Here at Sayoni, we are not just about emotive stories, sociological observations, philosophical musings and political arguments. We do get out.

For the queer woman in Singapore, there are not a lot of options in the night scene – mainly small, rather dated pubs. Self-expression is limited at mainstream clubs catering to heterosexuals and I hear the butch-looking have been refused entry at their doors too. Our only respite in this desert is the occasional queer women’s parties at larger venues.

Last night, we arrived at Zouk for a Herstory party about an hour before the musical was to begin. At the counter, pride accessories ‘imported from the US’ such as rainbow wristbands and lanyards were available for sale next to the tickets. The male bouncers in white suits guarding the entrance were an elegant touch.

Inside, most of the best tables had been reserved and there were only a few stools, so we had to stand while we waited. According to lublub, it was usually packed by this time at previous pageants, but tonight, the stale air limbered along with the music. We were waiting for the musical featuring past Butch Hunt and Femme Quest winners.

 

This is a guest-post by Loverbunny, from The Lesbian Lifestyle

When I was a kid I always thought feminists and lesbians were the same. When I discovered my own sexuality and finally, at 15, began the grueling process of coming out, I realized how wrong I was as a kid. To gain a little more perspective on the subject, I did search the net for some resources. I took a women’s studies course about a year ago and loved every minute of it. When I was younger I assumed that all women in women’s studies courses were lesbians and all girls who went to all girl’s schools were lesbians as well. I was SO wrong. My freshman year of college, I only met ONE lesbian from the all girl’s school across town from my school. And in my women’s studies class, I was the only lesbian.

When I did the internet search, I found a page on Lesbian Feminism at Wikipedia. I got a hit for “Lesbian Feminism.” Here are the 7 key themes of lesbian feminism as defined by Sheila Jeffreys.

1. An emphasis on women’s love for one another.
2. Seperatist organizations.
3. Community and ideas.
4. Idea that lesbianism is about choice and resistance.
5. Idea that the personal is the political.
6. A rejection of heirarchy in the form of role-playing and sado-masochism.
7. A critique of male supremacy which eroticises inequality.

While a few of those are great like numbers 1 and 3…there is a big problem with others, especially number 4. In this view, homosexuality is a choice or conscious response to man-made organizations. I completely disagree. While some girls may choose it because it’s in the media and it’s “cool” to be bi…I can’t understand why someone would consider sexuality a choice. My sisters did not choose to be straight. They just are. I did not choose to be a lesbian. I just am. Why would I choose such a hard path in life if I could just choose to love men instead?

I guess everyone would have heard of the Ted Haggard scandal by now. If you haven’t, here is a brief summary of what happened: One of America’s most influential evangelist, Pastor Ted Haggard, who heads a ten-thousand strong church and is a fierce opponent against gay marriage, has been exposed as living a double life as a gay person. Apparently, he had employed the services of a call boy over an extended period of time. When the call boy saw Ted on TV opposing homosexuality and gay marriage, he decided to spill the beans on Ted to the media. Enraged by Ted’s hypocrisy, the call boy decided to break the code of silence and bring the truth to light.

I guess in a surreal way, this is a fantasy come true. Let me explain why’.

For many of us, we have been attacked by religious people at some point of our lives with regards to sexuality. And it hurts. Badly. These emotional wounds that will heal over time (forgiven but not forgotten); leave an unmistakable scar on our psyches. And there is nothing that triggers past pains more strongly than an old scar being dug at. I should know, after all, the strongest homophobia I encountered was from fellow Christian friends when I came out. And it hurt me really badly because I was at that point of my life when I was vulnerable and needed support, not condemnation.

There were some hurtful things said. For example, I was likened to ‘an animal’. Worse, it came from a friend who identified as ‘ex-gay’. And it cut me so badly I cried buckets, at home, in school. To others. It also developed in me a deep hatred (at that point of time) for religious homophobia. I couldn’t imagine anything worse than those moments.

As the Penal Code is being updated, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has been soliciting feedback from the public about this proposed amendments. One of the avenues was through focus group discussions for welfare, grassroots, religious and women’s groups. I attended one of them by prior registration.

MHA’s Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry@ Home (REACH) officers had organised the focus group meeting well. Light food and beverage was catered before the meeting, as it was to begin at around dinner time. At the registration table, attendees were asked to record their Identity Card (IC) numbers on the list, to indicate attendance. It would no doubt be easier to monitor a person through this number.

Inside the low-lit room, paper and pencils were laid on their chairs for attendees. A REACH officer presented a general overview of the proposed amendments before the discussion began proper. It was chaired by three persons – Mses. Indranee Rajah (MP for Tanjong Pagar GRC, MM Lee’s team), Ellen Lee (a lawyer) and Rahayu. Attendees were invited to step up to the microphone to air their views. It soon became clear that the focus for the night was on the amendments which affected marital immunity for rape and criminalised gay sex.

Association of Women for Action & Research (AWARE) had done their homework and came well-prepared with cogent arguments for the amendments which particularly concerned them, mainly that of marital immunity for rape. Each member of their organisation presented an argument which was received with knowing nods all around.

One such argument was that the marital immunity clause had been created by a British judge in 1793. It was not only anachronistic, it was also incongruent with the Singapore government’s attempts (e.g. the Women’s Charter) to dispel the notion of women being property. Ms Rajah seemed well aware that the limited scenarios proposed in the new amendment would protect few women. When the room was asked if everyone felt that marital immunity ought to be completely removed, there was a unanimous consensus.