A Letter to a Christian friend “Jane” by a Lesbian

Hi all,

I thought this post was up almost half a week ago. I reloaded my page after posting and everything was fine. But I've only just discovered that it's not up. So I'm trying again.

I think it's timely for an alternative voice on the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality to be heard. I have become remarkably disturbed by a very small minority of very vocal Christians presenting a highly distorted view of homosexuals in the press lately. In so doing, not only have these people been responsible for fanning the flames of hatred and fear against homosexuals, they have also done a tremendous disservice to many Christians for whom homosexuality is not an abomination or an issue.

So I present here today a letter to a Christian written by a lesbian woman who is "a follower of Christ who has chosen not to be a Christian". In this letter, she tells you why she has chosen this unusual position.

I'll let the letter speak for itself.
__________________________________


Preface -- The Context to this Letter

This letter was written almost 5 years ago in reply to “Jane”, a friend of my wife’s. Jane happens to be a Christian of a more fundamentalist persuasion. This lady and “Naomi”, my wife, have been friends for 30 years.

When Jane found out that Naomi and I got married, she wrote to my wife to tell her to leave me. She has since done this twice in the last 5 years despite acknowledging that I look after my wife very well; something that demonstrates a remarkable lack of respect for our relationship in my opinion.

Naomi and I cannot get legally married since we are lesbian but we consider our commitment to each other to be as binding if not more so than any marriage than can be legally sanctioned since what counts to us is our promise to love and uphold and honour each other. My wife and I have known each other now for 20 years. We have been happily married now for 8 years – through surgery and illness, through relocation to different countries, through being geographically separated for a time because of work, through rejection from sometimes close friends.

We have also had the great joy of many friends – both heterosexual and homosexual, religious and non-religious – who have sustained and loved us, and honoured our marriage. You have entrusted us with the things that have mattered to you – your homes, your families, your friends, your children, your lives. For all this, we thank you.

I have chosen to release this letter publically because recently, we've heard people stand up in public and say that lesbian and gay people are broken and incapable of healthy relationships. And that we are trying to "spread" homosexuality to young people, as if homosexuality were a disease. If these people had bothered to even do the most basic reseach (proper research, not the stuff from religiously-affiliated front organisations), they will know that sexual orientation is not something that can changed simply because someone tells you about alternatives. But more importantly, I think that our detractors owe us the responsibility of telling us what is wrong with our lives as they are -- and not as they are distorted by the lies that are being spread about homosexual relationships as a series of orgies and one-night stands, purely sexual, without love or commitment.... Because that is _not_ my life and it is _not_ the life of many gay and lesbian men and women I know who strive to live lives of quiet dignity and exemplary love for their partners.

I have modified sections of this letter – added a paragraph to it here and there. But it remains in the main almost identical to the original letter I wrote to Jane. My reasons for making these modifications is to better address some of the issues that have been raised in our current discourse about homosexuality and to make more explicit certain issues.

I have also removed references to real names in this letter and inserted generic names because I have no wish for any party to come to harm as a result of this letter. I am going to refer to myself as “Ruth” and my wife as “Naomi” in this letter. And we shall call her friend “Jane”. Given the current sensibilities and the amount of polarization we have seen in the broader society on this issue, I believe this is wise. Please excuse me for this.

I want to say that I have since spoken to "Jane" and while she does not agree to our lifestyle as she terms it, she acknowledges that it was wrong for her to have told my wife to leave me and she has acknowledged that she cannot dispute the fact that we do have a loving stable relationship. She has said to me that Naomi's relationship with me has presented her with an unprecedented confrontation with homosexuals, who now have a face and who have lives that she knows. She has said that it is been painful and jarring and confusing. We struggle now to meet each other in a fragile peace, across misunderstanding and fear, but we have not stopped trying. For this, Jane deserves respect. So I want it known that we have moved beyond the bonds and emotions of this letter. However, I know many others who have not. This letter is for them.


___________________________________________________________


A Letter to a Christian friend “Jane” by a lesbian


Jane, I find it really interesting that of all the questions you asked my wife about her life with me, you never once asked her questions such as the following:
Does Ruth love you well?
Does Ruth honour you and support your integrity and self-development?
Is Ruth the sort of person who would tell you the hard truths about yourself?
Is Ruth honest with herself?
Is Ruth an honourable person?
Are the both of you a good team?

To put it a little bit more pointedly, you never once asked Naomi whether I lived with her and loved her in the way Jesus commanded us to live and love each other. You never asked her whether our love for each other reflected 1st Corinthians which I think is the definitive statement of what it means to love.

That’s interesting because I thought that the greatest commandmant Jesus gave was that we love one another and that we love God. I would have thought that that would have been most central to the people who are his followers. And yet I find in the letters you have written to Naomi and in your conversations with her that you have automatically assumed that homosexuals are incapable of healthy relationships and of a deep and authentic love. I’m not talking about just any sort of love [romantic love is easy], but of the deep, abiding, difficult love that is what enduring relationships are made of. And I find that you seem to have the idea that homosexuals are incapable of this love because homosexuals are ‘unclean’ and somehow ‘broken’.

The funny thing is that Jesus never made these assumptions when he was alive. He had enough humility to see and understand that prostitutes, lepers, tax collectors, Samaritans, and all manner of ‘unclean’ and ‘broken’ people were all equally capable of loving in this deep and spiritual way. And he also understood that these ‘unclean’, ‘broken’ people were at times more capable of loving in this way because they had less pretentions about who and what they were, unlike the Saduccess and Pharisees [and dare I say modern Christians] who knew they were ‘saved’ and that they were ‘clean’ in the eyes of God. Was it not Jesus who said quite plainly that not every one who called him ‘Lord, Lord’ was worthy and that it might in fact be those who are thought to be least worthy and who are excluded by the ‘religiously pure’ who are his genuine followers?

Let me be quite clear here that I am not trying to convince you to turn away from your faith. Why should I dissuade someone from following a teacher I respect and honour? What I am interested in doing is to have a serious discussion about what exactly following Christ means. And I would also like to discuss whether it is possible for a homosexual to do that.

As far as I am concerned, I don’t see why a person can’t be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time. Jesus made a seminal comment which is repeated in quite a number of gospels. On the Sabbath, when his followers were hungry, they plucked heads of grain from the fields. When this was challenged by the Rabbis [teachers of the law], Jesus said quite explicitly that ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.’[Mark 2:27] This passage is then followed chronologically in the gospels by an episode in which Jesus acted against the law and heals a man on the Sabbath demonstrating that it is no longer the law or tradition that binds us but a higher command of love for man. In so acting, Jesus established that any law or action that does not concur with a fundamental love and compassion for humanity is not a valid law. He establishes also that any law which violates that concern for humanity and responsibility for our fellows cannot claim divine inspiration.

