Does technology help or hinder social interaction?

WRITTEN WITH THE HELP OF PHONG

Man is a social animal, evolution has made us so. Why? In the past, the world was a dangerous place where every man needed and extra eye or hand to aid survival. In a social unit, they can share their resources and help each other survive the harsh environment that they live in. As time passed, writing progressed from pictures to symbols and characters. Communication was primarily through verbal and written means. As time progressed, we opened up a whole new world of mobile communication through SMS, emails, MMS, cyber platforms like MMORPGs, Friendster or Facebook! People from all across the world can communicate with each other without meeting up personally and yet know how each other looks like, what are their preferences, age, birthday, etc.

But are these communication methods helping or destroying peoples’ social skills? There are 2 prevailing view regarding technology (the internet) and social relationships. The first theory is old and conservative (mostly created in the 1990s), it proposes that no form of stable or genuine relationship can be formed online and the Internet only served to atomize society, isolating the individuals. In contrast, the modern view was predominantly advanced by Walther, with this theory of the hyper-peronal effects claiming that the Internet and its communication tools actually help to create a lot of affordances to facilitate communication and socialization. More recently, Dmitri Williams also suggests that online games like MMORPGs actually have characteristics of a "third place", which is a sociological concept advanced by Ray Oldenburg to refer to sites of socialization, with the first place being home and second place, school or work.

So this bring out another question, where is the border between virtual versus reality? Yes, MMORPGs, Facebook and Friendster are just social platforms online that are virtual, regardless of how they look. But then, the relationships there are real because real friendships are made, often offline and many become couples. But this line is blurred when people have virtual marriages with ceremonies and attendees (other gamers who are their friends). Facebook and Friendster are based on cyberspace, so their communities are cyber-based, yet their relationships are real in the sense that today A insults B on Facebook, tomorrow, B can kill A for it. That is the real thing. Also, the cyber world has become a platform for people to share their “fantasies” that they are unable to enact in the real world due to social norms and rules- virtual rape, virtual bullying, etc...

Thanks to the technology, disagreements can be displayed using cowardly methods such as cc-ing every “important” person in the company in a bid to “cover ka-cheng”. Either that or cowardly attacks on people’s personal blogs such as leaving hostile messages on tag boards, or making their enemies’ blog links public on community blogs. I’m sure you have heard of stories about husbands or wives telling each other “I want a divorce, I’m leaving you” through emails or sms because they lack the courage to do it face to face.

I’ve also noted that many teenagers today are slaves to technology. It has gotten so bad that many of them are incapable of interpersonal interaction face to face. When I mean incapable, I don’t mean that they are unable to make friends, I mean they are unable to speak their minds, nor are they capable of conveying their opinions through verbal (choice of words) or non-verbal (i.e. body language) means.

Despite this, the internet has been a good place for people to socialize and interact with others from other parts of the world, socioeconomic groups, languages, race and religion. On my end, I’ve gotten to know new people- some good some bad, but every one of them left me a precious lesson on differences in people and their beliefs. I just find that with the ready availability of emails, I hate to call people up or meet them face to face. I prefer long emails that leave me a record of what transpired. =)

Should the parents of Ah Lians/ Ah Bengs be blamed for their deviant behavior?

Ah Lians (ALs) and Ah Bengs (ABs) are such fascinating creatures. I really enjoy disturbing them by being the biggest kaypoh (busy body) to swing by their terrible blogs. I don’t kaypoh because I care for them, but because I’m gathering info! I usually target ALs because they are more emotionally unstable. Based on 6 months’ worth of data collection, when I talk about ALs, I’m talking about teenagers from 13-18 years old who share the following characteristics in varied combinations:

Self Inflated Ego- They like to think they are pretty, but most of them are plain Janes. They normally share the same re-bonded China-doll hair cut, thick make up and an awful taste in cheap clothing. I don’t have issues with rebonded hair and cheap clothes, but ALs have a remarkable talent in making nice hair and clothes look bad. As for thick make up, I think it should be reserved for Wayangs, note for the streets. They like to say stuff like “DM, you jealous of me right? Cos I’m so pretty…” Urgh, I rather die a virgin. What’s more, if you don’t think they are pretty or smart, they mutate into banshees that scream an endless barrage of vulgarities.

