Recent Posts

"No man can turn down this pussy!"


Friday, Mar 02, 2018 - 11:58:44 pm

Grace Jones is one of the most influential gay icons of all time. An actor, model and singer, she continually challenges societal gender norms. Her androgynous appearance is one of the most obvious indications of her gender deviance. In movies, she was usually typecasted to specific roles that portrayed her as someone who defied all Read more →

Categories: i will survive
This is so true! This is typical so in my culture, or specifically in my family too, where girls should be behaving a certain way and boys in another. And this follows us through where even in today's society, the men are societally the powerful ones and the women the weaker one. This is even reflected in the languages we used and the more so popular one by Lakoff labelling as women's language. I agree there was a clear distinction of gender roles being swapped. It is also interesting to see that when Murphy's masculinity was challenged, instead of being more firm and fierce with his reply (continue using 'neutral language'), he adopted women's speech style which eventually portrayed him to be 'weak'. The stereotypes of men's and women's language is as prevalent so. Not forgetting such stereotypes are passed over, especially for gays, when they are always expected to speak in a certain way- mainly the more feminine way. Just because we see their sexuality preference as weak and naturally associated it to the stereotypical weaker gender which is female and thus assuming they speak similarly so.
Hello Azzam! This video is certainly interesting and its fascinating to see how being deviant is portrayed in this short clip. Indeed, there are many societal expectations of how men and women should act, and those who are deviant are often seen as outcasts. I am really curious as to why just deviant behaviour is actually portrayed here as 'humorous'. Is it the intention of the director to make it satirical as a subversive message at how society reacts to the deviant? Or is it merely a reflection of how people who are deviant from heteronormativity might never be taken seriously?
I like how this video flips the gender roles of the two characters. As observed by Azzam, Jones was using neutral language and pursued sex, which is usually the norm for males. This makes the scene an especially interesting one as Murphy rejects Jones' demand for sex, which is something that is seen by Jones that shows that he is gay. I think that the heteronormative society that we live in today conditions us to think that all straight men desire sex with women, and turning down sex (like Murphy has done in this video) means that one does not desire women and instead desire men. Jones' constant challenging of Murphy's masculinity, while she employs masculine features in her speech, shows how she is deviating from the norms that are usually associated with females. This scene is able to illustrate how one's identity, or sexuality, can be performed.

I think Azzam has provided an interesting video clip that shows the swap in stereotypical gender roles. This clip shows how the character that Grace Jones was acting did not conform to the typical feminine way of speaking where it is subtle. Instead, she was straightforward and daring in expressing her thoughts and desires. On the other hand, the character that Eddie Murphy plays changed from a dominative speech to a subtle speech when facing a strong-headed lady. This shows how speeches can be adopted and changed in different situations. A male does not only have to speak to establish dominance, likewise a female should not speak to express compliance only. In fact, speeches should not even be categorized using genders. Instead, it is more related to who has more authority. However, in most cases, males would have more speaking authority. Thus, their speech would be more of the dominating kind.

It is also interesting to see how a word has very different meanings in this clip. Jones’ character has repeatedly said the word “pussy” to imply different things in the clip. Initially, she was referring to her own female private part, which is the vagina. Then, she used it to call Murphy a coward instead. This change in meaning is more significant since Jones considered her “pussy” to be amazing, that no one could ever turn down. Yet, Murphy turned it down and that makes him a coward.

Hiding behind the rainbow: Protection for gay in rape culture


Friday, Mar 02, 2018 - 10:00:08 pm

Review on The New Yorker

In light of the allegations of sexual harassment against Harvey Weinstein, recent #metoo movement came into play when Alyssa Milano used it in support of her friend’s Rose McGowan. Following the allegations about Weinstein, many others from both men and women, slowly unfolded. One interesting switch of event, was on Kevin Spacey. After Read more →