Homosexuals have been lynched by Christians in the name of Christ. Many have been forced into suicide because they are told that God will never ever accept them. Many have turned away from God because Christians have rejected them as their daughters, sons, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers and friends. I do not believe that this is divinely inspired. I do not see the face of Jesus in these actions or in this teaching. I do not believe that Christ will ever reject persons who share a lifetime of honest concern, care, protection and honouring of each other in monogamous committed relationships which many homosexuals do. I do not believe God will deny those who strive to live lives filled with a love that does not see biology as a limitation and who love despite oppression, misunderstanding and danger. I do not believe that Jesus will ever judge that biology and convention are more important than an honest and enduring love.

There are biblically two main sources of the prohibition against homosexuality – one from Leviticus and the other from Paul. With respect to both but particularly the one from Leviticus, it is clear that we are no longer bound by mitzvot (or laws) of the old testament for Jesus has said explicitly that he has liberated us from that. And besides if you really want to say that you are still bound by those laws, then if you eat pork and shell fish [Leviticus 11: 7 & 10, Deuteronomy 14: 8 & 10], cut the hair from the sides of your head [Leviticus 19:27] and wear clothes made of mixed fibre (e.g. 20% polyester, 80% cotton) or charge interest on a loan [Deuteronomy 23:19], you’re a sinner my friend. Also, since my homosexual spouse, “Naomi", is a widow, technically her late husband’s brother would have been obliged to marry her when her husband died. Nobody saw that take place – that polygamy is not legally sanctioned is not sufficient excuse for since when did human laws take precedence over those of God according to your church right? My wife was also technically obliged under the law of Deuteronomy to call her late husband’s brother up before the council of elders and in the last resort take off his sandal and spit in his face if he refused to marry her [Deuteronomy 25:5-10]. Slavery is acceptable [Leviticus 25:44-54], so is having concubines [Solomon had a thousand] and so is genocide as long as God tells you to do it [Deuteronomy 7: 1-2].

Christians who wish to insist on the validity of the prohibition against homosexuality on the basis of Leviticus or Deuteronomy or any of the books of the law need to explain why these other prohibitions can be disregarded at their convenience. What I am asking for is called a requirement of consistency in thinking. If we want to follow the bible, we can’t pick and chose the sections that we want at our convenience and ignore those that conflict with our everyday lives. Otherwise, other persons can say that we don’t really take our claim to follow the bible seriously, or that we are inconsistent, or that we are hypocrites.

We have moved beyond these parochial time-bound and culture-bound traditions. But more importantly, Jesus offered us a criterion by which we are to decide which traditions or laws/mitzvot are worthy of keeping and which aren’t [both for those in the old testament and those in the new]. And the criterion is this -- all those laws that are consistent with virtue, with goodness, with deep sense of love and compassion for humanity are those that we keep. Everything else is to be discarded. This point is again made later in the gospels when Jesus had a discussion with the priests about the nature of ritual cleanliness [Matthew Chapter 15]—which in effect is a discussion about what it means to sin. In that passage you will find that he accuses the priests of hypocrisy; of being more concerned to hold on to human traditions more than to divine commands, to the point where divine law is subverted to cater to human tradition.

‘Jesus said, ‘And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? … Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.’’ [Matthew 15: 3 & 6]

And again later, he states:
‘These people honour me with their lips
but their hearts are far from me.
They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ [Matthew 15: 8-9]

He states here that what really matters is what the Jews have called ‘kavanot’, which means the right direction of the heart. In modern terms, we call this ‘right intention’. What matters according to Jesus is not external forces [what we eat, with whom we eat with and whether we go through the process of washing our hands] for nothing from the outside pollutes us. It is the things that come from our heart [from within] which can pollute us. Spiritual pollution comes from preferring our comfortable prejudices to uncomfortable truths, from envy, from setting ourselves above others, from desiring that which is not ours, from hatred.

‘Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean’. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man unclean….’ [Matthew 15:17-20]

You are under no obligation to agree with my relationship with my wife. Disagreement is a reflection of the diversity of human individuals and of life experiences. And the ability to deal with disagreement is a reflection of personal maturity. However, your avowed acceptance of a Christian life puts you under obligations not to slander persons, not to bear false witness, to fearlessly pursue the truth and to abstain from hypocrisy. By refusing to actually bother to learn the truth about what homosexuals, the lives that they lead and the sorts of relationships they have, and repeating instead the inaccuracies and myths that are perpetuated about homosexuals and their lives, many Christians are guilty of precisely of the faults that Jesus did explicitly condemn.

You have hurt my wife and I deeply in attempting to break up our marriage. You have slandered my wife in suggesting that she has lost her morals simply because she has become involved in a lesbian relationship. She has more integrity and has lived her life with greater compassion, love and grace than many people I have met in my life. You have treated me like the bubonic plague, not even having the grace to invite me into your home or to even meet with us as a couple. You talk to my wife as if I am invisible, a non-person. Are you afraid I will infect you with my homosexuality? In case you didn’t know, that’s not possible. And I wouldn’t want to do that even if I could; I wouldn’t wish you a life of being rejected by your best friends, of being treated like a leper and of being discriminated against because you have chosen to love a good person who happens – just unfortunately happens – to be the same sex as you. I am fortunate in my life to have been strong enough to not let this faze me. I am fortunate in my life to have the conviction that love will triumph, and that my wife and I will continue to love each other well. I thank God for that strength.

No every homosexual man or woman has been as fortunate as I have been to have been comfortable with a life of unconventionality. For some of these homosexuals, the cost has been paid in lives that they have ended themselves because of the unbearable pain of your rejection and the rejection of others like you. If homosexuals are “broken”, they are “broken” because of the discrimination, rejection, vilification and hatred they experience when they own their most intimate identities as gay and lesbian people. And you need to ask yourself whether the falsehoods that certain religious institutions perpetuate against them in the name of “love” contributes to them being discriminated against and rejected like this. Gay and lesbian people are not “broken” because of their homosexuality. They are “broken” by you and others like you who chose to follow doctrine without thought, who chose to remain silent when you know that hatred is being preached in the guise of love, who value obedience to preaching more than responding with humanity, sincerity and fair-mindedness to another human being. They are “broken” because your “love” for them requires them to change for you, to reject a part of their essential selves for you.

I’m sorry. I don’t recognize this as love. And I don’t believe this is “Christian”.

This letter is a personal letter but it is also scholarly letter. I am not an expert of religion but I am however trained to read texts and to understand their construction and interpretation. The interest I have in biblical texts is no small one. Many new-style fundamentalist Christians, rather paradoxically, do not consider learning an advantage to faith: somehow they seem to think that a person needs to discard his mind and his intellect and become some sort of unthinking uncritical subservient doormat in order to become a Christian. They will say that this letter contains a lot of scholarship but that it is too scholarly, too rational to be godly. They will say that it is written from a deluded and clouded mind that seeks to justify its own homosexual fornication. However, there is one decisive question to be asked here and only one: How do we decide which individual’s mind is the one who is clouded? What makes the other person’s interpretation of the bible more valid than mine if we cannot appeal to scholarship, to discernment and to the pursuit of truth and wisdom that the Proverbs of Solomon tell us to acquire because it is of God [Proverbs chapter 2]?

