Hmm, this is the second reboot.
Seems like I go through phases of re-entering the blogosphere. So here I am, once again, trying to plug back in.
What's the inspiration this time? Stumbling across the blog of an temporally separated colleague, who after vacated the post that I now am in. Why should that be an inspiration? Beats me.
But welcome back me.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Monday, March 24, 2008
Goodbye, oh Stressed One...
For some time, I had been following the blog Stressed Teacher. Quite without warning last week, it ended with just a cryptic message, with all other postings removed, that it was ending. Then this week, it was gone.
So this blog posting is a simple tribute to the Stressed one. I had been following the blog for quite sometime, and in many ways and different levels, it had been very helpful. It is easy to speculate what might have happened, but I won't do it here, since, oh well, what's the point?
So, this is a tribute to a fellow educationist who appreciated the candid and informative sharing. Best wishes...
So this blog posting is a simple tribute to the Stressed one. I had been following the blog for quite sometime, and in many ways and different levels, it had been very helpful. It is easy to speculate what might have happened, but I won't do it here, since, oh well, what's the point?
So, this is a tribute to a fellow educationist who appreciated the candid and informative sharing. Best wishes...
Thursday, February 21, 2008
YOG? Hmmm....
So, Singapore has won the bid for the Youth Olympic Games for 2010. This was apparently announced at 7pm today, Singapore local time.
Hmm, somehow, I can't shake the feeling that the powers that be (in Singapore, there is only one power - the electric power) knew the results a few days ago at least. Why? Look at the staged ... uh ... I mean the stage at padang (yeah that's what I mean). Honestly, all the students that were specially gathered to await the release of the results. Could the powers that be actually have gone through the trouble with the 50% (?) chance that we would have to deal with hundreds (thousands?) of sad and depressed kids on national TV? And the performances would still proceed to entertain the crowds? And that the buses would know when to come pick the students up?
I apologise for the cynic in me... Have not managed to exorcise him/her/it yet...
Hmm, somehow, I can't shake the feeling that the powers that be (in Singapore, there is only one power - the electric power) knew the results a few days ago at least. Why? Look at the staged ... uh ... I mean the stage at padang (yeah that's what I mean). Honestly, all the students that were specially gathered to await the release of the results. Could the powers that be actually have gone through the trouble with the 50% (?) chance that we would have to deal with hundreds (thousands?) of sad and depressed kids on national TV? And the performances would still proceed to entertain the crowds? And that the buses would know when to come pick the students up?
I apologise for the cynic in me... Have not managed to exorcise him/her/it yet...
Friday, February 15, 2008
Biological Advantage of Gay Uncles
(This is written in response to Yawning Bread's latest article It's my gay uncle who takes me to school every day or you can refer to the sampler page. Please go read the full article first if you haven't.)
Specifically, Yawning Bread mentioned that a recent study found that "Mothers with homosexual sons had 2.7 children on average. Mothers without homosexual sons had 2.3." He then went on to explain the potential benefits that a gay son may have to a woman that may allow her to be more reproductively successful, i.e. an additional male to provide support the other children and the children of the daughters, especially in situations where the fathers may be absent or lacking in loyalty.
I felt that at a deeper reading of the figures, there appear to be a potential paradox in the figures, which I would like to point out in case other readers also stumble upon the same conclusion. And then, I would attempt to, upon even deeper consideration of the figures, explain it away.
A woman having one homosexual son, and as a result have 2.7 children on average, although more than the 2.3 children of one without homosexual children, would on the surface still be less reproductively successful. Why is that the case? Well, if a woman has 2.7 children, but one of son is homosexual, that technically leaves only 1.7 reproductive children, vs the 2.3 reproductive children of a woman without a homosexual son. So on the surface, it thus appears to be less reproductively viable to have homosexual sons, and thus, through the process of natural selection, would have died out from the maternal gene pool.
Upon pointing out this apparent contradiction, I want to then highlight that the above analysis have glossed over an important detail, that the number of productive male children vs female children would differ. Why is that so?
Take the case first of a woman who has a homosexual son and thus produces 2.7 children on average. What this means is that, on average, she would produce 1.35 sons and 1.35 daughters. Considering only the productive children, she would produce 0.35 productive sons and 1.35 productive daughters on average.
As for the case of a woman without a homosexual son and thus produces 2.3 children on average, she would produce 1.15 productive sons and 1.15 produce daughters. So, you can see that although a woman with a homosexual son produces fewer productive children on average, she produces a larger number of productive daughters on average.
