Amirah - Wominnovation

How has technology advancement brought about breakthroughs for women, especially those in less-developed countries?

Technology advancement has brought about several breakthroughs for women in less-developed countries (LDC). Firstly, technological advancements has allowed women to have less children or the number of children they desire. This is made possible by the introduction of birth-control pills which have been highly effective in controlling the number of children a women has. This will allievate the burden a woman faces as she would have to feed less mouths. With this, the quality of life and standard of life a child experiences would be higher.

Furthermore, technological advancement has allowed women to be more accessible to work places and education. The invention of the motor scooter has allowed women to travel more distant places for education and work. This will drastically increase their working opportunities leading to a higher income and better standard of living. Also, women would be more productive encouraging firms to higher women for labour.

Also, technological advancements such as access to internet and mobile phones has allowed women access to information, education and communication. This results in them being less ingnorant and being more educated.

Hence, technological advancement has brought about breakthroughs for women in LDCs in several ways, through the introduction of new products as well as access to information.

Yi Lin -We Just Clicked

Firstly, the article talks about how the impact of globalization, advancement in technology, growing population size of those of marriageable age, ad the fact that it is a “lucrative and recession proof” business has led to the increasing number of internet matchmaking sites.

Next, the article states that there are matchmaking sites in US are eyeing on the fertile potential markets such as China and India. However, the differing cultures, language, the presence of matchmaking sites and the fact that they have a long history of matchmaking and arranged marriages, in China and India are obstacles to having an international match.

Thirdly, the article states that matchmaking activities are becoming increasingly common and more people are able to accept matchmaking.

I agree with the author that many people were, are and will be engaging in matchmaking activities online. The convenience of the matchmaking sites makes it easy for people to find a potential spouse as he/she may be just a click away. It would be a good thing for the working population of marriageable age as they can broaden their social circle through the sites, without having to find much time out from their busy schedule.

The increase in numbers of the matchmaking sites is also due to the higher status that women have, compared to the past. As more women go out to work, they are able to support themselves financially so they may not find the need to marry earlier as they need to concentrate on their jobs. However, as they get older they may find that its time for them to find a husband. Therefore, they tend to join matchmaking sites instead of seeking help from traditional matchmakers as they tend to be more adept at technology such as the internet due to their higher level of education.

Lynn Tan - Opinion: Why marriage as an institution is still intact in India

There are three main points to the article:

1. Indians take marriage very seriously.

2. Marriage in India is the transition to adulthood and it brings about many benefits.

3. Bigamy, which is the act or condition of a person marrying another person while still being lawfully married to a second person, is allowed in India.

I have to agree that marriage as an institution in India will still be continued in the future.

It is true because the Indians take marriage very seriously. According to the article, marriage is deemed as a multi-billion business in India. There are many avenues where businessmen can earn money, namely the houses they build for the newly-weds, the dowry and catering services during the wedding.

It is true because marriage is the transition to adulthood. In India, there are arranged marriages by the relatives and parents. It is also a very critical responsiblity that the parents have to shoulder. Being married brings about many benefits such as the redistribution of wealth among the rich and poor, restructuring social realignments, and of course, bring about the biological reproduction of the families.

It is true because bigamy is accepted in India. From the article, it states that it is very common for bigamy to occur among families in South Indian States such as Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh. This means that the men can still be involved with two women at one time. Therefore, it prevents the breakups of families due to adultery since the law actually permits it.

On the other hand, it may not be true that marriage as an institution will still be intact in India in the future. As India is touted as the fastest growing economy in the world, marriage will bring about a higher birth rate which may hinder economic growth. Thus the government may try to implement policies that will discourage people in India to get married.

Joy Chia - Opinion: Changing Family Structure

Think about the points raised (sexual regulation function, reproductive function, parental and educational functions, productive functions, economic functions, socialization functions, ascription function and recreational functions) and see if you agree or disagree with what is being said.

The family as a social institution has been undergoing change.

I agree that family structures have been changing, from what is termed 'traditional' to one that's 'modern'.

I do agree that the parental and educational functions of the family has been shifted to certain external agencies (like hospitals, kindergartens etc). Parents are now too busy working and they tend to put their children under the care of such agencies which in most local cases, are comparable to parents taking care of their own kids. This is due to the government's help in ensuring the standards of service given by such agencies.

I also do agree that family recreation is now different from what it used to be. Time spent together for recreation as a family used to involve going for picnics or movies as a family. However, recreation means these days have pulled families apart as they attract the young only. Examples are such as dance halls and night clubs and even gambling centers which may attract the parents.