Jesus interestingly answered this question for us: He said that a house cannot be divided against itself [Matthew 12:25-26] meaning that a system of teaching cannot contradict itself. If you read both the new testament and the old carefully enough, you will find that the commandment to love God reads ‘Love the Lord our God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ [Mark 12;30] Jesus was explicit over the fact that we may have to be prepared to lose everything to follow him; wealth, status, fame, family, even life. But despite him being so explicit about all these things, he never once said we have to lose our minds to follow him. That’s important. Deciding to believe in the teaching of leaders and in the conventions of men without reflection and discernment is not a spiritual virtue; Jesus [and Isaiah] had this to say about it.

You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
You will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
For this people’s heart has become calloused;
They hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts
And turn, and I would heal them. [Matthew 13:14]

It is a great misfortune that many reflective and thinking persons [both homosexual and heterosexual], having witnessed the unfounded prejudices of Christian organizations and individuals concerning homosexuals and others, have turned away from Christ. They do so because they think that Jesus’ message is a message of bigotry, of hatred and of insolent self-righteousness. For, many of these individuals do take seriously the message of Jesus that ‘a tree is recognized by its fruit.’ [Matthew 12:33]. Many of these people judge Christianity by the integrity of their disciples and unfortunately, they are not leaving with a very good impression. This is particularly true of new-style churches which emphasize emotion over discernment and doctrine over humanity; which sell Jesus like a commodity that secures wealth, perpetual health and here’s the best one – guaranteed salvation without having to work for it. This is a tragic state of affairs and it is regrettable that outsiders [and increasing numbers of insiders within the church] have this impression of Christ and of Christians. It ought never to have been this way. And it should trouble all conscientious followers of Christ that it is turning out increasingly this way.

I have said my peace. As I said, you are under no obligation to agree with our relationship but you should know exactly what it is you are opposing and attempting to destroy. You are under no obligation to believe anything that I have said. It is not my intention to persuade, merely to inform. I think it might be useful for you to see for yourself at least one version of a homosexual marriage and how homosexuals see themselves vis-à-vis some wide-spread fundamentalist Christian ideas. I will be happy to speak to you or to have a correspondence with you should you find that interesting or helpful. I leave that to your discretion.

And unfortunately [for you that is], you are going to have to give us slightly better reasons than the ones you have been giving my wife if you want her to walk away from our marriage. Because, you see, we have done what you suggested – we have tested our consciences. Our consciences tell us that if we were to write our lives in a book and not mention our gender, most people would say that we have a loving, honourable and precisely Christian marriage. We see no reason why our gender should change that judgment. Our consciences tell us that what is borne of a healthy and loving union cannot be wrong in the eyes of God although it may be unacceptable in the eyes of man. We are at peace with God who is very real to us and we strive every day to live up to his commandment to love each other and humanity, not more [although that is important] but better. Speaking for myself, my conscience tells me that I could never follow a God who thought and decreed otherwise.

Jane, you were one of my wife’s friends whom I enjoyed very much. You had a sense of personal decency, you were sincere, you cared and you were loyal to your friends. And I strongly would like to encourage you and Naomi to keep your friendship. It is unfortunate that my love with Naomi has been caused something of a hiccup in this friendship but I would hope that the eventual outcome is one in which the both of you take this as an opportunity to grow both in self-understanding and in understanding the things that are most valuable to you.

My wife will never lack a partner, a defender and a friend in life in our marriage. She will never lack in our home a desire for the good, for virtue, for peace. This I promise you. I suspect that this is probably not enough for you because there is this thing called salvation that you care about deeply. But then, what does salvation mean if not that we are saved from the blindnesses and weaknesses and faults within us all? I know of no salvation that does not include a place for a genuine love.

With love,
From a follower of Christ who has chosen not to be a Christian,
Ruth.

I salute the wonderful women and men of Singapore for standing up for AWARE.

This week, I can finally say that I am proud to be Singaporean.

For years now, Singaporeans have struggled with the perception that we are a bunch of spineless, apathetic cowards who have nothing to contribute to civic society. The thousands of you who turned up at the AWARE EGM to voice your opinions -- both in favour of and also against the "Old Guard" of AWARE - proved our detractors wrong. You cared enough about civic society to turn up and to make your presence count. Thank you.

I am also deeply heartened by the overwhelming vindication of my belief that Singaporeans still retain a sense of decency and fair-play. I am heartened that we are prepared to stand up against those who employ corporate bullying tactics against a bunch of trusting women. I am heartened that we will speak out against those who try to steal and distort the achievements of quiet women who have worked tirelessly to improve the lives of many Singaporeans. I am moved that you will act to protect the neutrality and independence of counselling and social work services that exist to help those of us most in need. Your moral compass is switched on. And you were prepared to act on your consciences.

Thank you.

Don't ever let anyone tell you to:
"Shut up and sit down"

And please please let Dr Thio Su Mein know whenever you bump into her in Singapore that she is not and will never be our "feminist mentor".

I salute the wonderful women and men of Singapore from all walks of life who made a difference on Saturday. You are feminists and mentors to us all. This post is for you.

AWARE - Women, make up your minds

INTERVIEWS
This is an interview with Dana Lim; a former president of AWARE (one of the "old" guard).
I'll let her speak for herself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPF-cgJyOpI

This is an interview with Josie Lau; current president of AWARE (one of the "new" exco). This is the only interview she has granted since becoming president of AWARE to the best of my knowledge. I'd be happy to correct myself if I'm wrong. This interview is from Channel NewsAsia. I'm sorry I couldn't get an interview that was solely with Josie. The interview is in two parts.
I'll let her speak for herself too.
Please see here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSUrW-rxss&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjUgzMaN6cY&feature=channel_page


PRESS RELEASES
By the new Executive Committee of AWARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzZd8LnVvqk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q4kQwNdiDk&feature=related

By the old Executive Committee of AWARE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOJ4JmqSgnk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMwbSr4HOE&feature=channel_page

These snippets are the first parts of the press releases of both sides of AWARE.
You can see the other parts of the press releases here:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=theonlinecitizen&view=videos

I believe that the women and men of Singapore have the ability to make up their minds about who they would like to lead us into the 21st century.

You have a brain and a conscience -- Use it.
You have a body -- Act on what your brain tells you.
Because if you don't act, you are colluding through your silence and your failure to whatever happens next.

Wishing you all wisdom and fortitude.