Sensitive- they can criticize you, you can't criticize them. They take it VERY personally. They'll threaten to burn down your house, whack you up and start challenge you for your real name, your home address, handphone number and your gender. And I suspect most ALs are homophobic, I guess they just want to get laid by every male that walks across their path in order to feel like they are "wanted" and "desirable". They take rejection personally too, they do threaten suicide (to me, its good riddance to bad rubbish).

Diarrhea of the Mouth, Constipation of the Brains (intellectual poverty)- I realize all ALs can’t debate. All they can do is swear and accuse people of being kaypoh. I find it incredibly amusing that when I leave comments, I get accusation of “stepping English” (since when was speaking standard English a sin?) or for being a kaypoh (I love being a kaypoh, anyone who has curiosity in them will be a kaypoh!). So far, a few ALs have “cursed” me to be childless in future, even AFTER I told them I refuse to have kids due to the 50% chance of them turning bad. The other word they like to use is slut/bastard. Well, pot calling the kettle black in most cases. Heh.

The word “dog”- I don’t know why they have to use the word “dog” on everyone, be it friend or foe. They don’t call people baboons, morons, jackasses, etc. From the Freudian perspective of symbolism, I would hypothesize that it’s a reflection of their behavior:

• They mate like dogs (multiple partners)
• Run in packs (their endless lines of gans and jies)
• Bark a lot (the endless barrage of vulgarities and empty threats)
• Howl to the moon (emotional outbursts at night about being lonely and unwanted by their family)
• Bitch bitch bitch (they are experts at that)
• Run off with their tails between their legs once they meet their betters
  

The inability to swear properly- They are masters of quantity, not quality. They feel very empowered using “f” words and other hokkien words. Unfortunately, their hokkien stinks to high heaven, the sentences often don’t make sense. For example- knn limbei you! (translated as: screw your mother, your father you). That doesn’t make sense doesn’t it? And the part that really made me flinch was the use of CCB by ALs, may their vaginas rot off from overuse.

Self destructive behavior- I find it very cute that they always glorify these three things: smoking, drinking and sex. I think these are activities that no under-aged kid in their right mind would do. What’s more, I’ve been trying to go to a few AL’s blogs to offer them “good advice”. Typical of their rebellious nature, most of the replies I’ve gotten are “who are you to tell me what to do? Stupid Kaypoh”, the nicer ones were “I don’t know who you are, thanks for the advice, but I’ll live my own life”. I have a question “Why is a stranger offering you good advice inferior to that of the gans and jies that teach you how to die of cancer or STD faster?”

If you aren't with me, you are against me- As long as you don't agree with "the" AL way, you are a nerd, even if you can't study. Either that or you're a retard, idiot, bodoh, huan loh, hongster, or whatever, even though you know you are smarter than them and a lot less flirtatious.

Mysterious creatures- no one understand them. Really, you see them declare this all over their blogs. Their teachers, parents, boyfriends and siblings don’t understand their insurmountable pain and anguish over lord know what. Nobody can understand why they do stupid stuff like getting knocked up and going for rounds of abortion. No one understand why they have to waste all their money on cigarettes and alcohol when they highest pay they can get is approximately $6/hr. No one understands why they take so many MCs and leave even though they are earning so little. No one knows why they prefer bad friends over good ones. No one knows why they want to go to NT or NA when they can perfectly well get into express. No one knows why some of them give up poly to join their bfs in ITE. No one knows why they still stay with a boyfriend who rather sleep than go out with them. Are they that stupid? Maybe.

After many scuffles with them, I realize they switch to the “sob” story after some time. They start to cite stories about having a single parent, stepparent from hell, lousy parents, etc. as a reason for their deviant behavior. I think that is a terrible excuse. I’ve met people who come from single parent families with that single parent being a shitty example of parenthood (gambling, loansharks, alcoholism, etc) but they still turned out find. Why? It’s because they have the ambition and determination to pull themselves out of the vicious cycle. So my point is ALs are weak in mind, body and soul. Some ALs reform and improve over time. But hey, a leopard never changes its spots- once an AL, forever an AL. I’ve known a few successful ALs, sadly, financial success couldn’t scrub off their liannie “aura”. Staff and associates would always whisper behind them what an AL she is. So what is a liannie “aura”? This is what I’ve gathered:

• Loud voice- they treat everyone like slaves that require regular rounds of verbal abuse.
• Overly suggestive dressing- most of these ladies are in their late 30s or 40s, most have sam-cham-bak (3 rolls of fat at the stomach region). They like to wear TIGHT clothes that make them look like this:
• Tries too hard to look modern- I’m sorry, re-bonded hair, spaghetti straps, mini-skirts and boots should never be a uniform of lady in her 40s. The effect is revolting.
• Tries too hard to show off her wealth- they like everything that screams money, such as diamonds and branded clothes. I know a liannie in her 40s. She loves Esprit and Ralph Lauren, but somehow, she couldn’t carry off those clothes. Everyone thought they were fakes. They like to decorate their homes with expensive but tasteless furniture. Pink and purple walls do not go well with rosewood furniture nor Da Vinci Sofas.
• The wrong clothes for the wrong occasion- I know a liannie who has to paint her nails beautifully before she goes out, even if it’s to the wet market. And she must wear her LV heels instead of slippers to the wet market. I don’t know what she’s trying to prove.
  

Such deviant behaviors has to start from somewhere. I believe that their parents should be blamed. Granted that most ALs are the worst examples of daughters any parent would want, but I still think parents need to play a more active role in nipping the flower in the bud. Children start to distance themselves from their family once they hit adolescence because it is a stage where, a developmental psychologist, Eric Erikson proposed as a period of “Identity Formation or Identity Confusion. They start to venture out into social groups to form a self identity outside their family.

At this stage, they are the most vulnerable to bad influences because their frontal cortexes are still under developed. Meaning, they are unable to think long term- they rather smoke because it’s cool rather than think of its long term impact on their health and looks. People’s frontal cortex is normally fully matured and stabilized when they hit 21 years old. Until then, I would say that it is the parents who should play a more active role in guiding their children until they are mature enough.

When I mean guiding a child, I don’t mean coddling the child and forcing him/her to do things the parents’ way because they said so. A compromise has to be reached through reasoning- children are not right all the time and neither are their parents. Teenagers need their independence, so parents shouldn’t deprive them of it. Instead, they should teach their teenagers how to obtain independence through responsibility. It can be as simple as making sure curfew times are not breached and how asking for extra allowances might be met if there is a valid reason so that they will learn how to spend within their means.

In the case of ALs, many are from broken families and by the time their parent(s) realize that their kid has mutated in a bitch from hell, it’s normally too late. The years of neglect have finally reflected on their parental incompetence. Their children hate them and hate everything that is associated with the words “good” and “decent”. Their children rather take advice from other hooligans than listen to their parent(s) pleas to be good, study hard and get a good job. When that happens, I always favor chopping those kids off and letting them learn how difficult life is if mum/dad isn’t paying for your living expenses. Let them learn how painful it is to earn a pathetic sum of money only to spend it on food and rent.

So are parents to blame when their kids go wild? Yes. There is always a possibility that a kid’s deviant behavior is learnt or inherited from his/her parent. I know of families with 3 generations of jail birds and school drop outs. So is it the genes, or maybe they learnt how to be bad from dad/mom? Who knows?

Although parents have a big part to play, I won’t deny that some teenagers are really hellish, particularly at the ages of 14-15. They are almost impossible to handle. But parents who are firm and strict enough on their children whilst they were growing up would have laid a firm foundation of discipline and respect. Their children may be deviant, but not to the extent of getting knocked up or hooked onto smoking. Negligent parents wouldn’t stand a chance unless their children are mature for their age. So we’re back to square one- parents should be blamed if their children disintegrate into a swarm of angry bees that sting anything that they perceive to be hostile.

I’m aware that some kids turn deviant because of parental abuse, or should I say “parental abuse”. Some call strict parenting abuse. If you think your parents caning you for swearing, coming back home late, smoking, failing your exams or getting into a fight is wrong, that sod you. You are a bloody self centered ingrate who just can’t recognize that your parents whack you because they want you to improve, not because they hate you. In this case, it’s clearly the kid’s fault and partially their parents’ fault for not realizing that caning is no longer a solution to the problem.

I don’t think there such a thing as “I give up hope, I tried everything and I still can’t correct him/her”. It’s a matter of catching them when they are young and instilling values into them. When they are young, they are like a “tabula rasa” (blank sheet of paper). They are still pure and clean, so as a parent, you write down the values you want them to uphold before that piece of paper becomes yellowed, brittle and crowded with negative values accumulated with age, bitterness and misunderstanding.

Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder- or isn't it?

