The nominations for Singapore’s first gender equality awards were made by members of the public, as

well as members of AWARE. Each nominee has made a significant contribution to promoting gender

equality. For the judges, the key factors for deciding of the shortlist were the effort and impact of the

nominee’s contribution and the nominee’s identification with gender equality.

The judging panel comprised: AWARE board member and education entrepreneur Lindy Ong, playwright Eleanor Wong, journalist Ong Soh Chin, academic Philip Holden
and ambassador-at-large Professor Tommy Koh.

The winners will be unveiled at AWARE's Big Ball fundraising gala on October 17.

Further details at http://www.aware.org.sg/2011/09/the-aware-awards-here-are-the-nominees/

Or how else to save the world

Image taken from Afterstonewall.com

I had an interview with a student conducting research last week. She and her partner were interested in what made people interested in political and social activism. I suggested that there are three prerequisites:

1. Consciousness
We are aware of the ways in which the world is imperfect or could be better. We consider the sources of influence. Without such consciousness, there would appear to be no necessity for action.

2. Role
We believe that we have a role to play in effecting change. The role may include spending time and energy mobilising others and building a sense of community, persuading publicly and privately for the cause. It may involve empowering the marginalised to live well, be seen and speak up.

3. Hope
We believe that things will get better with our contributions. Progress may take decades and it may be slow, but change will happen.

Unlike social workers, philanthropists and teachers, we may not be directly aiding beneficiaries. We are trying to address the systemic faults, ignorance and apathy which have given birth to a cause. Perhaps the word ‘activist’ simply recognises a role being played, not the extent to which one cares about the issue.

Last night at dinner, a guest remarked that she is just ‘a partner of a lesbian’, because she is not very involved with the local queer community, although her partner is. A friend reminded us it is like that t-shirt which read, “I’m not lesbian – my girlfriend is.” Our guest was self-deprecating; it belies her personal contributions in supporting her partner, writing empowering articles and a book for lesbians in her country.

So what if she were not an activist in name? She is an example of how everyone can play a part, whether apparently large or small, public or private:

Without being affiliated to an environmental organisation, we could consume less and recycle waste.

By choosing to buy eco-friendly, non-animal testing products, we are sending a signal to producers to make them.

Without being an activist, we could tell our friends and politicians that we support the recognition of queer rights. Collectively, our personal choices affect and make the world around us, because we are connected. It affirms an aphorism attributed to Gandhi, “Be the change that you want to see in the world”.

We may get discouraged by apathy and wonder when enough people will care about our pet cause, that is, when public support will become sufficient to tip the scale. In fact, many of our problems – poverty, war, discrimination, abuse, neglect, abandonment, ecological threats – are linked to one another. They could be resolved by a fundamental practice of awareness, compassion, respect and care for the people and world around us.

The truth is, it does not take a superheroine to save the world, just enough human beings being humane.

Over coffee, T asked, “Aren’t you worried that signing the petition and open letter for the repeal 377A campaign, would get you into trouble? After all, your home address has to be written down so that your signature is validated’ and the government could easily trace you.”

I replied, “I did think of that when George Hwang approached me to hand-sign the petition’. For once, in the period of being totally out to my family members and friends, having no qualms discussing my sexual preferences, openly engaging in public display of affections with my partner, I actually found myself hesitating to disclose my sexuality on a dead piece of paper’. Holding the pen, wild and random thoughts raced through my mind: like, i am a teacher and i know that MOE runs on an archaic system of ‘values’ shaped predominantly by the homophobic population’. What if my career is jeopardized?? Would I be blacklisted in the government sector??”

The Rainbow Flag made its first appearance in the San Francisco Gay and Lesbian Freedom Day Parade in 1978. Its symbolism was borrowed from the hippie and black civil rights movements. Artist Gilbert Baker from San Francisco, created the flag as a symbol that could be used year after year.

Along with about 30 volunteers, two gigantic prototype of the flag were hand-stitched and hand-dyed. The original flag had eight stripes, with each color representing a particular component of the gay community: hot pink for sex, red for life, orange for healing, yellow for sun, green for nature, turquoise for the arts, indigo for harmony, and violet for spirit.

Original 8 colour version

7 colour version

Wishing to demonstrate the gay community�s solidarity in response to this tragedy, the 1979 Pride Parade Committee decided to use Baker�s flag in honor of Milk. The committee eliminated the turquoise stripe so they could divide the colors evenly as they walked the parade route, three colors on one side of the street and three on the other.

This updated six-color version of the rainbow flag quickly spread from San Francisco to other cities. Soon, it was universally known and accepted as a symbol of gay pride and diversity. And it is recognized officially by the International Congress of Flag Makers as such.