An Ethicist Speaks out II -- AWARE’s Counselling and Social Service Arm: Why we need to care

Recent events at AWARE have raised serious concerns about the ethics of leadership change and about the nature of civic space and renewal in Singapore. Relatively little, however, has been said about the implications of the recent events on its social service and counselling arms.

AWARE has had a long history of providing social services and support for some of the most vulnerable members of society in Singapore - women who are struggling with abuse, with rape, living in fear for their lives. They run a helpline for women in distress and also a befrienders' service for women at risk where a trained counsellor escorts women under threat to the police, hospitals, courts and help centres.

One of the great virtues of AWARE was the professionalism of the counselling staff that worked there and the fact that AWARE invested heavily in training for all their volunteer helpliners and befrienders. There was a commitment to ensuring that the professional expertise and independence of their counselling and social work staff were respected.

In this context, I am deeply concerned about the recent change of leadership in AWARE and about the ability of AWARE’s counselling arm to continue providing professional help and support for women in need.

Any organisation providing mental health or social services is expected to uphold standards of neutrality, care and professionalism in line with internationally recognised standards for care. At minimum, this requires:
a) that counsellors and social workers need to adhere to standards for definition of mental illness and pathology as delineated by the relevant medical authorities and professional bodies, and not by religious institutions which are unqualified to make such assessments
b) that clients need to be assured of the neutrality, the impartiality of the care they will be given when they sign up for counselling services. As the Code of Professional Ethics for the Singapore Association of Social Workers states, social workers in Singapore are obliged to “avoid discrimination and prejudice, respect individual differences and accept that professional responsibility must take precedence over personal aims and views” and that “Social workers affirm the right to client self determination” and that their role is to “provide all relevant information that would allow the client to make an informed decision.”
c) that counsellors and social workers have a fundamental obligation to safeguard the rights of their clients and their confidentiality

Because women seeking help are fragile, psychologically vulnerable and in need, particular care needs to be exercised to ensure that their sense of self and effective agency is protected and respected by those who counsel and support them. AWARE has had a long track record of upholding these standards of care in their counselling and befrienders’ services. This type of non-judgmental care cannot be provided by individuals with beliefs that lead them to condemn particular forms of life (homosexuality) as sinful and deviant, and certain practices (abortion, safe sex) as fundamentally mistaken.

Rather unfortunately, it is clearly documented in the press that members of the new executive committee of AWARE do hold on to some of these views, and that they intend to enforce them on AWARE – indeed it is presented as the raison d’être for their recent takeover. For example, Dr Thio Su Mien explicitly stated that she was instrumental in bringing about the change in leadership in AWARE because she was motivated by concerns that in AWARE’s sexual education programme, “homosexuality is regarded as a neutral word, not a negative word.” Dr Thio makes it clear at various points in her interview that she regards homosexuality as an aberrant and deviant form of behaviour.

While Dr Thio and other members of the new Executive Committee are entitled to their opinions on homosexuality, there is a clear conflict of interest when they have said that they intend to use their new-found positions of influence to steer AWARE away from its existing position of protection and provision of care and support for all women regardless of their race, religion, sexuality or beliefs about more controversial issues, such as abortion. In so acting, they are endorsing positions running counter to the professional standards of internationally recognized mental health associations. For example, homosexuality is not listed as a disorder in the classic reference text for the delineation of mental disorders for psychiatrists -- the DSM-IV: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV. This text is the standard reference for all mental health professionals working within the field and their position on homosexuality is one also endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Psychological Association, The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, The World Heath Organisation, and the Chinese Psychiatric Association amongst others. These professional mental health associations have clearly and unequivocally stated that homosexuality is not a pathology, nor an aberrant or deviant behavioural set.

This is not an argument in favour of or against homosexuality. It is purely an argument that social support services for women at risk must be run by professionals trained to do so and that their professional independence and neutrality must be ensured if they are to serve their clients with the conscientiousness their clients deserve.

Secondly, it is worth noting that neutrality and the provision of information with respect to a lifestyle is not equivalent to the endorsement or promotion of that lifestyle. If I attend a suicide awareness forum, it does not imply that the professionals speaking at the forum are thereby promoting suicide or endorsing it or encouraging the participants to kill themselves. Similarly, informing the public of the existence of homosexuals and of the very often traumatic prejudice they face when coming to terms with their sexuality is neither an endorsement nor promotion of homosexuality. AWARE is well within its ambit of educating the public concerning the substantial discrimination faced by a group of women in speaking of homosexuality. This is true also of the other issues old Aware has spoken of on behalf of other minorities, such as the discrimination faced by migrant workers, single unwed mothers, raped woman etc.

The new Executive Committee of AWARE does not appear to understand the ethical significance of the need to:
a) respect the capacities of women for self-determination,
b) respect the independence and neutrality of counsellors working at AWARE
c) maintain a separation of their personal convictions from the provision of public services for women.

I was deeply troubled to learn of events at AWARE’s centre at Dover Road on 23 April 2009 where burly locksmiths and security personnel attempted to force their way into AWARE’s premises and other male associates of the new executive committee turned up with recording devices. AWARE’s centre at Dover Road is supposed to be a safe haven for women – it is the place of last resort for women who have been threatened, abused, raped and who have, at times, turned up in distress in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic personal tragedy. Can you imagine what might have transpired had a woman needing crisis support and care turned up at AWARE’s premises on that day? Not only would she have felt threatened and afraid by the presence of so many men and by the conflictual nature of the interactions going on in the centre but she would have had serious and legitimate concerns as to whether her confidentiality and privacy would be respected in a place where male members of the association can turn up with recording devices and challenge existing staff with the comment that, “if you’ve got nothing to hide, why are you afraid of being recorded?”

The lifeblood of any organisation providing vital counselling and care services is trust – trust in the integrity of the organisation and the people leading it, trust in the professionalism and impartiality of the counsellors staffing it and trust that the rights of clients to self-determination and confidentiality will be protected. The women seeking help at AWARE are trusting their counsellors and befrienders sometimes with their lives. The conduct of the new Executive Committee of AWARE -- the fog of secrecy and duplicity concerning their religious affiliations and whether the takeover was orchestrated in advance, and the tactics they have employed in the takeover of AWARE and since coming into leadership -- have left many doubts in the minds of concerned observers as to their integrity, honour and good intentions. At heart, there are serious doubts about whether the new Executive Committee is a body we can trust to uphold the standards of care that women in distress need and deserve.

In writing this open letter, I hope to highlight these issues so as to:
a) provide some insulation from interference for counsellors and helpliners working at AWARE. Their professional integrity and independence need to be respected.
b) ensure that the new Executive Committee needs to understand that the public cares for the most vulnerable members of society who seek help at AWARE and that we will be monitoring developments in the counselling arm closely.