There is something wrong with me... Maybe its my assexual nature, I never found either gender good enough to hold my attention for more than 2 minutes. TWO minutes, thats all the time I need to dig out a person's flaws and my bone deep cynicism and distrust of people to kick into gear. Either the person is as interesting an average *bleep* (I'm leaving that part out until I can find something I find less interesting than an average human), or there's a something stuff between that person's teeth, or it could be bad breath, or it could be body odour, too much hair, too little hair, terrible literacy skills or just that set of protruding ears/nose. So what is beauty?

I always thought the world of muscular perfection in people. The beautiful definitions, sharp edges and alluring network of veins. It looks like a work of art to me. Until I came upon the picture of Madonna looking like this (left), taken from the Telegraph. From that moment, my fantasies came to a screeching halt. I had this compulsive urge to scream the "White HULK!!" (I'm not being racist here, Madonna isn't green... yet)





She has reached a stage of physical perfection that almost every individual muscle is fully defined. Her personal trainer, Anderson, had the guts to say "Madonna will never look her age," she insists. "She doesn't even look half her age – she looks 19." Well, I say Madonna looks like one of the exhibits by Dr van Hagen's body (minus the testicles and penis plus a slightly bigger but rapidly shrinking set of breasts). Would you call that sexy/hot? Personally, its a loud bluidy NO.




Now, lets compare the following pictures:





Do you find these skinny girls hot? Or would you think annorexic guys look hot?? Some people do, but I don't. To me, dating skinny girls are like dating the lalangs (nothing much to grab onto other than their heads) and dating skinny boys are pointless waste of time because they are wimps.


Now lets take a look at the opposite; do you find them hot? Personally, no. But I like them because they have a guts to show off their bodies with pride.

These are just a few examples- so what affects our perception of beauty? Age? Personality? Gender? Size? Race? Just to highlight how beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, take a look at the following videos from the Maury Show called "Opposites Attract". Enjoy!

Size and Age?


Size?




Hot versus Not?


So, in summary, I would say, beauty has no boundaries in the eye of the beholder. So I can say I'm a dysfunctional idiot. wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Is Love really worth all that Effort? -Coral Castle

Every time I recall Coral Castle and the Taj Mahal, I just wonder if love is worth such a tribute and sacrifice? I will focus more on Coral Castle because it is the work of one man, rather than a ruler capable of mobilize an army of workers.

Edward Leedskalnin built his castle from coral stones that he had hewn from his parcel of land. He carved and put together every single block of stone within his castle single-handedly. The largest of these rocks weighed approximately 30 tons and two of the tallest stones stood over 7.6m high. He carved out an accurate sundial, a water well, 25 rocking chairs, a fountain, a bath tub and even a polaris telescope! [Read More Here]

Amazingly, he didn't do this for love, he did it for his lost love, his "Sweet Sixteen". Is it possible for someone to be so hardbroken that he spent the rest of his life building his dream home for the woman he wanted to be with? Or is it a vain attempt to prove his undying love for her throught a symbolic construction a a monument to her beauty, like the Taj Mahal?

The most amazing part is yet to come, Coral Castle was built by Edward alone, without the help of any machinery. He was very secretive as to how he actually managed to move such huge pieces of masonry without the help of a crane or scaffold. All we know is that he used a simple system of pulleys that we know to be incapable of holding that much weights! The only tool that Edward spoke of using was a "perpetual motion holder."- Lord knows what the heck that is....

I've attached 3 documentry clips to show you all the miracle that this man has single handedly constructed for a woman who never loved him and rejected him because he was too old.

"What Is" Series- What is Bullying?

After I came home last night, I checked my blog and AALT2’s chatbox and surprise surprise, I saw Jeannie’s renewed threats and her god sister (Qitong)’s claims that I have bullied Jeannie. I didn’t know calling Jeannie stupid on the basis of spelling my name wrongly 3x was tantamount to bullying. If anything, I was wondering how on earth the pair of them can achieve that many spelling errors- “irratating”, “distuarb” (that appeared 2x, so I can assume that’s how she thinks disturb should be spelt) and “prossitude”. I pointed that out, called her stupid for her spelling errors and bimbotic attitude- so now I’m a bully.

All I can say is HAHAHAHAHAHA. =P I always had a morbid sense of humor that is coated with a thick layer of mockery and cynicism. It is ironic how it can become a crime in the eyes of a bully with a huge ego who thinks everyone is jealous of her beauty. I think there’s nothing to admire about a bimbo who can’t spell and speak coherently. So today, I’ve decided to write a post about bullying.