Categories: i will survive
This post brought up some pertinent issues with regards to homosexuality that I think deserves a lot more attention in the public sphere. Kevin Spacey's abuse of the homosexual agenda to try and downplay his sexual assault undermines what the LGBTQ movement is trying to achieve and just goes to show how easily the rhetoric around homosexuality can be diluted. On the other hand, homosexuality can dilute the rhetoric around many other aspects of language and desire. As the post points out, toxic masculinity and legal consent are issues that have not quite received public attention when it comes to homosexuals. So this was an overall illuminating read and reminder that homosexuality shouldn't be glossed over and treated as a separate construct from the issues surrounding heterosexuality.
Honestly, even though I know of the #metoo movement, I admit that I did not give special notice to it. This is actually the first time that I have heard of Kevin Spacey, and I am severely appalled at his actions. As Simin has mentioned in her post, Kevin Spacey seems to be using homosexuality as a defense mechanism. It was as if he thought that by coming out as gay, he would not be faulted and all would forgive him. Obviously, this is not the case. Rape is rape, despite the sexual orientations and gender of the assaulter, or the victim. It should not be used as a defense, or a weapon. No means no, and one should never ever force themselves on others without consent. Just because you are gay, it does not automatically mean that your actions are logical and forgivable. It is still a crime. As mentioned in the post, gays seems to be on the shorter end of the stick here when it comes to consent. Much has to be done in the future in order to protect their rights.

Do I fit?

Min Jun

Friday, Mar 02, 2018 - 01:00:04 pm

Have you ever walked past someone and wondered just what in the world was he thinking when he bought that hideous jacket? Or have you ever saw two girls holding hands, and wondered to yourself whether they’re lesbians or just good friends?

As humans, we tend to judge and label everybody that we meet in our daily lives – no matter Read more →

Categories: i will survive
I agree with you as the judgemental world we are in today, labelling of one's sexuality (especially opposing to to hetereosexuliaty) is required as it gives the hetereosexuals a peace of mind of what these sexualities really mean and are. However, i do see why some were upset with the judgements made on them. Maybe because, the discourse in which these labels meant differently for everyone. Like the one you mentioned, Sharanya who is technically a lesbian but do not identified so. Even within the community, there seems to be a disputes of agreeing on the label terms, what's to say the ones not belonging to the community has a better label for them? I feel even she mentioned this so, many will eventually still label her as a 'lesbian' at the back of their minds because that is what many would agree with so. This reminds us of how struggling it could be for the ones who do not identify with the LGBT labels and how often they are mistaken as one community you mentioned. I do hope one day these different communities will find their belongings. :)
Hi Min Jun! I think this is a really interesting video that sheds light on how much stereotypes and preconceived notions plays a part in labelling others, though this might be very unconscious. As seen in the video, many people had their own preconceived notions of what a person of a certain sexual orientation should not only act like, but also enjoy in his past time or listen to. However, in contrast, I feel like people are more accepting of the fact that people who are heterosexual can be unique in their hobbies, music taste and personality, so it is strange how because of stereotypes, we do not grant the same 'privilege' and 'autonomy' to those whom we perceive as different from us. Like you mentioned, I hope that we can all have more progressive and open mindsets and embrace every individual as they are, without the pejoratives and stereotypes behind our unconscious or conscious labelling.
Hello Min Jun! I really really like your post. It really does portray the situation in the world today. WE ARE SO OBSESSED WITH LABELS! Most of these labels are overly simplistic. Like our race in Singapore where everyone is supposed to be placed in the Malay, Chinese, Indian and Others model, this is also happening in the LGBT community where not everyone will fully fit into the specific role that is in place. I also agree that when one is placed into a specific label, they are associated with stereotypes of that particular label. Hence, people will question why that individual does not act like his or her peers of the same label (which is annoying). Let us hope that the world will progress to a place where labels are more inclusive and there are no negative associations to any one of them:)
I think this video shows how people today judge people's sexuality based on stereotypes. The fact that nobody guessed all the sexualities of the panel correctly also shows that it is impossible for one to guess another's sexuality just based on stereotypes alone. This video also shows how these stereotypes are prevalent in today's society as it was mentioned that the 'judging' and labelling by strangers is not unusual to them. An interesting point brought up by the video is how some people find that certain labels are not accurate descriptions of their identity. As Min Jun rightly points out, some people are forced to identify themselves with LGBT labels such as 'gay' or 'lesbian' even though these terms are not representative of their identities. I agree how these labels are basic and unable to fully capture the identities of these individuals, and that it is impossible to group everyone together using a specific label. Each individual is unique and labels are unfair to them as people have stereotypes about how people who are labelled as such should act.