Alexandra Serrenti
Research specialisation – Ethics, Continental European Philosophy.
Email – alex.serrenti@gmail.com

AWARE as an inclusive organisation

It is with great concern that I read the comments made by Dr Thio Su Mien reported in “Lawyer’s Key Role in Aware coup” (ST 23 April, 2009). Dr Thio has unequivocally dismissed the credibility of Aware under the previous executive committee on the grounds that it supported a lesbian agenda. She has reduced years of activism and hard work spanning a range of issues to a single sticking point - and that is Aware’s supposedly pro-gay stance. Aware has fought for gender equality and women’s rights, and the protection of battered women and other minorities such as domestic workers and trafficked women. It has worked for the legal recognition of marital rape and also advocated on behalf of single women. Do none of these endeavours count?

Dr Thio has condemned Aware’s old guard for promoting lesbianism and homosexuality, and in doing so, redefining marriage and family. However, the old team has merely brought to light the presence of alternative family structures already present in society. Such families include: families headed by unmarried mothers and divorced women, families with pregnant teens etc. These families were previously stigmatized and vilified, and have only now started to break free of prejudice because of the good work Aware has done to help the mainstream understand their plight.

Dr Thio claims that she and the other members of the new team acted out of concern and merely want to contribute to society. However, theirs is a simplified version of society, one that is a caricature rooted in the biologically constructed roles of men and women. In this version of society, there will be entire generations of lesbians thanks to Aware’s sexuality education programme. Dr Thio’s version of society is highly paternalistic and is one in which young women are seen as unable to think for themselves and easily influenced by others. Surely, our daughters, sisters, mothers, and friends have more brains than that?

She claims that all lesbians are women who have been abused by men, and are consequently rebelling as a result of this abuse. Such a view is highly one-dimensional and pathologises the entire process of a woman coming to terms with her sexual identity. It presents considered choices, no matter how well thought out, as inevitable products of a disordered mind. This demonstrates more clearly than anything else Dr Thio’s anti-feminist motivations.

Dr Thio’s decision to act stems from a belief that people are ignorant and need to be educated about the threat of homosexuality. Does she mean that anyone who does not share the same beliefs as her is ignorant and needs to be ‘taught’ what is ‘right’? Such a stand reeks of homophobia, condescension and arrogance. Such intolerance should not be condoned in Singapore.


Kamal Ramdas

This piece was submitted to the ST forums. Please feel free to circulate it if you endorse the writer's position.

AN OPEN LETTER ON AWARE, SINGAPORE

Dear All,

This is one of the few more formal posts to appear on this blog. Please take it with the seriousness it deserves. For the background to this post, see here: http://www.we-are-aware.sg/what-happened


AN OPEN LETTER ON AWARE, SINGAPORE


Having had the opportunity to work with AWARE on several previous initiatives, I would like to state for the public record, that I was deeply impressed with the seriousness, sincerity and depth of commitment of AWARE volunteers and counsellors that I have encountered over the years. AWARE, through the efforts of generations of long-term members, has made invaluable contributions to the protection of women, to supporting vulnerable members of the community, and to public education.


I was therefore deeply disturbed to learn of the events at AWARE's AGM in which there appeared to have been a concerted attempt at hijacking an organisation that has worked consistently and quietly in Singapore to protect and promote the interests of women. What is particularly objectionable is the lack of transparency of the new office bearers concerning their alternative vision for Singapore's oldest women's group. What is it about their new vision which is so threatening that they feel they are unable to communicate it publicly? If, on the other hand, as they say, they are not communicating their position because they are new office bearers and have not as yet gained an understanding of the organisation, then questions need to be raised concerning their suitability for office as it suggests that they are ill-prepared and ill- qualified to lead this organisation. This is especially true when you consider the wealth of experience and talent already existing in AWARE, from whom office-bearers could be drawn. The secrecy which has shrouded the new executive committee and also the manner in which the new leadership has come to power has left significant doubt in the minds of concerned observers as to their integrity, honour and good intentions.


The press has pointed to the religious affiliations of many members of the new Executive Committee of AWARE. I respect the rights of all persons to commit themselves to lives of conscience. However, the appropriate exercise of a life of conscience in civic society is to form one's own religiously-based advocacy group and to be clear about the fact that those religious values are the values that animate its services. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for such a group to engineer a take-over of an organisation with a clearly secular pedigree and in the process, disenfranchise and marginalise a group of women who have worked tremendously hard to be heard and taken seriously. The composition of the new executive committee is hardly representative of Singapore’s multi-religious, multi-racial heritage.


I wish to place on record, as a professional ethicist and philosopher, my deep reservations concerning the future impartiality and professionalism of AWARE's counselling and social education programmes in light of the religious affiliations of most of the members of the new Executive Committee. This is a point of particular concern given the fact that AWARE's counselling services are often the last resort for many women at risk who deserve our special protection and care. In particular, the religious affiliations of the executive committee appear to be such that they are unlikely to endorse the following:

a) that victims of familial abuse be given advice and support to leave their families and spouses where necessary if it is determined that they are at risk, given the "pro-family" stance of the executive committee.

b) that rape victims be given access and support to all options during their counselling sessions, including advice on abortion, given the "anti-abortion" stance of the religious organisations many of these women belong to.

c) that sexual education programmes will include information about the use of contraceptives in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy, given the "pro-abstinence" positions of the religious organisations many of these women belong to.

d) that homosexual women seeking advice and help be supported in their struggles to come to terms with their identities in a supportive environment since it is clearly documented in previous letters to the press that members of the executive committee believe homosexuals are psychologically disturbed -- a position that is clearly and unequivocally at odds to the official positions of numerous professional bodies of psychiatrists and psychologists, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Psychological Association, The Royal College of Psychiatrists in the UK, The World Heath Organisation, the Chinese Psychiatric Association amongst others.


I would be significantly reassured by the executive committee if they were to state unequivocally for the public record:

a) their exact positions on the points raised above pertaining to the social service programmes of AWARE so that clients may be better informed of the ethos and principles which govern the counselling they will be provided and may choose to go elsewhere if they do not agree that vision.

b) offer an assurance of non-interference in the professionalism, independence and impartiality of their counsellors to provide advice with courage and concern only for the welfare of the clients who seek them out.


This is not an issue of religious versus secular life, or of endorsement or condemnation of homosexuality, or of being anti or pro-abortion. It is an issue about transparency and honesty in the provision of social services and leadership so that women can make informed choices about the sorts of organisations they want to support and to have support them. Transparency and honesty, however, have been sadly lacking in the new executive committee of AWARE.