I also agree that the reproductive function of the family is declining as birthrates over the world, especially in developed countries such as Singapore and other western countries, are declining. This can be further proven by prominent ageing population. And indeed, it is impossible to take away this reproductive function of the family. I believe that it is reproduction that makes a family complete as a family without children cannot be called a family.

However, I do not agree that the productive functions of families have declined. Families ARE still the places of protection for the physically handicapped, mentally retarded, aged, and diseased. It is true that external agencies are helping more than before, however this does not mean families do not play a major role. Families are the basic support for the groups of people mentioned above and they are merely hiring the help of agencies which are specialised and CAN provided the professional help that families are lacking.

Also, I disagree that the economic unit of families are no longer united by shared work. It cannot be said that members now work separately as majority of families are still supported by income generated by one or more members.

Therefore, this article which has been written by a member of the public which may be bias have got points that I disagree with as well as points that I agree with.


ps. I'm so sorry this is one week late!!! :/

Current reports on youth culture

Youths abusing drugs
Culture left behind in rush to prosperity

Kai Lin/ Who Needs A Husband?

The article 'Who Needs A Husband?' talks about single women, and the writer addresses the issue of how people view single women, and why women choose to remain single.

First, the writer thinks that the reasons women remain single are because of a change in view of marriage. It used to be treated as something that brought about mainly stability and economic assistance, but now is highly spiritualised as spouses refer to each other as 'soul mates'. The idea of each woman having a 'Mr Perfect' also makes women have the mindset that if there's no love at first sight, then I might as well not get involved with this guy, leading to them remaining single and only marrying if they manage to find 'the one'. Also, the writer thinks that women enjoy the freedom and perks of singlehood too much to give it up even for 'the one'. The women's movement makes women feel empowered and want men to value them, so they wait for the right one. Some women also feel that they want men in their lives only if their husband adds on to them and not change who they are in person. They will not get married if they find their relationship too limiting in terms of personal and professional growth. In some cases, women avoid marriage because they witness failing marriages around them in their friends and relatives' lives. Affairs leading to unhappiness between couples and children suffering because of that lead to women thinking that they'd rather be alone than suffer together. In addition, singlehood is now portrayed as a fun, glamorous thing. Gone are the labels of 'spinster'. Now, TV shows such as Sex in the City show single women and the glamour of being one. Also, women now find that relationships with girl friends are just as important as with male friends. In the end, though, the writer concludes by saying that women are single by choice. They are the reason for their singlehood because if they had made some compromise and settled down, then they wouldn't be single.

Second, the writer analyses the change in society in general, and how these changes could affect women and their choices in getting married. The general attitudinal changes are that the labels of 'spinster' have been removed. Single women now enjoy happy social lives and fulfilling activities like solo vacations. Once treated as outcasts and having to face difficulties almost everywhere on being alone, single women are now more widely accepted and also seen as the "center of social and cultural life and heroine du jour in fiction". Other major societal shifts include women getting married later, women more open about gay relationships and young women becoming more pessimistic about marriage ( they want to marry but also prepared for singlehood as they think men and marriage are unreliable). Also, most single women would consider raising a child on their own and they turn to adoption and solo pregnancies. The views on single mothers are changing. Once, people were unsupportive of them but are now agreeable and more empathetic. Single women in the past used to treat houses they bought as temporary as they were still waiting for 'the one'. Now, single women treat houses as permanent as they are ready to accept singlehood forever, and hence do up their homes extravagantly, leading to businesses (such as travel and home renovation) recognising that single women are a lucrative market, and hence have more packages, seminars and products catered to them. The writer also sums up the thinking of single women in briefly: First, they have this idea that some time in the future, they will settle down. Then, after bad experiences, they realise that solitude is okay, and hence embrace singlehood.

Finally, the writer discusses some issues related to single women. Single women may regret their past decisions to end relationships and keep questioning the direction their lives are taking. They also miss companionship, and some even turn to comfortable relationships with men that include sex but no hint of marriage. Single women might also be that way because they are too picky. The writer also mentions questions about single women having more promiscuity, people doubting the capability of single mothers, the issue of the widening gender gap and the fact that singlehood is not all about fun as they still have to deal with loneliness sometimes.