I think Min Jun has showed interesting examples of how people are judgmental and quick into labelling through these two video clips. Humans usually learn through visuals and audios. Hence, using what we observe and what we listen, we construct an idea. This is like how we judge people. As seen from the videos, we do so based on how they look, dress, sound and behave. I agree with one of the queers from the video, Xandrie, that it is an unfortunate nature of humans to judge quickly based on these external factors. It is unfair to a person to be immediately labelled, without seeing internally who they really are. Yet, this is a practice that is hard to change since animals, not just humans, would always discriminate “others” who are different from “us”.

The videos also highlighted the fact that labels are technically limiting. Common words used in our various languages are official and have a standard definition in dictionaries. However, labels are not official terms and people do not get educated on them in general together. Thus, it is unavoidable that different people would have different understanding of how these labels are defined. Yet, sometimes I wonder if creating so many labels for various communities to identify with would be helpful. Or would it be better to just use a uniform and neutral word such as “humans” to label all of us?

your thoughts on 'pussification'?


Tuesday, Feb 20, 2018 - 02:32:30 pm

So, here we have this article about fraternities. Given what we’ve discussed so far about language, gender, and sexuality, as well as what we’read about the ways of communication among fraternity members in the US, what are your quick thoughts on this?

Also, as a reminder, here’s the video we watched in class that you may wish to Read more →

Categories: food for thought
Fraternities are a way for males to regulate each others' 'masculinity' through the reinforcement of the fear of being viewed by their peers as a 'pussy' (i.e not conforming to stereotypical masculine nature). Because of the desire to be part of the in-group in the fraternity and not seen as an outcast, the lines of masculinity are likely to be more clearly drawn in the fraternity than elsewhere.
I feel like this guy wrote this article to support his masculinity, proving that he was not only able to graduate his pledging, but also that he learnt many 'manly' lessons during the process. Though I agree that there shouldn't be participation trophies for every single person and that people should earn recognition rather than expect it to be given to them, there are SO many problems with his article. Wickham mentions that his fraternity taught him many life lessons that made him 'less of a pussy'. However, aren't these lessons what you should have learnt before you arrive at college? If you are not able to check your ego, be accountable for your actions, and be mentally and physically strong by yourself, that says a LOT about your person. A normal person should not have to rely on pledgeships, or a fraternity to get their life together. The 'war on masculinity' is in his head, because all the above 'qualities' that he mentioned are not only expected of men, but of all people.
This article is based heavily on the stereotypical masculine traits. Also, the tone of the author seems to be very intolerant of men who are less masculine or men who do not behave and act like a stereotypical masculine man. It seems to be that the tone of the author was deliberate, to make him seem more masculine or to fit in into his fraternity's idea of masculinity. However, what the author said is so true that it is almost scary. Majority of the man makes decisions keeping in mind the fear of being considered as a pussy.

I think that how fraternities look upon and treat people outside their fraternities, exists at every level. I mean that this exists in organisations and even families. Although I feel that one should not decide masculinity based on people’s ability to drink or get girls or drive a muscle car, I feel that the existence of such structures of belonging to groups somehow helps people. The danger here is that this allows, if these groups get big and influential enough, to perpetuate their ideologies and eventually negatively affect society. Clearly I’m confused.

I guess in a homosexual environment, being surrounded by all that testosterone, the fear that is inculcated would prevent them from crossing the line of being gay. They will constantly try to outdo each other's masculinity. In a way, this reinforces the stereotypes of masculinity. Hence, there is a constant pressure to portray masculinity and it could be mentally stressful for the members of the fraternity:(
It seems that in fraternities, there is a strong need to be 'masculine', and that is something that is already imposed from the moment someone joins the fraternity through pledging and hazing. Just like in the article, these males fear to be seen as feminine or be called 'pussy', and those who are seen as 'pussies' are often bullied or outcasted. This need to be non-pussy results in extreme 'masculine' behaviours, often involving high risks for these males to prove their masculinity through bravado. In my opinion, this pressure to prove their masculinity is very unhealthy, and being in such an environment constantly could prove to be dangerous, as we see from news of hazing deaths.
Considering they are using 'pussy'- a female genital part, to emphasize how masculinity is compromised in a male. It agrees that homosexual, especially gay, are associated to how woman's speech and actions. In this article, fraternities do not condone to males behaving like females thus portraying a homophobic environment. Boys who joined and are unsure about their sexuality, are kept at bay and may never identify truely with themselves.