Alexandra Serrenti

________________________________________

ACTION PLAN FOR THE RECOVERY OF AWARE

If you would like to voice your principled dissent at this state of affairs, you may:
a) Educate yourself and others concerning the recent happenings at AWARE

b) Sign up as a member of AWARE and turn up at the EGM on the 2nd of May 2009 to help pass a vote of no confidence in the new executive committee so that fresh (and hopefully more representative) elections can be held. Should you choose to do this, I ask that you provide me (alex.serrenti@gmail.com) with the following information so that I can keep in touch with you if necessary. Rest assured that your contact and personal details will be held in the strictest confidence.
Name
Email
Handphone(for SMS updates)
Aware Referrer
Date that you signed up as AWARE member
Attending EGM on 2 May 2009? (Y/N)

Some persons have suggested that you need to register for the EGM before the 22nd of April before you are allowed to attend the EGM. The implication of this piece of information is that you will not be allowed entry should you have signed up after the 22nd of April. To the best of our knowledge and advice, entry to the EGM cannot be barred on the basis of a lack of registration.

When you turn up at the EGM, please remember to bring along a printed copy of your membership registration so that you cannot be turned away. And please make sure that you arrive EARLY so that you cannot be turned away for lack of space.

c) Visit an advocacy group for the protection of the original values and work of AWARE to see how you can further contribute. You can find them here:
http://www.we-are-aware.sg/


Thank you for your act of conscience.

The jungle survival course -- part 4

Day 4 and 5

We are up at about 7-8am. We eat whatever we can. I scoff down more sardine -- yuck -- and rice. I am not going to touch the instant noodles with a ten foot pole after what happened the previous night. While we are eating and milling around, we hear the boom of a buttress root being struck. Being the smart asses that we are, we decide to reply to the sound signal but not with a buttress root boom but with my trusty survival whistle that I have hidden away in my shirt; it is always there on a necklace with my torch and small neck knife (which I didn't bring with me this time). Sure enough, after some time, one of the instructors turns up at the camp site and asks us why we didn't reply to their signalling. We tell him that we did reply and I am quite sure they heard us but just wanted to know why we didn't use the buttress root system. We quote their own pamphlet at them: learning how to survive using what you have and whatever you can find around you. I think they don't really know what to do with our motley crew. It is always dangerous to get a bunch of philosophy students around; they exercise slightly too much freedom of thought, especially with military types around.

Anyway, we get invited down to the instructor's campsite where there is coffee and cookies and a couple of buns. So we happily munch away while getting more stories from our instructor. And we get a chance to refill our water bottles at the stream too. While we are there, the instructor teaches us how to get a sense of the weather by looking at the way the smoke from the fire rises. It's a very loose and not a great way of predicting things -- I'd rather have a barometer watch. [Hint! Hint! The Casio Protrek with triple sensor is a LOVELY watch for my next birthday/Christmas/whatever. :o)] But when all else fails, I'll watch the smoke! ;o)

Anyway, we have to get back to our campsite and pack up. We have a large amount of walking that day because we are trying to squeeze two days' trek into one. You see, it was all our fault -- the Singapore bunch had arranged it such that we were going to arrive back in Singapore on Wednesday morning at 4 am and go back to work/school at 11 am that same day. So we tell our instructor that he can't be late at all for the bus on Tuesday afternoon. He looks at us mildly but in his mind, we realise now that he thought we were crazy to not allow ourselves one day's rest before going back to work. So he quietly decides that he is not going to make us camp out as he initially planned on Monday. He decides instead to take us back to his friend's house for the night and take us to the hot springs which is the "traditional" thing to loosen up your muscles after a hike.

Anyway, we start off and we get to the top of this lovely waterfall where we get a chance to take some photos -- you see the photo at the first page of this blog. The pace of everything had been so hectic the last few days that we hardly got to take our cameras out at all. I don't have a camera [having left it with B. in Aust] so I had to rely on everyone else's photos. Once we finished with the photos, we then started our hike in earnest. We had a short uphill section again -- not too bad this time but steep, very very steep. We are talking about 70 degree inclines. We have to space ourselves out a bit so that if we fall we don't take the other person walking after us along with us. We reach the ridge finally and then start our tracking lessons.

We learn how to observe the ground and plants for signs of disturbance. We also learn how to mark a trail. Then the fun begins -- we get split into teams and one team will mark a trail while the others try to track them. It is challenging and tremendously fun. We do more of this and eventually the instructors plant a trail for us to track and we are supposed to count the number of marks they have left for us. Mingde and I got 20 out of 27 marks -- which was considered decent. After that, more plant identification. It also started raining at this point. We were hoping that the rain wouldn't be too bad but luck was not on our side and the rain bucketed down. When I say bucketed down, I really mean that. Imagine being in the middle of the rainforest with a very dense canopy and still feeling the rain pelting on your face like a shower head turned to maximum or a garden hose right in your face and chest!

Well, you can imagine what the rain did to the ground -- which was mainly clayey. It was a nightmare. The clay became colloidal very quickly and quickly got more fragile and more vulnerable to environmental factors -- like footsteps. Clayey soil is bad enough but clayey soil after a whole bunch of people have stepped and slipped on it is horrible because it becomes compacted and even more slippery. Erg! And here we were walking along inclines with gradients of about 70% in those conditions. I think that was the hardest part of the course. And it was also in those circumstances that I discovered how wonderful a walking stick could be. It functions more or less like an ice-axe; when you feel yourself falling, you jab the stick into the ground and arrest your fall with it if you can't find a nearby tree to hang onto. And sometimes, you can jab your stick into the ground to give you an extra thing to hang onto to prevent falls. My stick really saved my butt a couple of times. The alternative is to go sliding down cliffs without any prospect of arresting your own fall unless you can catch a tree on your way down. I was also very pleased that I wore fairly high boots with stiff leather uppers. I'm fairly certain they saved my ankles a few times over the uneven ground. We spent as much time slipping as we did walking in those conditions.

And the thing was that half way through we got lost. The second half of the group split from the first half and it was some time before we realised that we had lost the trail. When we found out, we stopped. Thankfully, our guides had walkie-talkies and contacted the first half of the group. They found us eventually. But that meant that we lost time and so we had to keep up a break neck pace in these conditions in order to make it back to base camp by sundown.

We did a few river crossings in order to get back to base camp and it is quite amazing how even a shallow stream can pack a real punch when there is intense tropical rain. We could feel the current against our knees and boots when we were crossing the streams and I hate to think what would have happened if someone had slipped and didn't unclip himself from his pack. We were all fairly cautious and careful so there were no accidents which was great. However, I have to say that I felt a little uncomfortable about this last stretch of the course. I felt happy and safe with most of the course. But I didn't like how that last trek went. I would have chosen to break the trek into two and stayed an extra night out rather than to have risked the kind of pace we were keeping, given the terrain and the environmental conditions we were faced with. It wouldn't have been any problem without the rain.