No, not another super-hero family with powers of self-effacement. I am referring to those among us, who cannot be distinguished from the straight population at large. Those who blend in, becoming another faceless figure in the crowd, as opposed to those who defy norms of sexual and gender expression.

The Invisibles often get a rather schizophrenic treatment: the camp who endorses such 'normality' as being what will bring the straight people to our cause, and the camp who believes gay people are different no matter what, and hence the Invisibles are selling out.

In the lesbian world, invisibility is associated with 'femmes', straight-appearing women who are not visibly masculine or lesbian.

Wait. Read my last statement carefully, and you will have noticed several assumptions and stereotypes reflected already.

1. Lesbians are usually masculine girls, often butches and andros
2. To be explicitly identified and acknowledged as lesbian, one must dress and behave differently from straight women

I shall not attempt to discuss the origins of such assumptions, for it relates to extensive amounts of queer theory, history and culture. But I would like to question the validity of it: does being feminine or masculine have anything do with sexuality? There are plenty of masculine girls who are as straight as the day is long, and plenty of feminine girls who only have eyes for other women. I’ve heard people saying, “but they all look so femme!” as if lesbianism and feminity were mutually exclusive. Visibility is not equal to sexuality.

I've been wearing a rainbow-coloured rubber wristband. You know, those wristbands that come in various colours, first it was a yellow one from the Lance Armstrong Foundation, then there was the dual black/white for anti-racism, and before long, even Giordano and McDonalds were selling them too. I'm not one for fads, so I've never owned or bought one in any of the myriad of colours they come in. Except this Rainbow one.

My gf and I bought one each, from a gay shop in Sydney. Our $10 went in support of the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Parade. We put them on as we left the shop, and to me, it was like now I was 'branded', I was wearing a visible sign that acknowledges that I am gay. My gf wondered if wearing rainbow wristbands would attract attention and maybe get us beaten up by some anti-gay hooligans.

It was a big step for me, my small triumph of activism. Declaring to the world 'Hey, I am gay, and I don't mind letting you know that either.' Ordinarily, people would not glance twice at me because my appearance fits the stereotype of 'straight', but this time, we both felt somewhat self-conscious as we walked back to the train station.

After reading Thio Su Mien’s article on TODAY, i experienced a waterfall of emotions.

I was aghasted at how people can manipulate research and present it according to their agenda. Without consideration of what the general field is saying. To lie when they have to. To speculate and put forth their conjectures as ultimate truth.

I realized also… that TODAY does not check the veracity of her statements. And how can i blame them? They are not psychologists. And the rest of the world is as ignorant of the discipline.

I grieved for the general public. For the majority, they exchange a few coins for the papers. Many of them believe the information they receive wholeheartedly. There is a stereotype that if you know what’s happening in the news, you are “educated” and therefore “higher-class” so to speak. And so they devour the news vociferously. If only they know the forces behind publication. That the news they have in their hands are published, and sometimes exaggerated, if it serves, or is non-threatening, to government interest. And much information that seems to undermine their ideal society is witheld. No matter how scientific, how rooted in empirical evidence it is.

In the midst of all these… i was somewhat overwhelmed. Anti-gay activists are supported by the government. I believe that anyone can have their own opinion. But facts are facts- they are either there or they are not; they cannot be changed.

But… so what if facts are facts? Facts can be twisted; people can lie… as i saw all too well in the Thio Su Mien’s article. It seems such an impossible task! It was rather discouraging… and i was at the moment… grieved and resigned…

Then all of a sudden, it struck me… I AM NOT IN THIS ALONE.

All my fellow queer brothers, sisters and those in between… who are all over the world… who are fighting for rights. Who are fighting against stereotypes by their mere existence… we are all in it together. And we are indeed making progress!

Yes, they can try all ways and means to twist facts… to brainwash the public with half-truths… to stir up public fears with lies… to encourage unjustifiable stereotypes.

But… even if they kill me today, there are some things they cannot do…:

They cannot stop me from having loved my mother, my father, my sister and my good friends.
They cannot stop me from having been kind to animals, having empathy for the marginalized, reaching out in love to those who need it.
They cannot take away the education in me- the critical thinking that professors have instilled in me all these years; the knowledge that i was given; the willingness to explore out of the box, to question status quo.
They cannot stop me from having had my ambitions of further improvement for myself, for my family, for society.
They cannot take away this essence of me… that defines me as a person.

By my everyday living, i am refuting the theories that these anti-gay activists are making futile attempts to reinforce. People around me who interact with me knows me… this is the real me. I am not some artifact of the negative gay stereotype. I am a human-being who lives in your normal everyday, who face the same daily events that any other person does. And people talk… information is passed on like the ripple effect.

Things are in progress. As individuals, let’s not lose heart. We are in this together.