***
I was at a Gender Studies symposium, which was quite interesting. I was pleasantly surprised to find that there was only one paper (of 5) whose contents I found seriously contestable, confirming my impression that NUS is not as ideological as many North American universities.
One paper was on male violence against women. It stressed the interaction of 4 factors: proximate biological causes (i.e. hormones), evolutionary psychology, culture and one more I forget, rather than harping on about culture.
The proximate biological evidence is inconclusive, but that's because the studies aren't all studying the same thing, and they all study different samples. I think there might be sample bias because many studies look at prisoners.
It was claimed that the media are obsessed with inconclusive scientific research into the proximate biological research about male violence against women. That might be so, but it was also said that in Science there is a growing acceptance of the role of nurture in causing this phenomenon. Yet, it has always seemed to me that it was the other way around: scientists (at least in more recent decades) have accepted the role of nurture, but now people (sans feminists) are recognising that natural causes also play a role. The red herring of a 100% scientific/biological cause was thrown out (I am unaware of learned people who espouse a view of biological determinism), and it was said that we must recognise that scientific theorizing takes place on a cultural background (I would not that the reverse is also true).
Culture cannot be the sole cause of male violence against women, because people don't imitate everything they see: socialization is not a monkey see monkey do process. Furthermore, there're matrilineal African societies where rapists' masculinity is ridiculed, yet we still see rape there (presumably).
It seems that feminists say that the likelihood of being a battered wife is the same for all women, but this is patently false because it is dependent on many other things, not least SES (Socio-Economic Status). Low SES is also associated with male violence against women, but this is not just due to socialization but also because such men are more stressed and have fewer coping resources.
It was no surprise to find that working- and lower-class families discipline their children physically more than middle-class ones, but I thought this was more to do with violence in general than male violence against women.
There have been studies on rape, but research is not holistic since there is a lack of research on non-patriarchal societies. The presenters only found one source about rape in matrilineal societies, and it had methological problems since the researchers and the people studied had different definitions of rape (I note that this might tie in to the problem with the discourse on female circumcision, since many African women who have undergone clitoridectomies seem to still be able to climax).
I asked the presenters about female violence against men, but unfortunately they had nothing to say about it. Pity, since it would've made for a more interesting topic.
The next paper was on John F Kennedy and masculinity.
The only interesting points I took away was that his campaign projected him as young enough to do what was needed, while old enough to know that it was needed; physically he was very sick and took 10-12 medications a day when he was President.
The next paper, "The (Re)production of Masculinities in the Singapore Cityscape", was a hoot.
The Renaissance idea is that the city is where the ideals of the mind (coded as masculine) are expressed. I can't remember where feminine ideals are expressed, but maybe it's the countryside.
The CBD in particular is masculine because it is a hotbed of economic activity and a "space of production" (presumably this means Services are also 'masculine', together with Agriculture and Manufacturing; feminine spaces are those of reproduction and the family). The CBD and the Boardroom embody power, and the power of men, not of women.
The public sphere is egalitarian, which is a masculine trait. Meanwhile the private sphere embodies familial deference (I assume this means inequality is a feminine trait).
Naturally, Freud made an appearance. The skyscraper is a phallic symbol (what a surprise). Following from this, tall buildings are rational, modern and masculine because they are vertical and straight, and curves and horizontal structures are feminine. I found this very appropriate because only a woman would build a curved skyscraper that would collapse (or would build a low building in Singapore, let alone the CBD, where land is even more incredibly expensive).
In the CBD there was a Christmas tree made of featureless figures. In it, women were underrepresented (she went to count) - there were only 3 coloured women figures, and on top of the Christmas tree there was a man (this represented a hierarchy).
At one construction site, there was a sign:
"Work in progress. Sorry for the inconvenience"
There was a picture of a man with a safety helmet and in construction site attire. This was supposedly an example of subordinate masculinity since he was not dressed up as an office worker (like everyone around). The bow of apology was construed as a submissive gesture. I trust that only feminists would not understand why this interpretation is so ridiculous.
A photo of the ION Orchard promotional boarding was also displayed. It had a lot of jagged lines - this was supposed to be masculine.
Besides hegemonic masculinity there was also internal hegemonic masculinities – men dominating men.
The people who sell food at the bottom of the skyscrapers are supposedly subordinate masculinities because office workers don't notice them. Parents telling their children to become professionals is also supposed to be an embodiment of masculinity, since no one tells their children to become artists.
Someone asked why she didn't look into the role of women in the CBD. Unfortunately she didn't because she was looking for dominant and subordinate masculinities.
To her credit, the presenter thought all this ridiculous.
The last paper (skipping the one on Royston Tan's 15 and homosocial/homoerotic gangsters) was on contesting hegemonic masculinity in Singapore (a form of masculinity supposedly guaranteeing dominant position of men).
According to Fuller (1996), the core attributes of hegemonic masculinity are the Possession of work/money, Heterosexuality, Non-femininity, Manliness and the Denial of vulnerability and emotion.
2 traditionally female roles were looked at: nursing and childcare (stay-at-home fathers).
8% of registered nurses in Singapore are male (I wonder how many administrative staff in offices are male). They assert their masculinity to challenge the pereption their job is feminised. For one they call themselves 'health care professionals' rather than 'nurses'. They specialize, especially in departments like the ICU and ER, where there's more adrenaline. They don't socialize with their female colleagues – for example they don't like gossip. They emphasise the physical aspects of their job, and reconstruct it as masculine: loading syringes is compared to loading bullets in guns. They also stress how they gain knowledge on the job.
Token men in traditionally female professions apparently benefit more than the token women in traditionally male ones (I assume this doesn't occur in countries with gender quotas for managers and/or politicians). They are put on the fast track with regard to promotion opportunities, and are pressured to move into management; the female nurses think they are promoted because they are male that’s why promoted. They are assumed to have more knowledge than the females, and allegedly get away with more mistakes than the female nurses and have a better relationship with their superiors.
On the job, they are made to lift heavy patients and restrain violent patients.
Interestingly, only one of the male nurses interviewed (I forgot to ask/note the sample size) said he liked to care for people. The rest cited economic/career reasons for choosing nursing.
For stay-at-home fathers, 6 were interviewed. Curiously, unlike in other countries, all earned as much or more than than their wives. None of them were in it full-time - except for those who homeschooled their kids, they took 1-2 years of unpaid leave and stressed the temporary nature of this arrangement, because Singapore was expensive and you needed both parents working.
When asked why they chose to take care of their children, they said it was a chance to have fun and play with their children and bond with them, since they usually would not be able to. It was also a break from work; all the fathers emphasised their eventual return to the working world. They did not want to hire maids because they would be outsiders.
Since childcare was viewed as female work, it was viewed as a challenge to them. The fathers weren't as emotionally involved and protective of their children as mothers would be, and took a playful, rough-and-tumble approach to childcare and brought in a high level of activity, with sports and the outdoors (characterised as healthy and exposing the children to fresh air). Risk taking was emphasised through outdoor learning.
One father highfived and piggybacked his children back from the kindergarten – as a way of distinguishing himself from the mothers (IIRC, he used to wait a distance from the kindergarten at first so as not to be mistaken for a pedophile).
The men's wives praised them for taking care of the children, but many did not do housework because they said they took leave in order to play with their children, not to clean the home. Nonetheless, the women said they felt grateful to them.