Mingde and ChongMing tell me that it is quite common for them to do that kind of pace in the army. But then the army's injury statistics are not great and the army also has helivac (helicopter evacuation) services. If you are in a survival situation or even on a civilian trek, I think it is foolhardy to risk your body that way because each injury decreases your chance of getting out alive and if you get injured in the middle of the forest in Perak, medical aid isn't exactly going to be fast in coming. So you just better pray very hard that if you get injured, you don't have severe bleeding or have any internal bleeding because you are in a really serious situation if you do. I'm not prepared to take those chances, especially when they can be avoided so I guess I am a lot more conservative than my friends are. I think Thushan (and maybe Faisal) felt a little uncomfortable about it too as we exchanged notes later.

It was Mingde who had the closest shave with danger though; he fell right when the path took us on a cliff alongside the waterfall. Thushan, who was walking behind Mingde, had remarkable presence of mind. He jabbed his walking stick into the hillside and yelled at Mingde to grab the stick. He then managed to pull Mingde back up. I think if Mingde has slipped any further, he might have gone down the cliff right into the waterfall and well, it was a huge drop down from there. But in any case, we all made it out in one piece.

Interestingly, all along the way, in all the days, not a single person complained about things. I think that was the one thing I really enjoyed about this trip. We did share our reservations and whatever thoughts we had fairly factually and concretely and I enjoyed that a lot. I believe it would have been different with a different group of people.

We finally reached the end of the trail at around 5pm in the evening. And then we had another short trek down the mountain to our base camp. But that was on paved road. By that time, we were exhausted, hungry, dehydrated. We mainly stood around and waited for some food to arrive --- fried bananas and stuff -- and of course, spent lots of time trying to get the leeches off. Because of the river crossings, they were everywhere. I was fortunate and had quite a good time; because I had been trained to blouse my boots (that means to tuck your pants into your socks and then your socks into your boots like they do in the army) and to always keep my shirt tucked into my pants and my sleeves buttoned, most of my body was clear of leeches. I got them on my hands and neck mainly; although there were loads clinging to my socks and boots trying to worm their way in. Some of the other guys who were a little more relaxed about attire landed up with leeches on their thighs and stomach etc. And it was just a whole saga trying to get ourselves clear of the leeches -- they are really hard to peel off once they start biting. You can see what Faisal's legs look like after the leeches have been peeled off in the photograph below -- not the prettiest sight.



Most of us were a little numb from the experience by that point; it was this strange experience of knowing that you have been physically extended past your regular levels but extended to a point where you are a little dissociated from your body and you feel like you can keep walking, keep hiking because of the rhythm of things even when all your muscles are strained. It's a funny sensation: I used to feel it after a very hard day's training at athletics (we had a mad instructor who used to make us run carrying logs which we had to lift over our heads whenever we passed certain designated points). But once you stop for a while, you start feeling the lactic acid build-up in your muscles and you know you are in trouble because every movement becomes increasingly painful. I don't know if the rest felt it in quite the same way I did -- I am really out of shape. When I am with B and J in Aust, I eat really well but don't get half the amount of activity I need. when I'm on my own, I get more activity than usual (although still not enough) but I don't eat half as well. You become very sloppy about eating in Singapore; it is just so easy and convenient and cheap to get yummy food everywhere. Unfortunately, it's not food that is always particularly good for you. Rats, I have to get my life in order here. I have made it a point to whack all the ingredients for a salad in the staff fridge every week so I get my greens and freshies but I need to do my own sandwiches more often.

Anyway, there isn't really any place to shower at base camp. There is no shower. There is only a communal concrete bath which you have to scoop water from and pour over yourself. Every one is a little embarrassed about me because they don't know what to do about change and shower facilities for me. They haven't quite tweaked that most of my male friends have forgotten that I'm female by the time they agree to do this kind of stuff with me. So anyway, in order to save everyone the embarrassment, I get together with Mingde and Chongming and ask if they are comfortable having a shower together. They were cool and so I basically announced that we were going for a shower together to save time. I also basically needed someone to check my back for leeches for me. So we do that and then manage to crawl into our cleaner clothes for the rest of the evening. I can't tell you how fantastic it felt to have that shower and to powder yourself liberally after!! It was sheer heaven!

We pack up after and zoom off to our digs for the night. Our instructor has arranged for a friend of his to put us up. We were all going to crowd into two rooms when they tell me that I have a separate room – because a woman can't sleep with men in the same room. My instructor gives me a hint about it being local custom and I realise that in the jungle and base camp, they are happy for me to sleep together with the guys but back in civilisation, I have to be a lady. It's so funny. I remember an article one of my students had saved for me about Albanian women who take on a vow of gender transference and “become men” when their fathers or husbands die so that there will be at least one man in the house and they can look after the family. They remain celibate for the rest of their lives but they are treated like exactly one of the guys, with the freedom and authority that comes from being “male”. There are days when this amuses me and I look on it with indulgence as a backward quaint practice that will pass as the world becomes a global village. But I also wonder what has prompted me all my life to deliberately maintain a position of gender androgyny – is it the unconscious realisation that no matter how far feminism has progressed, we still treat women as second class citizens and I still have more freedom when I am seen as a man? It's not that I am forcing myself into something I wouldn't naturally do. I still remember how as a child, jeans and shorts were always my first choices over dresses and skirts. But the older I grow, the more my androgyny has become consciously chosen and existentially endorsed as much as it is an innate disposition that I have allowed free play to shape my life. I simply see no reason why my life has to be restricted simply because those restrictions are what is expected of me as a being gendered in one way rather than another. I wouldn't mind controlling the expression of my gender if I thought that it would enhance the communal good but I actually think the opposite holds true.

Women don't realise the degree to which they suffer under gender stereotypes. I mean we have universal suffrage, we get educated, we have jobs. So what is the problem here? The problem here is the fabric of the everyday that constrains us without us realising it. Here's something for you to think about – clothing design. I think women still suffer under the oppression of clothes tailored with an eye to form more than function. And you know what the worst part is? We don't know it and we collude in it because we can't give up the usual ideas about what a woman is supposed to look like and how a woman is supposed to dress.

9 times out of 10, I will pick mens' clothes over those designed for women. Why? Pockets. To have functional pockets is to have liberation for your hands and to have a tonne of gear that you can carry sensibly and which is with you all the time – like swiss army knives and torches and money and keys and phones. I'm dying to see the day when I can create a chain of stores called “the sensible woman”. I already have the advertising campaign all planned. All I need to do is to go to any office building and shoot. The commercial is simple – I will simply station my camera outside a door and do a time lapse thing and count the number of times women are unable to hold a door open because they are holding their keys, mobile, purse and coffee in two hands and the number of times men have the same problem. I know what the answer will be – women will outnumber men exponentially with this problem. Why?? NO POCKETS.... It is also impossible to find a pair of women's hiking pants that are long enough to blouse properly and not only that, they make the bloody pants FLARED at the bottom. Which freaking self-respecting hiker will wear flared trouser legs????