Basically, it defines bullying as “saying and doing things to hurt a person. It is usually done on purpose and repeatedly.” The video goes on to describe the types of bullying- relational, verbal and physical; the results of continuing to be a bully- friendless and getting scolding; the possible reactions of the victim- freeze in fear, fight back or walk away and complain to the teacher; the types of bystanders behavior- ignore the bullying, encourage the bully, support the victim or avenge the bully.

I think this is a very interesting video, but it is too optimistic and stereotypical for my liking. The bully is type casted as the typical “kiam-pah-bin” Ah Beng with his arrogantly, sour face and standing collar. And the victim is the typical village nerd… The points they highlighted were good, but they didn’t have to explore deeper expects of bullying. I’ll be highlighting some in my post.

Anyone who has an edge over others in terms of money, influence or knowledge can be said to be bullies. I would take it further through the exploration of a bully's desire for control and self gratification, and the malicious consequences.

This wasn’t highlighted much upon- most bullies have insecure personalities; they have to belittle others to feel good. Unfortunately, they belittle others the wrong way- for example, they call other people stupid when they are more stupid than others. And most bullies run in a pack- “birds of a feather flock together”. They need emotional and physical support in their actions, especially when they are at the losing end. They can only summon the courage to bully others with the backing of others. Ironically, when someone stands up to them, they go around crying for help claiming they have been bullied. Well, all I can say is, don’t look for trouble and complain when trouble finds you.

Bullies need to have control to feel good- people must scrape and bow before them. Once you demonstrate that you are not afraid of them, they normally react by ignoring you and saying stuff like you aren’t worthy of their attention. Alternatively, they switch tactics and embark on greater attempts to discredit you (relational bullying). I will be focusing a lot more on relational bullying because it is more common in today’s context than physical bullying and its effects are a lot deeper and long lasting. In the video, the example used was “don’t be friends with him!” In life, it goes way beyond that. As mentioned earlier, another form of relational bullying can come in the form is discrediting you. That means they go about spreading malicious tales about you. I.e. you are gay/lesbian, a gossip, a backstabber, a liar, a promiscuous bitch, etc. In the cyber world, you get criticisms about how fat and ugly you are if you post up your pictures and an “enemy” happens to see it.

In the working world, relational bullying is so prominent that it’s a norm. I’m sure you have heard of many stories of people resigning from their jobs because of bosses or colleagues from hell. These are due to the prevalence of certain factors.
a.EGO - Big ego means greater need to be a bully to feel good and powerful.
b.AMBITION – Big ambition means climbing up the corporate ladder FAST. If you don’t have the means to achieve promotions the “natural” way, backstabbing and sabotage is required.
c.BITCHY COLLEAGUES – “When in Rome, do as Romans do” you need to be a bigger bully than others to survive.
d.AGGRESSION – Some people are just plain aggressive, they are just hostile to everyone so that they feel superior to others.

Bullying has the most severe impact on people’s lives especially during their teenage years. This is the critical point in everyone’s life where there are many self doubts and insecurities regarding their looks. Many have committed suicide due to the unrelenting pressure exerted by bullies and themselves. To me, it takes two hands to clap- bullies get tired once they realize they have no hold over you.


Will I feel guilty if Jeannie jumps of the nearest HDB flat? Nah, I don’t have sympathy for weak people. If fact, I admire courage. Look at Yu-Kym, she got nominated for most insightful blog awards. I like her because she has the courage to stick to her guns. She openly posts pictures of herself on her blog and people just avidly criticize her for being a slut, how old she is, how ugly she is, what a copy cat she is, etc. Instead of being upset and shutting down her blog, she stands firm and continues to post her thoughts. I think she is a fantastic blog that all adolescents should read for the purpose of sex education and BGR experiences. I particularly like this proverb that she pasted on her blog: “Pigs are afraid of becoming fat, people are afraid of becoming popular."- meaning a healthy pig will be killed and eaten; a successful person will be a target. At least she has something to be successful about. She doesn’t brag; she relates that’s the reason why I will support her anytime over other promiscuous girls. It’s the ATTITUDE, something that the Ah Lians and Ah Bengs will never understand.

So back to the question- do I consider myself a bully? Maybe, what's your opinion guys? =) I insult everyone equally and fairly (including myself). I’m way too cynical I guess. No one is ever perfect enough for me to call pretty/beautiful- having a pretty face doesn’t mean that your fart will smell of roses nor does it mean you have the personality or intelligence to match your looks. Criticism should never be classified as bullying, especially when it is based on facts. I find it fitting that the real bullies in life find their own bullies in cyberspace, call it Karma if you will.

