Conscription Part 3/5: Pointing Fingers
The opinions toward conscription to a certain extent can be divided down to sex. Many girls are of the opinion that guys owe a duty to protect Singapore and should quit 'whining' about it, but that they themselves should not be conscripted alongside them because 'they are not suited for army'. This is ultimately double double standards. The first double standard is that of self-stereotyping themselves into the role of the fairer sex, at the same time demanding equal treatment, unfortunately quite a common practice in our contemporary society. The second double standard is that of volunteering others but not willing to do something themselves, again another typicality.
Guys (those that are against conscription), in the meantime, get all defensive and start to point these points out and state that girls should join them and serve in the army so as to achieve 'fairness' and 'equality'. Guys and girls, side by side, fighting the enemy. They reason, given the modern day technological era of the military, there is certainly no reason why girls cannot serve in posts more suited for 'their feminine traits'.
As both guys and girls debate on their ideals of conscription and whether it should incorporate girls as well to achieve 'equality', they are missing out on the finer detail. This is the kind of 'an eye for an eye' mentality that is so self-destructive in purpose. A guy thinks 'Since I am forced to be in the army, why can't girls be in the army as well, to be fair?' Even if this misguided notion of equality is fulfilled and girls are consequently drafted into the army, what does he stand to gain? He will still be stuck as a conscript until the end of his term.
If 'equality' is what guys want, why not just campaign for themselves NOT being conscripted? Won't that be 'equality' as well? Rather than having both guys and girls in the army, why not have both guys and girls NOT in the army? Instead of hauling their female peers down the drain with them, why not haul themselves out of the sewers? Wouldn't that be more constructive?
Guys and Girls, both in civil society, living the civil life side by side as they should be entitled to, rather than pointing fingers at each other on who owes a duty to national security.
Perhaps, the answer to national security could be sought through other means. There is no reason why the answer has to be through conscription. I will elaborate in the next parts.
__________________________________________________________
Part 4: Is National Service really a service to our land?
Part 5: Are there alternate avenues to conscription?
Guys (those that are against conscription), in the meantime, get all defensive and start to point these points out and state that girls should join them and serve in the army so as to achieve 'fairness' and 'equality'. Guys and girls, side by side, fighting the enemy. They reason, given the modern day technological era of the military, there is certainly no reason why girls cannot serve in posts more suited for 'their feminine traits'.
As both guys and girls debate on their ideals of conscription and whether it should incorporate girls as well to achieve 'equality', they are missing out on the finer detail. This is the kind of 'an eye for an eye' mentality that is so self-destructive in purpose. A guy thinks 'Since I am forced to be in the army, why can't girls be in the army as well, to be fair?' Even if this misguided notion of equality is fulfilled and girls are consequently drafted into the army, what does he stand to gain? He will still be stuck as a conscript until the end of his term.
If 'equality' is what guys want, why not just campaign for themselves NOT being conscripted? Won't that be 'equality' as well? Rather than having both guys and girls in the army, why not have both guys and girls NOT in the army? Instead of hauling their female peers down the drain with them, why not haul themselves out of the sewers? Wouldn't that be more constructive?
Guys and Girls, both in civil society, living the civil life side by side as they should be entitled to, rather than pointing fingers at each other on who owes a duty to national security.
Perhaps, the answer to national security could be sought through other means. There is no reason why the answer has to be through conscription. I will elaborate in the next parts.
__________________________________________________________
Part 4: Is National Service really a service to our land?
Part 5: Are there alternate avenues to conscription?
posted by redrown at 12:40 AM
6 Comments:
Indeed.
Interesting and concise analyses so far!
I am really curious as to the alternatives to conscription that you are suggesting..
Agagooga: Thanks!
Anon: Well, nothing revolutionary actually, as you have said, all(most) of the issues I cover is what we know intrinsically, with emphasis on the realities and falsities of NS.
Also, I do suggest alternatives but the focus is illustrating that there may be more than meets the eye to the reasons for conscription.
It may also be prudent for me to state that I am actually not advocating the abolishment of NS (bcos they simply will not do that), but rather, to expose the BS-ing and psycho-manipulating that is going on.
well, humans are mostly irrational and emotional creatures, hence the unproductive knee-jerk responses.
The gahmen will be comforted that the political discourse on NS is still languishing on this level.
Nothing approaching what they fear.
Especially since those who are brainwashed into thinking NS is both critical and beneficial far outnumber the antagonists thus such voices are both isolated and drowned out.
That's why they initiated the Propaganda Programe (National 'Education') after all
Post a Comment
<< Home