I agree to a large extend on the opinions of the author as I can relate to them to a large extend. In Singapore, the context of pussification would be males before entering the National Service. After the completion of National service, males would be regarded as a “grown man” most of the time.

I feel that the article gave quite valid points regarding life lessons although it was presented in a really crude manner. If pledge-ship is equivalent to National service, NS definitely did put my ego in check, strengthen my physical and mental endurance but most importantly, NS teaches boys about the importance of accountability towards oneself and the others.

However, I do feel uncomfortable with the use of the word “pussification” as I feel that even without going through fraternity/national service, it does not makes males less “masculine” than the norm. These life lessons can also be learned even without going through pledgeship/national service.


As such, I feel that the idea of a less muscular man or terms like “pussification” might probably be created by misconception from social norms.

I feel that the author is very afraid of being labeled a pussy, and he is propelled by this fear when trying to maintain and showcase his masculinity. He blames the term pussy for every little decision in life - be it his drink or his car choice. I think this picture might also be an example of what the author meant when he said that pledgeship broke his ego. This is quite a degrading scene for the new member, while the other members are obviously enjoying it. I think that there are other ways other than these when wanting to "truly be a man" and to be "less of a pussy".  
Fraternity members seem to place a lot of value on expressing their heterosexuality via masculinity. From the article, the author implies that the qualities of a "pussy" are less stereotypically masculine, such as preferring Arts to Business and having cream in your coffee. From this, it seems he scrutinizes the most minute of behaviours and separates them into the binaries of "masculine" and not "not masculine". The values he mentions about holding oneself accountable and having your ego in check etc are indeed important for all of us, but the scrutiny he places on everyday behaviour/personal preferences displays how men like him are conditioned to believe that if they don't subscribe to the societal gendered expectation of a "masculine man", the credibility of masculinity and heterosexuality are compromised.
I feel like the reputation of fraternities is usually one of (hyper-)masculinity, especially because they are meant to embody traditionally masculine concepts (brotherhood, strength etc.). It seems as though frat boys feel the need to overcompensate to differentiate themselves from other college males not in fraternities? So they position themselves at the extreme end of the spectrum of masculinity, leaving no room for any sort of non-masculine behaviours lest they be perceived as part of the out-group (those not in frats) because they so desperately want to belong to the group with perceived higher social standing. However, to justify these kinds of toxic behaviours on the basis of a few perceived life lessons (that really should not take the experience of pledgeship to learn) is sort of ridiculous to me.
I feel that practices of any group would depend on the fraternity itself. And in this case, such in-group solidarity that reinforces one's masculinity resulted in a hazing practice. This practice could also be seen as a display of masculine qualities. I guess the reason why most people would just go through with it is partly because it serves as a common practice (like a tradition) that every member of the group goes through together as a shared experience. Since most associate fraternity with prestige, it is unlikely that they would reject such initiation. But then again, this article is rather one-sided, in its intolerance of "being a pussy" and superficial in the sense it does not touch on the underlying notions like wanting to impress the opposite sex (heterosexuality as a norm).
I feel that Madison is trying really hard to reinforce this somewhat toxic idea that fraternities are these places men go to become better men, physically and mentally stronger than before. But what he’s really perpetuating is the culturally constructed fear of being a pussy. He argues that pledging a fraternity is a rite of passage and is a process where men truly learn what it means to be a man but the things he says he learnt can be gained through other life experiences, less toxic ones at that too.
Firstly, it's great that the author actually got something out of being in a fraternity, I mean after all that hazing! Anyhow, his takeaways being socially motivated, kinda makes him a "pussy" too, no? It goes well against  traditional qualities of masculinity -  to have independence; ownership of his own life and decisions.  Secondly, there are many other viable options to instil accountability and personality as well as build solidarity; being in a frat is almost a total cop-out, easy way out, justified, to make themselves feel better by placing someone else to be "lesser. Thirdly, frats also serve to further proliferate notions of toxic masculinity and hypermasculine tendencies.