[Read more about relational bullying here]

Why De Maitre doesn’t have a Religion

A few people have asked me what do I have against I have religion. I don't have an issue with religion per se; I just have issues with believers.

To me religion is merely a social construct. Being an avid historian, I don’t believe in abstract concepts of divinity or miracles. As I mentioned before, 2000 years ago, a man who claimed to speak with God and spread warnings of doom was a prophet, but today, a man who does the same is said to suffer from schizophrenia or paranoid delusions. And our ancestors have a way of over-glorifying hear-say and great-deeds. For example, the ancient Greeks worshipped dinosaur bones as the bones of long dead heroes like Achilles, Hector and Hercules because they believed that heroes were larger than life.

Religion and the concept of hell were designed to inspire fear in evil-doers and motivate them into doing charitable, gracious and kind deeds in their lifetime. It aims to build a Utopia on Earth; unfortunately, people have a way of manipulating religion to suit themselves. Example would be the blatant use of fictional “divine origins” as a means to a king’s legitimate rule or one’s ability to perform extraordinary feats. E.g. The Holy Roman Emperor of Medieval Europe, The Divine Emperor of China and The demi-God Hercules (son of Zeus). Another example would be the blatant corruption of the Catholic faith by the Catholic Church, the primary example would be the “Sale of Indulgences”, where the church literally created certificates indicating that the holder would be sin-free in the eyes of the Church and therefore God. Somehow, God became secondary in comparison to the Church.

As you can see, the original tenants of religious belief have been lost over time due to flawed human interpretation. There is nothing wrong with religion it’s just how people interpreted it that becomes an issue! It is the people’s belief that gets corrupted with disillusions that we have created over time to comfort and cheat ourselves that made me write off religion for good. I don’t have a religion, but I think God (if any is around) is a little more discerning and forgiving than that. Let me inject some reason in “If I have done no evil, but just because I’m not a Christian (or Muslim for that matter), why do I deserve to go to hell?”

I question this more avidly in view that a believer is promised a place in heaven just because he kills a non-believer. This is what I define as my issue against the believers rather than the religion. This concept of Crusade/Jihad has been wrongly intepreted by believers. I believe the original intentions were to protect the faith, not to wipe out other faiths in a bloody and forceful manner. I'm sure God (if any) had a better sense of ethics than we do.

In today’s context, on occasions, belief has been reduced to the point of ridicule to me. That’s why I use the term Modern Christianity and Modern Buddhism. I will be using these 2 examples for my writing here.

We have anthropological studies, archaeology and written records deciphered by historians to tell us what the world was like in the past. Yet, I have met many Christians who still have to insist that the Bible is an infallible source of historical information. As a diehard historian, I’m really tempted to take off my slipper and slap them to death for their blind faith in a book that was NOT written by Christ or God himself, but from a cesspit of authors handpicked and compiled by the council of Nicea. I’m using the word cesspit because there are thousands of religious literature out there written by thousands of authors hundreds of years after the death of Christ. The creators of the bible merely picked out what suited their ideals and rejected unacceptable bits. E.g. The Bible mentioned that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters, but no one knows who Cain (their son) married. Ever wondered why? Draw up a family tree and you’ll realize that the only possibility would be that he either married his sister or his niece. That would be incest wouldn’t it? Naturally, the Church wouldn’t have that, so it was conveniently excluded.

When I ask many Christians or Catholics this question, their answer is always this mysterious “only God knows”. To me, God (if there’s one) gave us a brain; I think he meant us to use it with a little more discretion and common sense. Sometimes, people have really weird beliefs that leave me flabbergasted.

EXODUS 20:4-6 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”

Tell me then, how do you classify a cross? Some have said that it is not a likeness of God, so the second commandment has not been violated. The original cross was depicted with the body of Christ on it. And since Christ is the son of God, he is an extension of God. So we’re back to square one. Some might argue that it is from the first testament and not very valid, all I’ll say is “it’s the same God we are talking about isn’t it?”

Christians aside, let me move on and attack Modern Buddhism. Ideally, Buddhist monks should shun the materialistic world, look at the Buddhism monks in Singapore, some drive around in a Benz and live in a condominium. Temples are becoming grand buildings designed by architects. The “life of self-denial and spiritual-enlightenment”, my ass. I'm not saying all Buddhists are like this, but it’s a growing trend in today's context. I think the term "embracing modernity" is a terrible excuse for the abandonment of old value of "humility".

