Ke Kiri Pusing: How mandatory National Service perpetuates the patriarchy in Singapore
This is something I have been thinking about a lot over the past many months. These are some random thoughts about the issue…been meaning to write them out more coherently but I realize that may never happen due to limited time and energy (how come it’s so much easier to come up with a spiffy title than to actually write out the contents of what you’re trying to say coherently?). So I figured I’d just post this now and if anyone has other ideas or feedback, they can tell me.
Also, this is not to say that there are no other problems with NS; ofcourse there are tons. And this is also not to suggest that men do not suffer under a mandatory NS system; ofcourse they do, in terrible ways. This is just one aspect of the issue that I don't think has been explored enough.
My random thoughts:
- Entrenches military masculine culture in every single male citizen
- Entrenches the idea of men as protectors and defenders – of women, family, nation and conversely entrenches the idea of women as weak, vulnerable, in need of protection
- The shared experience of NS creates an exclusionary militaristic culture in which women are generally marginalized: they are simply the “to be protected”, the “good fuck”, or the “dutiful girlfriend/wife/lover”
- Provides opportunities for networking; expanding social networks that may and often do prove useful economically, socially and politically
- Opportunities for upward mobility – SAF scholarships, training for job opportunities for a military career
- Economic advantages: higher civil service pay, club membership SAFRA
- War, and by extension politics and public life, as male-centred space
- The male citizen as the most deserving citizen
- A hyper-masculine environment also perpetuates homophobia
- Mandatory NS provides an opportunity for young men from all socioeconomic status, ethnicity groups, sexual orientations and abilities to meet and work together (although the last 2 in limited ways). Women remain cloistered within their class/race/sexual orientation social spheres.
- NS as a marker of nationalism and citizenship rights. Citizenship is only the privilege of those men who fight for the agenda of the gov't.
Also, this is not to say that there are no other problems with NS; ofcourse there are tons. And this is also not to suggest that men do not suffer under a mandatory NS system; ofcourse they do, in terrible ways. This is just one aspect of the issue that I don't think has been explored enough.
My random thoughts:
- Entrenches military masculine culture in every single male citizen
- Entrenches the idea of men as protectors and defenders – of women, family, nation and conversely entrenches the idea of women as weak, vulnerable, in need of protection
- The shared experience of NS creates an exclusionary militaristic culture in which women are generally marginalized: they are simply the “to be protected”, the “good fuck”, or the “dutiful girlfriend/wife/lover”
- Provides opportunities for networking; expanding social networks that may and often do prove useful economically, socially and politically
- Opportunities for upward mobility – SAF scholarships, training for job opportunities for a military career
- Economic advantages: higher civil service pay, club membership SAFRA
- War, and by extension politics and public life, as male-centred space
- The male citizen as the most deserving citizen
- A hyper-masculine environment also perpetuates homophobia
- Mandatory NS provides an opportunity for young men from all socioeconomic status, ethnicity groups, sexual orientations and abilities to meet and work together (although the last 2 in limited ways). Women remain cloistered within their class/race/sexual orientation social spheres.
- NS as a marker of nationalism and citizenship rights. Citizenship is only the privilege of those men who fight for the agenda of the gov't.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home