"Well I think the primary reason is because women nowadays are more educated. That is why they are opting to remain single." At first I was like thats very vague and it doesnt really answer the question does it? I mean thats what my social studies textbook said. WOMEN ARE MORE EDUCATED NOW! Ok... and? Women are more educated now... So what is she saying? That with education comes the revelation that careers are more important than getting a partner and having kids? Ok wait that can never happen in Singapore can it? Education that is not pro-baby making.
However, thanks to the sneer in her tone when saying it, I realised that she actually meant that women dont need men anymore because they have their careers, and therefore can afford to buy their own shoes and chocolate. Oh and well she would rather have a bundle of money than a bundle of joy (Kids). To be honest, Im not really angry or anything, just very alarmed. I watched a documentary on Discovery channel a few weeks back on how the Y-chromosome is rapidly evolving. evolving to become an X-chromosome(I think). This fact, as interpreted by scientists, is suggesting that the male species is dying out slowly. Evolution is getting rid of the male species. It must be true. Look at how nature is moving towards that direction. Inching ever so slowly yet gradually. Women are shunning men now for their careers. Which indicates that they are learning to take full independence. First it was equal rights, and tomorrow they will rule the world. Im scared man. Especially if my sister becomes the leader of the world. She will turn all men into house-elves or something. Oh and look at the growing number of lesbians. They are all signs I tell you! I dont wanna turn into a lady man... Hey I think its because of the female genes they are injecting into chickens... then all you meat eaters eat them and turn gay. I dont wanna die out man!
On a lighter note, I was speaking to someone not too long ago. He is a muslim from the middle-east. He couldnt really speak english properly and we were having a serious discussion that turned really hilarious(for me). He was explaining to me how Islam and Christianity were actually quite similar. He spoke to me about Allah and then about Jesus. The funny thing was he didnt really know how to pronounce Jesus, so he kept referring to him as "Juices". I tried maintaining a straight face, but he just kept calling him "Juices". Im not insulting or anything btw, and its not his fault too because he seriously didnt know, but it was funny. I was biting my tongue to keep myself from smiling, or bursting into laughter for that matter. Later on, he was showing pictures of his town and there was this picture of cows grazing in an open field. Ill transcribe.
Him: You see this picture, very nice. You can see the beef?
Me: Beef?
Him: Ya ya... you see... so many beef lah. All eating in the field.
* I was smiling already, trying not to laugh.
Me: Oh yeah... you mean the cows. Its beautiful.
It was funny in the beginning, but to think of it, was it really wrong to call it beef? I mean we call hens and roosters "Chickens" and its accepted. We use the term "fish" for both the live version and the dead version on our plates. I guess once people start thinking of a particular animal as only a source of food and nothing else, its "food" name is accepted as its original name. Isnt that what women used to suffer from? Lack of identity and respect and rights. I think animals should be given their due rights too. Someone once said that the 19th century saw the rights to man, the 20th century to women and the 21st century shall see the rights to animals. I wonder if this will come true...???
Goodnight
Santo has left the building.
3 comments:
haha no lah it's the language lah... we have separate words for the animal and the meat in english but in melayu, for example, it's just 'lembu' and 'daging lembu', 'kambing' and 'daging kambing' etc. right?
No lah... he wasnt malay... anyway perhaps his language also is similar to malay or smthin, but it was still really funny. Haha.
i found the evidence! am studying now and re-reading my notes so here it is:
"For example, take the English word 'sheep' and the French word 'mouton'. The word...'sheep' conveys a particular meaning...to the British: to the French, the word 'mouton', although clearly describing the same animal, has a subtly different meaning. This is because, in French, it means both the animal and the meat that comes from it. The British city dweller's view of sheep as attractive rural accessory would make no sense in French. So, meaning and words vary in an arbitrary way and reflect a different sense of reality. They cannot construct a single, all-encompassing reality."
-- John Warren, History and the Historians (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1999), p. 17.
Post a Comment