Buddha preached about letting go of one’s material demands in pursuit of spiritual enlightenment. As I mentioned in my previous post, if Buddha still had a body to flip and jump in, he would be positively bouncing in indignation in his grave and the degeneration of his teachings. There are thousands of Aunties and Uncles flocking to his temples to pray for luck at 4D and TOTO. Buddha’s teachings were never about him turning into a religious icon. It was the work of his disciples. I think even the preservation of his bodily remains as relics would have made him scream in frustration, if he weren’t beyond the demands of humanly emotions and not that at peace.

If he were still alive, he would be puking blood at the hierarchical system practiced by monasteries. It was NOT created by Buddha. He didn’t even mention anything about an exclusive retreat for monks/nuns. Buddha believed that all men were equal and rejected the hierarchical system based on birth right or hierarchy. Social hierachies within temples are the unforunate by-products of monasticism. I’m certain that he would not approve of the structural system of novices, junior monks, senior monks, abbots, etc. because it would only result in internal conflict of power and control due to ambitions of certain individuals. The inventions of status and rank would also result in the death of humility. How many people have heard of an abbot doing his own laundry and helping to sweep up the temple courtyard?

Buddhist monks charge you for conducting funeral rites instead of the time honored way of giving them a token of appreciation. Today, even if the token of appreciation method is used, the quality of the funeral rite depends on your generosity. The poorer you are, the more short-cuts and mistakes there will be. So much so for reaping karma and detaching oneself from the material world. Thankfully, there are still true Buddhist monks around who genuinely believe in the concept of Dharma.

Back to the topic of Christianity, many of the Christians today are too fanatical in my opinion. Thanks to Saint Augustine (may he rot in hell), they have lost their respect for the religion's of other people. They are trying too hard to convert people to their “true” faith. Peer pressure, grand churches and gifted orators as pastors are used to convert lost souls to their faith. They are so successful that many of the Christians that I have spoken to don't seem to know what their religion is about. All they can describe to me is this warm abstract fuzzy feeling of love and forgiveness that they feel in church. To many of the born-again-evangelicals, questioning one’s faith is completely out of the question.

So to me, religion has been reduced to a shadow of its glorious past and many of its believers are following in the words of their ancestors rather than the word of God (if any).

The Evolution of Male-Female Relationships in the Modern Context

Typical of WK to come up with such long titles, but the topic I’m going to explore is something that has been talked about very often, and which De Maitre had an interesting interpretation of:

Relationships (Romantic, sexual, platonic, whatever) between males and females.

To be very honest, I’m not been in any relationship, so I don’t have the “authority” to talk about boy-girl relationships. But I certainly can talk about it using a sociological, philosophical, even technological approach, as De Maitre had done.

The points that De Maitre had identified are as such:

First, women have long been subordinated by men, and hence they desire and deserve freedom.
Second, technology and social change has helped free many women from that subordination, and created that freedom.
Third, because of the first and second point, women don’t really need men.


First, it’s true that women were subordinated by men for too long in history. Women had no legal or constitutional status, and in many places and times, no social status as well. And times haven’t changed much since. Women in many places are free, but millions of women are still subordinated to men, often with saddening and horrifying consequences.

Second, the same millions of women are still subordinated because technology and social change hasn’t reached them. Even when it did, enforcement is a key problem in spreading freedom for women.

Take for example, in India, child marriages (imagine marrying your eight-month old daughter to a, say, eight year old boy?) and sati (a form of ritual suicide where the widow immolates herself in her husband’s funeral pyre), and in China, female infanticide (killing of babies), still very prevalent in rural areas today.

In addition, the same standards for female equality in say, Europe, are unrealistic for other parts of the world, where the problems are much worse. In Africa for example, female genital mutilation (female circumcision is one) is a major problem.

Social, constitutional, legal, economic equality for women cannot be expected without first dealing with this more prevalent and dangerous problem. One should be realistic and aim for gradual, marginal improvements.


Alright, that’s all for the depressing stuff. So what IS freedom for women? I think it’s the right to an unmolested life.

Why the word “unmolested”?

“Unmolested” has many important connotations.

It has the idea of protection physiologically, where women have rights over their own bodies. If you know how female genital mutilation works, trust me, you’ll be horrified.