Now take another look at women's shirts – yes those teeny weensy things that come up to your hips with the shapely bust conforming lines. Like those?? Death-traps to your arms. Try stretching to the top shelf of your favourite library bookcase and see how comfortable you feel. Does the shirt tighten up at your triceps and pull across your biceps and bust? Do you feel a waft of fresh air upon your belly? Well, guess why? That's because it IS exposed and every dwarf can stare up at your boobs ... which of course, you have hidden under a respiration inhibiting bra right? Then try wearing a properly fitted men's shirt and do the same thing. What do you find? No pressure anywhere and the shirt is long enough to stay tucked in your pants. I have an old joke -- when a tailor runs out of cloth to sew a man's shirt, he asks his friend what to do. His friend's answer: make a woman's shirt. Its funny but it's also not funny because what we can and can't do comfortably is built into what we wear.

Same thing with shoes. 9 times out of 10 – actually 10 times out of 10, I will pick men's boots and shoes. Why? Again functionality. Find me one pair of women's hikers that are 8 eyelets high and I will take you out for lunch immediately. The only people who manufacture 16 eyelet boots are military boot manufacturers and they manufacture ... primarily for men. But why? Why is it that women don't deserve the same ankle protection as men? They don't hike as much? What bollocks! And don't get me started on formal office shoes. Also why is it that if you try to buy women's motorcycle jackets, you will find that they always come in a grade of leather thinner than the equivalent male jacket. What is this? Women don't need as much protection when they fall off their bikes? Do we suddenly have thicker skin or what? I talked to Mars Leathers – a top manufacturer of leather gear for motorcyclists in Melbourne once about this. Their reply was that women like their jackets thinner because they like their jackets lighter -- oh really?? How come nobody consulted me as a woman about this because that sure as hell isn't my answer?? I asked how many focus groups of women they had – no answer. I buy only mens' leather motorcycle jackets and pants. I recommend you do too.

Women, liberate yourselves!! Cross-dress for a year and I'll guarantee you that you will never look at women's clothes in the same way again. I know some of my friends wonder about my image and they wonder why I can't/won't dress in a more womanly way. But that's the problem: they are asking the wrong question. The thing is that when I pick my clothes, they have very little to do with whether they look male or not. I am very happy wearing sarongs (skirt wraps) at home and at the beach – I am exclusively in them at home. My choice of clothes has everything to do with whether they extend my ability to live the form of life I enjoy and whether they constrain me in unnecessary ways and by that standard, women's clothes stink. I wear more women's shirts nowadays since I've discovered Portman's in Australia. Somehow, I often find them turning up in second hand stores with tags on or barely worn and many fit me fantastically. They fit my almost “Bauhaus” criteria of form fitting function. But pants are still a no no.

Sorry to spew about women and gender and feminism and my own self-image here. But I am going to teach a course on feminism soon enough and I think my brains are starting to pattern themselves to look for things to talk about. Unfortunately, this stuff is not exactly systematic philosophy. It is still anecdotal. There is a critical theory paper here waiting to be born but not yet, not yet. At any rate, I am toying with the idea of challenging my kids to cross-dress for a month and keep a log of their bodies. I don't know what their parents and the university will think. But hey, they are supposed to be getting educated in a more critically reflective way right? And Singapore wants to be at the cutting edge right? It will be an interesting experience I'm sure. If you want to learn, your learning better touch your life. It will be worth more than any lecture I could ever give.

Anyway ok ok, back to the hall of justice and the jungle survival course thing. So we are at our instructor's house and they have insisted that I sleep in a separate room because I am a woman. Unfortunately, they kick the kids out of their room so that I can have it. I'm deeply embarrassed and ask if I can sleep on the floor in the living room or something. But they won't hear of it; it would be a failure of hospitality. And so I sleep in some poor kid's bed that night. I like the Muslims for this spirit of generosity and hospitality. I remember one of the most shocking incidents I encountered in Australia was having someone relate to me an anecdote about her friend's mother telling her to replace the bread and butter she used while a guest in their house (she didn't stay there long at all). She was so insulted, she filled the larder. Was it because she was Asian? Or was that friend's mother just a calculative jerk who did not know how to give anyway? We will never know. There is a reason I hate the calculatingness of the modern economy – it steals something from us when we are not looking. It steals friendship and generosity and hospitality. It steals from us our ability to give and take with open hands and an open heart, confident that there is nothing back behind the giving.

We go out for dinner at a hawker stall nearby-- it's owned by the people we are staying with and the food is excellent. I expected that we would be really hungry and ready to stuff ourselves like pigs. But interestingly, I find that I can't eat all that much despite the few days of minimal food and extreme activity. I notice that everyone else doesn't seem to be stuffing their face totally either. That's interesting. We then go back home and sit and talk to our hosts a little and finally go to bed. The rest that night is wonderful; deep and refreshing. I wake up the next morning with muscles aching (which I expected) but with my feet feeling funny. I sense everything underfoot; every pebble, every grain. My feet were waterlogged and totally shrivelled the day before but it didn't explain the sensations I was getting then. I only tweaked the following day when I found that my feet and ankles swollen to almost one and a half times their regular size – combination of excessive prolonged standing and sitting (the bus journey was 10 hours or so) and also dehydration and my electrolytes being totally off. Not a good combination – I returned to normal once I started drinking and eating normally and I am fine now.

We spend the morning drying out our wet clothes or at least those of us with enough energy to unpack and then repack our bags did. And while our clothes were drying, we went for a dip in the hot springs. Oh that was lovely. It relaxed our muscles and helped us unwind. And then it was back to the house again to pack and get going to the bus interchange for our journey back to KL and then onto Singapore.

What can I say? I paid RM500 to suffer and join the military for 4 days so some of my friends say! They think I am nuts. Oh but I gained so much and I loved every moment of it. It wasn't just the skills that I picked up there. I needed a different space to let certain reflections sit ... some of which you read about here and others are elsewhere in my head and in my hand. I needed to be reminded of what it was like to be tested. Maybe I am an adrenaline junkie but I don't think so. I need a sense of a form of life which was somehow more elemental, more concrete than the life that I live ordinarily – somehow I can't function properly without that every once in a while and I hadn't been doing that lately. I have always needed that and the jungle for me has always offered that. It keeps me honest; it gives me the happiness of being free but reminds me at one and the same time of the austerity and harshness of that freedom because nature is unforgiving of fools. But isn't this why the Talmud reminds us that humanity, while deriving from and belonging to nature, is separated from nature by an essential dimension? Because it is humanity that offers us the space to forestall the instant of natural brutality with speech and thought which allow us cooperation and communal action in peace; and affords us the capacity for grace, mercy and love?

Sigh. I read all this and it sounds right to me. But I know also that it sounds out of place in the professional world I inhabit where humanity is thought of as just so many synapses and ideals just another bunch of constituted ideas. A humanist sensibility is just so outmoded in the 21st century but the thing is that I can't find anything that fits me all that much better.

More hiking adventures next time.