I don't even know where to start with this article. Putting aside how degrading it is to associate "cowardliness" with "being a pussy" (i.e. not packing 500 pounds of pure testosterone means that women are unaccountable and irresponsible??), the writer is pretty much doing a lot of "homosocial bonding" with this flaky article, if the comments (by frat boys) on what he wrote (as saving the website FOR frat boys) are anything to go by. Indeed, his proposition that men should be more accountable and responsible for their actions, that having these values exhibit maturity on the part of the men would have been agreeable but who said these favourable values were reserved solely for men? And to boost their own masculinity, no less. So one cannot be taught to be accountable and responsible for their own actions because, oh I don't know, they want to be good people but because one does not want to be seen as a "pussy", especially if one needs to act masculine to assert their own masculinity. Madison says that pledging into a fraternity keeps his ego in check but then raves about being "introduced to countless beautiful sorority girls" and a fraternity as "(his) ticket to four years of pure glory" all in the same breath. Nope, sorry, I can smell your ego from across the Pacific Ocean. But lest I'm admonished for an ad hominem argument, Madison is almost exactly embodying the fragility of what it means to be masculine - degrading the opposite gender (if you buy into the binary argument) like reappropriating a euphemism of their genitalia to label someone as a coward (yeah because aren't all women cowards?) is essential to boost a man's masculine ego in the eyes of other men. If "pushing your mind and body to their absolute limits (regardless of the fact that perhaps a man cannot bat a ball from first to third base because he just CAN'T get that amount of muscle and strength) is the cornerstone of what it means to be a non-pussy", perhaps it will be better if you drop dead and die when your mind and body gives out on you. (-:
First off, this article talks about the many stereotypes of what a real man should be. For example, things like being good at sports or being able to hold your liquor or even not adding cream to coffee (which is absolutely ridiculous, I don't add cream to my coffee, am I thus a cuck?), are all typical behaviours males are expected to have. The author further confirms that such stereotypes are very important to masculinity as he calls males who are any less than what they are supposed to be, 'pussies'. The problem with using the word 'pussy' is firstly, that males still think themselves as superior over females. That females are weak, artsy fartsy individuals who are way too soft and unable to push their mind and bodies to their absolute limits (based on his last para). This article seems to be a writing for the author to reaffirm his masculinity. But really, does one need a fraternity to learn how to responsible for themselves? How do females learn self responsibility then?
I think Wickham should make a trip to one of the hostess clubs in Japan. Clearly, this is an issue of confidence and the requirement of validation of his masculinity. Using the term 'pussy' to mean a sign of weakness hints to toxic masculinity. Wickham constantly plays on the stereotypes of a masculine male when he talks about the advantages of staying in fraternities. While the points themselves seem positive, the language used to describe them are laced with misogyny.
Masculinity is fragile. The entire post reeked of defensiveness against his masculinity and how small acts such as asking for cream at Starbucks makes one a pussy or less of a man. His use of the word pussy denotes negative qualities of a stereotyped woman such as indecisiveness, inaccountability, weak physical and mental endurance, which also make up the bulk of his argument when he talked about how pledgeship helped him gain those qualities. He insinuates that those who do not conform to or do not have these qualities are then considered feminine or less of a man. Whereas we don't see females who are not considered feminine enough being called "dicks" or an equivalent insult.

The article talks about the importance of masculinity by not being a pussy. That being said, pussy is associated with women. Hence, pussy is used derogatorily to denote when men are not conforming to their gender roles. However, if pussy is used by women, it is not an issue or it does not have a negative impact because it does not affect women femininity. Thus, man’s desire to not be a pussy is an important aspect to show their masculinity and to do that, Madison Wickham suggests joining a fraternity: Pledgeship.