I agree with the writer that women are now seeing that there is more to life than marriage. From the article, Jodie Hannaman's "teenage fantasies of buttercream frosting and silky bridesmaids dresses first began to crack with her high school sweetheart... There were other men after that, but it was Hannaman who repeatedly decided against a life built for two. Marriage, it began to dawn on her, wasn't an end in itself but rather something she wanted only if she found the right guy." The fact that women now think it's okay to live out the remainder of their lives without a close companion shows how much the idea of marriage has changed. My personal view is that marriage is not a bad thing, but it is not a compulsory thing either, which is on the same page as the writer. I, too, like the writer has mentioned, have the idea of 'the one', which like the writer says, may be too idealistic and impossible to find. However, I think it makes sense that if you are not convinced that you enjoy the time you spend with someone else, then he/she is not worth settling down with.

Yee Tat / Who Needs a Husband?

In this age, women are becoming increasingly independent both socially and financially, this has changed their mindset that they have to rely on a husband for support. This is reflected in the statistics where forty-three million women are currently single--more than 40% of all adult females, up from about 30% in 1960.

There are many reasons for this change in mindset where women do not believe they need a husband to grow old with them, providing companionship. An estimated 4 million of these unmarried women are cohabiting with their lovers, and a growing number are being more open about gay relationships. In addition, the media influences from shows like ' Sex and the City ' where single women live the supafly life, which has changed women's perceptive that a husband is not that important as they grow increasingly self sufficient and confident which makes single women feel less isolated and more integrated into social lives.Women hence no longer sees marriage as a matter of survival and acceptance.

As for the matter of childbearing, in the recent Time CNN poll, 61% of women said yes to whether would they consider raising a child on their own. The method of conception would be through solo pregnancies, sperm donors or adoption agencies There is a change of attitude towards love and marriage. Previous generations of women made their barter as much as around much the need for male protection and financial help as affection. Now they are seeking for fulfillment, challenge and fun.

Hence due to the changing of mindset of the importance of a husband in their lives along with women's increasing self sufficiency and independence, they believe they either they wait for Mr Right or remain single as they have the capability to do so.

Shazunah / Two mommies is one too many

My take on this is that children should have the right to have a mother and a father. The article states about a pregnant women(Mary Cheney) who intended to raise her child with her lesbian partner(Heather Poe).

The parenting roles is questionable. No mother can truly be a father vice-versa. Having 2 mothers or fathers does not equal to having a mother and a father because these gender roles are distinctive from one another. As stated in the article "mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences".

Another problem that may arise is the social development of the children in the early years. Being a child they may not understand the idea of same sex couples. It may turn out awkward for them if they are in a society which does not support same sex couples. These children might choose to hide about their family and they might refrain from opening up to people due to these differences as they may be open to critism etc. However you may say that this is a stereotype point of view because in the modern open world people are beginning to accept such ideas as there are increasing number or same sex couples. On top of that some countries have recognized and made such relationship legal but the concern here is the children and their outcome.

True enough that in some situations where children are abandoned or orphaned it is best for them to be adopted by capable and financially stable people but the idea of having same sex couples adopting is still not the best option as they cannot be compared to a heterosexual couple that is as capable and financially stable as well.

Carmen Chan/ Two Mommies Is One Too Many

The three main points of the article are:

1)What kind of family environment is best for the health and development of children?

2)The importance of a mother and father role (traditional nuclear family)

3)Comparing similar situations to same-sex couples having/ adopting children.

I do agree with in the author that two mommies (or daddies) is one too many.

The article touches on important factors that come into play when deciding if having same sex couples should have children of their own. I agree with the author when he said that 'love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development...' this is very true as the development of a child is far more complicated than just receiving love from their parents. Hence, i believe that the best family environment for the health and development of the children is when there is a mother and a father looking after the children.

Secondly, i agree with the author when he said that 'A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa.' This is because it is simply impossible for a young boy to learn 'manly' qualities from his mother; nor is it possible for a young girl to learn feminism from her father. Simply put, a child needs both a father and a mother figure to develop into who he or she is to become. Thus, the traditional family nucleus is extremely important.

Lastly, although there a similar situations that involve only one parent of either gender looking after a child,(i.e. single parent families or divorced parents), i concede that although it is not the ideal situation for a child to be put in, i believe that these situations are simply not the same. As the author put it "We should not enter into yet another untested and far-reaching social experiment, this one driven by the desires of same-sex couples to bear and raise children."

Eunice / Opinion: Changing Family Structure

I agree with the writer’s view that the family as a social institution has been undergoing change. Over the years, families have come from being traditional to modern, causing the structure and functions to change.

