female lead. Even the TIE fighter pilots, who are technically not featured on the poster (just the planes), made it to the toy list over Rey, the main character. Hasbro claimed to have excluded Rey because they wanted to avoid spoiling the film, a claim that doesn't hold up since filmmakers already revealed the centrality of Rey to the film months before The Force Awakens hit theaters. Such blatant misogyny of the toy industry, in particular Hasbro and Target, disgusts me. To be fair, Lego and Disney did produce toy figurines of Rey, but why does this double-standard even exist in the toy industry?

Thankfully, Hasbro was forced to do an about-face, after director J.J. Abrams called the move to exclude Rey from the toy line "preposterous" and "wrong." Fans also took to social media to campaign against Hasbro, using the hashtag #WheresRey or #WhereIsRey. As a result, Hasbro announced on its twitter feed last Wednesday that they will release a newer edition of monopoly that included Rey later this year. 

Now I wonder if this wasn't a brilliant maneuver on the part of Hasbro to force fans to buy 2 editions of the Monopoly: Star Wars game. Either way, I am disappointed with Hasbro and Target.

Chinese Patriarchy Part A

The Singaporean values system has undergone transformation since the 1960s, particularly in our attitudes toward women. Singaporean women are highly educated, financially independent, and enjoy more opportunities than other women around the world. As a result, many traditional concepts about the submissiveness and limitations of women have been eradicated.

Of course, Asian patriarchy still exists because Singaporeans are by-and-large moral conservatives due to a mix of tradition, heritage and religion. Few clamor for a complete overthrow of the gender system (à la Western feminism), and certain concepts about traditional gender roles persist, such as the idea that the husband is the main breadwinner, and women still oversee household chores and childcare. Patriarchy is also present in our language and rituals. Yet, since Singaporean women are educated and employed, patriarchy in Singapore is severely tempered (see THIS ARTICLE* from The Straits Times for instance).

Furthermore, patriarchy in my personal life is further curtailed by Church teachings. As I explained in a previous blog post, my faith educates men to treat women appropriately, and teaches women to love themselves. Yes, my patriarchal church makes me value my womanhood.

However, there are occasions when Singaporean Chinese patriarchy rears its ugly head in my life. Last year I attended an institute (Bible study) course about marriage and family (yes, it's the Eternal Marriage course but the other class didn't sound as interesting), and one of the topics was family traditions. The discussion was going fine until I asked a question: What happens when two good traditions run up against each other in a marriage? For example, during Chinese New Year families gather together and visit one another. What should a couple do if the family gatherings on both sides of the family occur at the same time?

The teacher, a more senior Chinese man, said, "Traditionally, the daughter 'marries out' of the family. So the woman should follow her husband and go to his family gathering." 

I should explain that in Chinese culture, married women "leave" their families and become part of their husband's families, which explains why sons are more valued in Chinese culture. Even the Chinese language reflects this distinction: the terms used to describe the act of marriage for women and men are different. The woman "嫁" (jia)/ "marries out" of her family, while the husband "娶" (qu)/ "brings in" a wife to his family. The character "娶" is a combination of the characters "取" and  "女" which means "take" and "female" respectively. As you can see, the Chinese language is innately patriarchal.

However, since I grew up in Singapore and am a member of the Church, the response of the teacher did not sit right with me. So I pushed back and said, "Well, but we don't live in those times when the women are really 'married out' and accept women's submission, especially in Singapore."

To which the teacher repeated that traditionally, since women marry out of the home, the wife should prioritize her husband's family above her own. (Ironic usage of the word "traditional" by the way.)

I vehemently disagree with his response, though I didn't say anything more because I didn't want to be that feminist. But I am stating right here that he was WRONG. My parents have 3 daughters and no sons. If my sisters and I really "marry out" as dictated by tradition, who will take care of my parents? There is no space in society, and especially in my church, for such Chinese "traditional" patriarchal thinking. Traditions are created and dictated by Man, and can be changed. We need to re-conceptualize the way we think about Chinese marriages. There must be a better way for husbands and wives to be filial and honor both sides of parents without favoring one side over the other.

* Theresa Tan, "Mum's at Work, Dad's Minding the Kids," Straits Times (June 21, 2015).