Thus, one could conclude that situations where productive daughters are more valuable than productive sons will tend to lead to societies where women producing more homosexual sons, and societies which are more accepting of them.
(Whether this is a result greater tolerance of males to eventually "become" homosexuals, or an actual expression of a genetic bias to produce homosexuals is, in this case I feel, a moot point. And those skeptical of the second option should be aware that phenotypic expression of genes are seldom absolute but often triggered by specific conditions in the environment.)
So what are the possible scenarios where productive daughters are more valuable than productive sons? I'm no trained anthropologist but I can hazard a few guesses. One scenario has been postulated by Yawning Bread - societies where it is the males who leave their tribe to "marry into" the tribe of their wives. Sons of such societies would be less valued genetically speaking since they would not be around to assist in looking after the children of his siblings.
Another possibility would be societies where much adultery is occurring. In such situations, I cannot be sure that the child of my son would indeed be genetically my grandchild, as my son could have been "cuckolded". My daughter-in-law could have slept with someone else and hoisted the seed of that coupling onto my unsuspecting son! However, regardless of how adulterous a society becomes, I can certainly be sure that the child of my daughter is genetically my grandchild. Why? Because the sperm could have come from anywhere (not necessary the husband) but the egg never left the body until the baby is out of the oven.
Whether my theory is sound would need ultimately further anthropological studies to verify. Nonetheless, following from the previous para, it leads me to postulate why, homosexuality may appear to be becoming more "rampant" in modern times, especially in increasingly urban societies, over and on top of the fact that expression of the self is becoming more accepted. We are increasingly living in a society which may create the situation of greater (genetic) value of daughters over sons. For one, women, with increasing "power" in relationships so to speak, are increasingly more adulterous than before. In addition, with relationships becoming increasingly a series of serial monogamies, the "loyalty" of the biological father may be increasingly diminished. Could such conditions similarly drive up the chances of women giving birth to homosexual sons? Perhaps there are some truths to the now-demonized theory of absent fathers and overprotective mothers?
(Anyway, just want to point out that even I felt that my last para may be pushing the limit of credibility, but just wanted to throw out a wild theory for consideration. :-) )
Specifically, Yawning Bread mentioned that a recent study found that "Mothers with homosexual sons had 2.7 children on average. Mothers without homosexual sons had 2.3." He then went on to explain the potential benefits that a gay son may have to a woman that may allow her to be more reproductively successful, i.e. an additional male to provide support the other children and the children of the daughters, especially in situations where the fathers may be absent or lacking in loyalty.
I felt that at a deeper reading of the figures, there appear to be a potential paradox in the figures, which I would like to point out in case other readers also stumble upon the same conclusion. And then, I would attempt to, upon even deeper consideration of the figures, explain it away.
A woman having one homosexual son, and as a result have 2.7 children on average, although more than the 2.3 children of one without homosexual children, would on the surface still be less reproductively successful. Why is that the case? Well, if a woman has 2.7 children, but one of son is homosexual, that technically leaves only 1.7 reproductive children, vs the 2.3 reproductive children of a woman without a homosexual son. So on the surface, it thus appears to be less reproductively viable to have homosexual sons, and thus, through the process of natural selection, would have died out from the maternal gene pool.
Upon pointing out this apparent contradiction, I want to then highlight that the above analysis have glossed over an important detail, that the number of productive male children vs female children would differ. Why is that so?
Take the case first of a woman who has a homosexual son and thus produces 2.7 children on average. What this means is that, on average, she would produce 1.35 sons and 1.35 daughters. Considering only the productive children, she would produce 0.35 productive sons and 1.35 productive daughters on average.
As for the case of a woman without a homosexual son and thus produces 2.3 children on average, she would produce 1.15 productive sons and 1.15 produce daughters. So, you can see that although a woman with a homosexual son produces fewer productive children on average, she produces a larger number of productive daughters on average.
Thus, one could conclude that situations where productive daughters are more valuable than productive sons will tend to lead to societies where women producing more homosexual sons, and societies which are more accepting of them.
(Whether this is a result greater tolerance of males to eventually "become" homosexuals, or an actual expression of a genetic bias to produce homosexuals is, in this case I feel, a moot point. And those skeptical of the second option should be aware that phenotypic expression of genes are seldom absolute but often triggered by specific conditions in the environment.)