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB ZH-CN X-NONE /* Style Definitions */
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;

The fraternity members’ fear of being labelled as a pussy seems to be key in their decision-making in life. The writer himself portrays himself as masculine through his choice of major, car and even coffee and talks about important lessons that he learned from being in a fraternity. This fear might have helped him personally, but this may do more harm than good for those who unable to deal with the pressure of having to be seen as masculine in all situations. 

this article (along with much of the discourse today, e.g. the aziz ansari issue) is frustrating because it lacks nuance. we keep trying to dichotomize people and acts: you can only be either hypermasculine or a pussy, sex for women is only either given with enthusiastic consent or it's sexual assault. the reality is that a wide continuum lies between those dichotomies. men can be masculine and order whipped cream too!!! also, it's interesting that the term 'pussy' is typically associated with weakness, rather than femininity (effeminate men). it's not behaviour traditionally regarded as "feminine" that earns men a reference to women's reproductive organ, but rather, cowardice and a lack of endurance/accountability. doesn't that speak volumes about what the patriarchy thinks of women? :~)

The article aims to defend fraternities and it was mentioned that ‘pussification is killing the concept of accountability’, however I don’t understand why the need to have a fraternity just so they can practice accountability? With or without fraternity, one can practice accountability. Also, the word ‘pussy’ seem to carry a derogatory term as it reduces a man to a reproductive organ - if you don’t conform, then you are a pussy. But the question to me here is, what is wrong with being a pussy? 

First off, the term pussy has been entwined with notions of weakness and feminity that these 'masculine' frat boys do not want to be identified with. It feels as though they care too much about this socially constructed idea and 'not being called a pussy' has become the sole driving force for them. Not to mention the constant need to be set apart from (possible) feminine-like actions and to assert dominance over them.   It all boils down to an individual's need for acceptance and I feel that their mindset makes them most vulnerable to the homosexual panic disorder. If being a pussy means making me happy, then I am a pussy. This guy is obviously unable to do that. To realise that it's FINE to like 'pussy' things, aren't you a pussy then?... BECAUSE A man would stand up for himself. And if you like cream on your drink, YOU PUT CREAM ON YO DRINK.
The article advocates for the assertion of masculinity in everything a man does in order to avoid being called a 'pussy'. It views 'pussy' as the worst thing that a man could be and something that should be avoided at all costs -- a view that is toxic in itself. This not only encourages toxic masculinity but also misogynistic views that are already deeply entrenched in society. Men being associated with anything relatively feminine is naturally seen as an insult and derogatory. On the surface, the author of this article seems to bring up valid points about how pledging to a fraternity and avoiding being a 'pussy' can be beneficial. However, I feel that his assertions actually contribute to misogynistic attitudes in society and at the same time, places unrealistic expectations on what men 'should be'.
When first reading this article, it seemed to me that it is a response to present ideas that fraternities are purely negative and that nothing good and value-adding comes out of being in one. Therefore the author proposes that fraternities push one to achieve greatness through desiring not to be a pussy. However, the opinions in this article seem to heavily reinforce heteronormative masculine characteristics as something that men need to possess. It also suggests that you need to "not be a pussy" in order to achieve something great and that this method of avoiding 'pussification' is an effective way for men to be propelled to do something they would otherwise not be compelled to. Honestly, this article makes me fairly annoyed and uncomfortable because it seems to continue reinforcing heteronormative masculine qualities as THE way to go, and that those who fall outside those boundaries cannot amount to success. The message that seems to be brought across to others as well is that you always have to face the challenge, and 'not be a pussy', in order to counter a problem, which totally disregards the other ways and methods and personalities that others may appreciate and be more responsive to in dealing with situations in life.
This article, while an accurate portrayal of the realities males live in, highlights the intolerant discourse of masculinity and also does not afford readers with a full picture of the issue. The article does not consider that the "little guy" who "couldn't throw a baseball from third to first to save [his] life" could very well be a future Nobel prize winner or that he could make other huge contributions to society in his own capacity. The article reflects the one-size-fits-all approach of masculinity - shoehorning males from different backgrounds, with different passions into one mould of the "ideal" male specimen. Also, we should examine the construction of masculinity within an overarching heteronormative framework. While the strongly articulated desire to avoid being a pussy is a huge push factor for males, the article does not consider the pull factor. The heterosexual system largely prizes the ideal "male" specimen: suave, well-built, tan, rich, ballsy. The article does not consider the pull factor: the desire to be deemed attractive to females within this heterosexual construct that we have been socialised into.
For a 'boys only' club, the last thing they want would literally be a female, and what's more feminine than a female reproductive organ? Personally, I feel that the 'pussification' of men only pushes the agenda of men's rights advocacy activists, with men who do not fit into stereotypically masculine gender role being 'not men'. Social norms are hard to change, and joining a fraternity where masculinity is embedded and indexed by widely use phrases (assuming that women are discussed frequently, whether it is for solidarity or competition) makes it much harder for anyone to challenge non-normative sexualities. Joining a fraternity would already be a foot in the door, and by the time actual, physical hazing happens, all efforts made by the wannabe frat boy would have already become a sunk cost, with generations of frat boys trying to justify all the trouble they went through placing much greater value on fraternities and the toxic masculinity it promotes.
Madison Wickham's article on pussification discusses about stereotypical masculine traits in a war against masculinity where he adopts a deliberate persona to portray him as a high masculine male in order to fit into the fraternity's idea of masculinity. Personally, I feel that Madison is frightened to be labelled a pussy and hence positioned himself at the extreme end of the spectrum of masculinity, where he is supposed to go for a Business major, to not have cream in coffee and so on. The fear of being labelled a pussy is very real as these "pussies" tend to be bullied or outcasted in the society, and something should be done for fear of more deaths from pledging or hazing.
First above all, yes, it was completely unnecessary to include the word "pussy" in the headline. For one, why condemn another's way of life just because your masculinity is being threatened? I guess we're at this point where the internet is a platform for one to prove that "I/we are above them all", to get likes and comments for constant reassurance of "my/ourselves" and to find like-minded people to prove that they are not the outcast. The deliberate use of a derogatory term just seems like a pathetic move by the author to project hate for anti-frats and a silent cry to protect his own masculinity. Sadly, this avoidance of 'pussification', or the extreme reinforcement of hetero-masculine traits has also become a mindset for many males even in Singapore.

