Ready for the Human Race

We finally collected our Nike Human Race pack this evening. We had actually gone to the collection center at Clark Quay yesterday afternoon but left when we saw the insane queue. Apparently, many people had to wait between 3 to 5 hours before they received their packs! Nike even sent an email this morning to apologize for the inconvenience.

Luckily, there was hardly any queue tonight so the husband was able to pick up our packs easily. Inside each tote are the race t-shirt stamped with our personal bib number, a huge 1 liter Nike water bottle, a can of 100 Plus drink, one Live Strong wristband, one red Yahoo sweat cuff, the Champion Chip, the race guide, a copy of Lime magazine, Nike Human Race sticker and badge, as well as some vouchers from Fitness First and iStudio. Since we'll be finishing the 10 km race slower than 65 minutes (more like 120 mins at my walking pace - heh heh), we were also given the the green band.

Now we just need to hope that the weather plays its part so we'll have a cool, rain-free 'race' this Sunday.

Women may never get it

A follow-up article in The Straits Times today by Li Xueying [The Men Don't Get It. Why? Paternity leave would hit the bottom line hard, say companies] details some of the reasoning behind why policy makers decided against extending paternity leave to fathers, at least for now.

Apparently, the government had gathered feedback from women, who indicated that "they would prefer that the extra month of leave be given to them, rather than to their spouses" because "they want to spend more time with their babies." I'm curious whether any men had also been surveyed since only the female viewpoint was shared. Also, who exactly were these women and how many of them were there? How was this survey conducted? It would really interest me to find out more details about this feedback.

According to the same article, analysts suspect that economics too had played a part. Aside from the fact that men comprise 57% of the Singapore workforce (which by the way includes PRs too), compared to 43% of women (a difference of 14% or 281,000 individuals), men are also paid 27% more than women on average, suggesting that they hold more senior positions and that their absence from companies would have a greater impact on the organizations' daily operations.

So, what should we infer from these arguments? That females are more expendable than their male colleagues, and that there would be no point in promoting women to more senior positions since it would be more costly for the company when they take their maternity leave?

Puh-leeze!

Be Fruitful and Multiply

Among the latest incentives from the government to boost our birth rate are longer maternity leave (4 months!), additional childcare leave, subsidies for couples trying to conceive (finally!) and of course, more baby bonus.

But I don't understand how increasing the length of the maternity leave would encourage more couples to have children. I think there are very few couples, if any, who decide to have children so that the mother can take 'leave'. Wouldn't the long absence place added pressure on companies and female employees instead?

How are companies, especially the smaller ones or even lean departments in larger organizations be expected to cope with the long absence of their employees. Four months is no joke. That's a quarter of a year. And essentially, employers would end up having not only to pay the mother's salary, but also that of a replacement staff, leading to additional costs that would burden their cash flow. Plus, other colleagues would have to portion out the mother's workload and they may not take that too kindly. All this may lead to further discrimination of mothers and by extension, women, in the workplace.

Come on, let's be a bit more radical here so that we can really bring about a change in mindset with regard to parenting. Why not implement shared parental leave instead so that both the mother and the father have the same entitlement to paid leave to care for the newborn? After all, fathers must also bond with their children and learn how to care for them. And if both parents take turns, say the mom takes the first two months off followed by the dad, the shorter length of time both are absent from the office would be much appreciated, I'm sure. It would also provide fewer reasons for companies to discriminate against female employees.

Also, how about encouraging (whether with financial or legal 'incentives') companies or groups of companies within the same building or area to set up childcare centers for their staff, thus allowing parents to be closer to their children?

Workplaces should be made more child- or baby-friendly so that parents would have no qualms about bringing their children to work, for example if junior's school is suddenly closed due to illness.

In fact, companies and at the very least, building owners, should be required to make creche or nursing facilities available to their staff. I believe that many parents would feel more reassured to have their children nearby and may not even need to rush home so early in order to make sure that their children are fed.

I don't think couples need incentives in order to have children. At least, I don't believe that they could be so calculative. Even if they were, simple arithmetic would show them that the cost (real or opportunity) of having children is definitely much greater than any financial incentives handed out by the government. However, family friendly policies, especially those that impact employment and the workplace, would really go a long way in making parenting easier and less stressful for the parents and their co-workers.

What about the dad?

Have you watched the new anti-dengue campaign commercial on telly?

It features a little boy in ICU and his mother having flashbacks of happier moments. A voiceover expresses her regret that she was not more vigilant in eradicating sources of stagnant water from their home.

It irks me that the dad is only featured playing with the boy in the flashback scenes. Shouldn't he also play a role in protecting his family and home?

In today's society, where dual career couples form the majority of families, women definitely need more support from their husbands in raising families. They cannot be expected to bear the brunt of contributing to the family income and taking care of the household. Men need to also do their part, and I'm sure that many do.

So what's with the archaic gender stereotype then?

A medal for sin

Congratulations to the Singapore women's table tennis team for getting into the finals at the Beijing Olympics!

We're now assured of at least a silver medal. The first Olympic medal for Singapore after 48 years. Wow!

No one is expecting the Singapore team to win against formidable China. But as they say in football, the ball is round. Hmm, this should apply here too :)

Anyway, all the best to the women and may they put up a good fight tonight.

Like I always say, leave it to the women to get the job done ;)

My problem with the least favorite child

In a recent article published in Singapore's daily, The Straits Times, on 10 August 2008 (Feeling like the least favorite child), a Malay Muslim columnist expresses her disappointment at being treated differently (rather unfairly, from the tone of her article) because she belongs to one of Singapore's ethnic minorities. She brings up the perception that members of this particular minority need to work much harder to prove themselves and that they are burdened by the expectation or belief that their individual actions are regarded as a reflection of the entire community's capabilities or shortcomings. More interesting is her suggestion that such stereotyping is institutionalized through her anecdotes on family members being excluded from national service or the army, and I'm surprised that there has been no official response on that particular point. 

What disturbs me about this article is not the fact that I felt a certain kinship with the author, as I believe many Malay Singaporeans would (or for that matter readers from other minority groups), but that she made certain generalizations that appear to stem from the very same stereotypes that frustrate her. Does she actually have evidence that the large number of votes for the Singapore Idols were mainly from the Malay community, and is she aware that Malay Muslim boys do perform their national service in the army? Is it just me or did her article seem like one long gripe?

No doubt many Malay Singaporeans, including yours truly, would have felt the burden of the community's expectation while we were growing up, and we would have also lamented (or heard our parents lament) the injustice of the stereotypes attached to our ethnicity. However, by focusing on such perceptions and allowing them to rule our actions, would we not be guilty of stereotyping ourselves and of using them as a social crutch? Have we considered that by repeating these stereotypes, we would actually reinforce and internalize them, and impose extra pressure on ourselves and others? Or that we would start viewing the world through the eyes of those who want us to fit into a certain mould, i.e. self-fulfilling prophecy?

Perhaps it's time we stop complaining and start defining ourselves through our own actions, regardless of how we perceive or expect others to perceive us. There would always be people who refuse to see us for who we are, whether we like it or not. But there's nothing to stop us from taking charge of our own destiny.