It has the idea of protection psychologically, where women have freedom of thought and expression.

It has the idea of protection socially, where women can govern their own lives without the pervasion of irrelevant social doctrine.


So, do women need men? And vice versa?

De Maitre has pointed out that technology has created the scenario where women are no longer dependent on men. But the same can be said of men to women.

The thing is, technology allows us to create the ideal for both genders. It reminds me of Japanese pop culture, where they explore the idea of having robot boyfriends or girlfriends.

Like the J-drama Absolute Boyfriend, and the anime Chobits.

Technology is fundamentally value neutral. People sculpt ideals and values into value-free technology, deriving different meanings from them.

As De Maitre said, “They can be programmed to be faithful, loving, caring, considerate and generous…”

I say, for men programming female robots, “they can be programmed to be caring, considerate, and cute…”

So De Maitre is right in this respect.

But there is something slightly more to it, in my opinion. This is because there is a possibility for a different outcome.

I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, Robots, Their Quest to be Human and the Meaning of Humanity, robots can help us understand more about ourselves. Here, our understanding of human relationships deepens when we recognize the imperfections of robots in their perfection.

The perfect boyfriend or girlfriend, as created by technology, can fulfill one’s every dream and desire.

But ultimately, one can get too caught up with the idea of perfection, and forget that imperfect humans exist alongside oneself, not to mention that one is him/herself an imperfect human.

Technology has not so much freed women from men, than both men and women from themselves and each other. Given this freedom, wouldn’t it be possible that humans can explore their relationships further?

The Potential Extinction of Men in the face of Technology

In the past, the patriarchal social model insisted that women had no rights- before marriage, a woman belonged to her father or her older brother in event of her father’s demise; after marriage, a woman belonged to her husband; after being widowed, she belonged to her son. A woman never had any rights or property to her name. If her husband was a gambler, he had the right to pawn away ALL of her stuff, including her. Many a prostitute in old England had a husband for their pimp. A woman who henpecked her husband could be burnt as a witch- her only crime was her sharp tongue.

Today, women have more rights and they don’t hesitate to draw the boundaries in terms of properties with their partners. It is funny how women still cling to the old idea of males as the providers when many reject the old ideals of women keeping the home clean and preparing a meal for their husbands. In Singapore, that role is delegated to the maids whilst the woman of the house goes out and carves a career for herself. Their partners have to settle household expenses whilst still paying for their lady’s shopping sprees. To a modern woman, her husband’s money is her, but her money certainly isn’t his! Personally, I think it isn’t fair to the men. I don’t believe in using social pressure to squeeze money out of them so that it can be squandered elsewhere.

I’m not saying all women do that to their husbands, but I’ve seen it enough to know that it is a predominant trend today. Mothers have been teaching their daughters the importance of creating a Plan B in case their husbands turn out to be rotten apples. Daughters were taught how to spend their husband’s money, whilst saving a portion aside for emergency situations. They were taught never to reveal the amount of money they had in their accounts to their husbands. Why weren’t sons taught the value of having their own personal account away from their wife’s knowledge?

Thanks to advances in technology, women can have children without the aid of sperms! Women no longer need men to defend them thanks to guns! Even an old lady in a wheel chair can shoot a vigorous fit young man dead instantly. Food can be grown in labs soon, so we don’t need a man to do the hard labor anymore! What’s more, women are capable of bringing home the bread/bacon today. They are as well educated, if not more educated than their male counterparts and they have been freed from the constraints faced by our “domesticated” ancestors.

Perhaps in future, we will have androids that are highly intelligent and capable of rendering emotions. Women may prefer their company over that of normal men! They can be programmed to be faithful, loving, caring, considerate and generous. Something that no woman can guarantee her husband might be after the honey moon period. They may be the perfect accompaniment to any woman’s emotional and physical needs. An android won’t dump her just because she put on a little weight over the years, it won’t dump her because she’s undergoing an emotional patch, it won’t complain if her cooking tasted terrible, etc. Given such perfect company, will there be a need for men in the future years to come?

Hibari brought up the question about whether men are needed for defence. Well, androids SHOULD be stronger, less prone to psychological traumas associated with war and have greater stamina. They make better soldiers that men! =D Maybe, we can women can even control robots via remote!

Update!

Aussie women are chosing dogs over men! [Read here]

Australia's single women are turning their backs on men and opting for a much more loyal and reliable companion - a dog.