After reading the article, I feel unjust that women’s genitals or “pussies” are being used as a negative term or representation of weak or coward. I think that both sexes’ genitals should be treated at equal status since both are essentially required for reproduction. Not to forget that it is through a woman’s womb or vagina that a baby is conceived. Can men imagine how much tolerance or courage is needed for a woman to go through a painful childbirth process? Thus, why are women or their pussies being considered as weak or cowardly?

Moving on deeper into the context of the article and video, I think that there are advantages and disadvantages of fraternities. As seen, fraternities, much like sororities, give a sense of belonging and identification to individuals, making them feel that they are part of a group. I believe that it is in human’s nature to seek acceptance or recognition from others since most of us are born and raised in a community. Thus, I do agree with the saying that the environment sculpts how living beings grow.

Yet, the video mentioned about “better be safe than sorry” and “social cues”. Is our environment or society being too inflexible or restricted such that individuals feel pressured to grow and shine from their inner selves? There should be a balance between being independent and taking in opinions. I feel that we should be sensible, responsible and accountable for ourselves ultimately, not to others. The author of the article seems to be overly-reliant on his fraternity that he may have forgotten his true self. He believed that his fraternity did sculpt him into a “better man”. However, who was the one who set the expectation or definition of this “better man”? Is it his fraternity or himself?

From what I see, this “better man” is merely a more disciplined man, someone who can take control of his life. Any individual could achieve that, either through self help or help from peers and family. This has nothing to do with being in a fraternity or being a “pussy”. 

"The garden's looking very homosexual this morning"

Tan Jun Yi

Thursday, Feb 15, 2018 - 02:41:53 am

Fry – When was the last time you could say homosexual in the proper context?

Laurie – And it’s such a lovely word!

Fry – Oh, it’s one of the great words – 

Laurie – “My word, Jane,” I used to say to my wife, “the garden is looking very homosexual this morning”