Firstly, the responsibility of parents to educate their own children has been shifted to other sources. Also known as shifting the parental and the educational functions of the family to external agencies, modern parents do not educate their children as much as how traditional parents used to. Parents nowadays leave most of the educating responsibility to schools, expecting nurseries and kindergartens to teach their children the right moral values from young. It is part of the school’s responsibility to teach the children well, but its main responsibility is to impart knowledge to them and hence, parents still ought to focus on equipping their children with the right values. Parents are also the ones who have full control over their children; therefore it is important that they play their role in educating their children well.

This brings us to the next question: Why do modern parents shift such a heavy responsibility to outside sources? This is due to the change in the economic function of families. Members of a traditional family have different roles to play – fathers go out to work to gain income while mothers stay at home to manage the household chores and look after their children. However, in a modern family, mothers are increasingly going out to work, especially in the Western countries and developed countries. This is due to the higher standard of living, which requires higher income for a family to get by. Parents therefore leave their children under the care of domestic workers, causing a change in the economic function of families.

Thirdly, the reproductive function of the family has also changed drastically over the years. Traditional families would choose to have more children as they are manpower that can help in the primary industry. However, modern families are rather small and reproduction rates have been low because of the increased cost of raising a child. Children in Western countries and developed countries are seen as economic liabilities and therefore, couples in these areas choose not to have children. This will lead to severe problems in these countries such as an ageing population. The writer mentioned that “it is impossible to take away this reproductive function of the family as the very survival of the human race is based on regulation” and I strongly believe in this sentence.

There are also other functions that have changed in families throughout the years, such as the sexual regulation function, the productive functions, the socialization function, the ascription function and the recreational function.

Xingjie/ Are asian family values the future?

I agree with Wen Rui viewpoint on why asian family values are not the future for the entire world. She listed some rather vaild reasons on why asian family values are not the future for the entire world.

First, she talked about how Asian family values such as different generations living together are changing too and hence why Asian family values are not the future for the entire world as asian values are also being eroded in today's world partly due to rapid development and advances.

Secondly, she highlighted that both Asian and Western families did share these similar values. She pointed out that values of ‘ older ones nurturing the new ones, with the young in turn caring for the elders’ are not classified as only the Asian family values as the Western families do also value them and that such values highlighted in the article are actually values which people of all cultures,religion and race value.

However, i feel that there are some asian family values that are the future for the world which Wen Rui failed to highlight.

One such value is the value of filial piety which is greatly unique to asians. In asian societies, filial piety is one value which familes today still uphold. Filial piety generally means to be good to one's parents and to take care of one's parents in return for the love, care and concern which one's parents provide when one is young.

Filial piety is thus one asian family value which can help to enrich society. Filial piety can also help create a stable society whereby parents would provide for their kids needs and in return, when the parents grow old, their kids would provide for their needs.

Tan Wen Rui/ Are Asian family values the future?

So, are Asian family values the future for the entire world’

I feel that Asian family values are not the future for the entire world.

Firstly, Asian family values such as different generations living together are changing too, especially in Britain. Research shows that the number of elderly relatives living with their children in Britain is reducing rapidly. Thus, how can a rapidly changing Asian family values be the future for the entire world? These values would no longer be the same in years to come and can these new values be the future for the entire world?

Secondly, the values are not only belonging to Asian families, families in Britain also do share similar views. Thus the values of ‘ older ones nurturing the new ones, with the young in turn caring for the elders’ are not classified as only the Asian family values as the Western families do value them too. Therefore, these values are not Asian in nature but universal hence I do not agree that Asian family values only are the future for the entire world.

Thirdly, both Asian and Western families did share these similar values. For example, in 1950s, people in Britain did live by these values and that there were many’ life term marriages between couples living with their children, possibly accompanies by one set of grandparents and very low divorce rates’. However, these ‘traditional’ white family structures have changed swiftly, and in fact, more rapidly than the Asian families and they no longer practised such values. Thus, I do not agree that Asian family values are the future for the entire world. If they were the future for the entire world, families in Britain that hold on to these same set of values in the 1950s would not have been influenced and changed.

Lastly, the ‘traditional nuclear family is the ideal family for a stable society’, whereby a traditional nuclear family is where a wife, husband, and their two or three children serenely under one roof. The values of a traditional nuclear family are also the future for the entire world, not just the Asian family values.