– Pilot, A bit of Fry and Laurie

Opening Read more →
Categories: i will survive
Thanks for all the videos Jun Yi!! With regard to the Talking Point video, I actually don't think it's wrong for the sex ed curriculum to educate students on the criminalization of homosexuality in Singapore because it's an issue with legal consequences. However, the manner in which it's taught is really important (but tbh I don't really have faith that it's being taught appropriately, given that Singapore's sex ed curriculum can be summed up in one word - "Abstinence"). PM Lee's response to questions on Section 377A are...unsurprising. No one is suggesting that repealing 377A will be a silver bullet to the problem, and the legalization of gay marriage hasn't been the answer either (as PM Lee rightly mentions). However, there's no single solution to homophobia. Repealing 377A, although highly contentious, could be a step in the right direction though.
I think it is very interesting to note the Singapore media's stance on LGBTQ, such as homosexuals, transvestites and bisexuals. It is very true that the Singapore media portrays these LGBTQs very negatively, often making them the villains in local TV dramas like those you have shown in your post. However, I feel that it is odd that while they show such an extreme stand against LGBTQs, cross-dressing male to female characters like Liang Po Po and Auntie Lucy are highly celebrated. Homosexuals and transsexuals are frowned upon and do not appear much on TV, yet Liang Po Po and Auntie Lucy are featured in almost every major national event. Why such a stark contrast in their treatments of these LGBTQ characters? Could it be that it is okay for LGBTQ characters appear as comedic characters?

What is Bromance?

Lim Qiu Li Cherie

Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 - 01:23:51 pm

What is bromance? Looking at the definition from Urban Dictionary, it simply describes bromance as the complicated love and affection shared by two straight males. However, my personal definition of bromance means a loving relationship or bond shared between at least two individuals who call each other “brother” or in short “bro”.

To further explain my understanding, let us look Read more →

Categories: 1st post
Tags: xrated

What is bromance?

Min Jun

Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 - 01:23:49 pm

Not to be confused with a romantic relationship, bromance is a closely knit platonic relationship shared by two or more men. They are deem themselves as brothers, and confide in each other about anything and everything.

Kim Jaeduk and Tony Ahn holds their bromance closely to their hearts, and even credits who they are today to each other. They are each Read more →

Categories: 1st post
Tags: bromance

What is bromance?


Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 - 01:22:31 pm

Bromance refers to a close and platonic bond between two men. The bond between the two men is affectional and emotional, way exceeding that of a normal friendship.

This form of intimate friendship amongst men has become increasingly prevalent over the years, and some young men prefer such friendship with other men more so than that of a Read more →

Categories: 1st post

Bromance 101

Jaslyne Loh

Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 - 01:20:37 pm
Bromance /brəʊmans/ is a product of the morphological process of forming new words with a blending of the English words ‘brother’ and ‘romance’. A portmanteau created in the early 21st century, bromance refers to a close but non-sexual platonic relationship between two men. ? Such friendships are usually emotionally intense with a high level of intimacy and trust between the two men, Read more →
Categories: 1st post

What is bromance?

Boon Yong

Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 - 01:20:24 pm

Bromance might be interpreted as romantic love between two men because of the two words that it is formed from (bro and romance). However, it is usually used to refer to an extremely close relationship between two men that go beyond usual friendship and not love between two gay men.

Categories: 1st post
Tags: bromance

Your man is also MY man


Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 - 01:19:53 pm

Bromance is a close, non-sexual platonic friendship with other males. Such friendships are usually very intense with a high level of intimacy. These days, it is becoming more acceptable for men to display affection to their other male friends. As such, many men are finding that their close friendship with other men more emotionally Read more →

Categories: 1st post



Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 - 01:19:52 pm
— an intimate but platonic relationship between 2 males. It is built upon affection and trust. Their friendship transcends boundaries, such as secrets or in times of hardship, (usually as a confidant) resulting in a relationship exceeding that of usual friendship.
Categories: 1st post
Tags: bromance

Hello Bromance!

Veena Ang

Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 - 01:19:41 pm

Bromance, commonly deciphered as a friendship between two males as close as brothers, yet as sweet as a romantic relationship. One perfect example would be the bromance between these two South Korean actors: Jisoo and Nam Joo Hyuk.

Categories: 1st post



Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 - 01:19:37 pm

A relationship between two males, one that is intimate and and emotionally intense. It is one that has no boundaries like sharing secrets and doing everything together. It is pretty much like the friendship between two girl besties except you know, bromance involves two males. It is tight-knit, bitchy and gossipy to a certain extent, but comfortable and Read more →

Categories: 1st post



Tuesday, Feb 06, 2018 - 01:19:27 pm

A combination of the phrase “bro romance” used by men to express the value of their bro code with another man while negating the possibility of their friendship being misinterpreted as romance, because homo ist bad n unmanly!11!!!!1!

Categories: 1st post