So what are the possible scenarios where productive daughters are more valuable than productive sons? I'm no trained anthropologist but I can hazard a few guesses. One scenario has been postulated by Yawning Bread - societies where it is the males who leave their tribe to "marry into" the tribe of their wives. Sons of such societies would be less valued genetically speaking since they would not be around to assist in looking after the children of his siblings.
Another possibility would be societies where much adultery is occurring. In such situations, I cannot be sure that the child of my son would indeed be genetically my grandchild, as my son could have been "cuckolded". My daughter-in-law could have slept with someone else and hoisted the seed of that coupling onto my unsuspecting son! However, regardless of how adulterous a society becomes, I can certainly be sure that the child of my daughter is genetically my grandchild. Why? Because the sperm could have come from anywhere (not necessary the husband) but the egg never left the body until the baby is out of the oven.
Whether my theory is sound would need ultimately further anthropological studies to verify. Nonetheless, following from the previous para, it leads me to postulate why, homosexuality may appear to be becoming more "rampant" in modern times, especially in increasingly urban societies, over and on top of the fact that expression of the self is becoming more accepted. We are increasingly living in a society which may create the situation of greater (genetic) value of daughters over sons. For one, women, with increasing "power" in relationships so to speak, are increasingly more adulterous than before. In addition, with relationships becoming increasingly a series of serial monogamies, the "loyalty" of the biological father may be increasingly diminished. Could such conditions similarly drive up the chances of women giving birth to homosexual sons? Perhaps there are some truths to the now-demonized theory of absent fathers and overprotective mothers?
(Anyway, just want to point out that even I felt that my last para may be pushing the limit of credibility, but just wanted to throw out a wild theory for consideration. :-) )
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Zeroes Reborned ...
It's been a year since I've written. So why suddenly the resurfacing of kuey?
Thanks for Otto, referred to many as a hero for his courageous coming out. (Hence, my title...) I guess this was something which affected me enough that I had to write about it. Or I would just bottle it up inside. Again.
At one level, I do admire him for coming, something that I've been unable to do, at least not to his extent. Being a fellow teacher, I certainly understand the double life that we lead, the constant I-must-be-a-good-example-to-my-students-and-i-have-to-lead-a-double-
life-or-at-least-a-secret-one feeling, the fear that not only will my career will go down the drain but that I would make front page news (on The New Paper, no less) for "GAY TEACHER CORRUPTING YOUNG BOYS!!!"
At one level, I try to make excuses for myself. He's in (the more understanding) Raffles Institution, and I'm in a typical neighborhood school. I've got more to lose, I tell myself - he's only a teacher but I'm a HOD.
Excuses, excuses...
This episode has triggered other thoughts, some already simmering for a while. How long more do I want to stay with MOE? There's much in the existing system that I'm unhappy about, the usual that you hear about when you talk to any teacher. But on top of that, now I'm asking myself how long more I want to stay with an organisation that forces me to constantly hide myself, check what I say and do, distance myself from my colleagues (to avoid the "oh when can we see your girlfriend" or the "show us a photo of her). Something which every other colleague can "out" themselves as straight automatically and unthinkingly everyday. I want to be able to put a photo of my boyfriend on the computer screen, too.
So, there. Thanks Otto.
Thanks for Otto, referred to many as a hero for his courageous coming out. (Hence, my title...) I guess this was something which affected me enough that I had to write about it. Or I would just bottle it up inside. Again.
At one level, I do admire him for coming, something that I've been unable to do, at least not to his extent. Being a fellow teacher, I certainly understand the double life that we lead, the constant I-must-be-a-good-example-to-my-students-and-i-have-to-lead-a-double-
life-or-at-least-a-secret-one feeling, the fear that not only will my career will go down the drain but that I would make front page news (on The New Paper, no less) for "GAY TEACHER CORRUPTING YOUNG BOYS!!!"
At one level, I try to make excuses for myself. He's in (the more understanding) Raffles Institution, and I'm in a typical neighborhood school. I've got more to lose, I tell myself - he's only a teacher but I'm a HOD.
Excuses, excuses...
This episode has triggered other thoughts, some already simmering for a while. How long more do I want to stay with MOE? There's much in the existing system that I'm unhappy about, the usual that you hear about when you talk to any teacher. But on top of that, now I'm asking myself how long more I want to stay with an organisation that forces me to constantly hide myself, check what I say and do, distance myself from my colleagues (to avoid the "oh when can we see your girlfriend" or the "show us a photo of her). Something which every other colleague can "out" themselves as straight automatically and unthinkingly everyday. I want to be able to put a photo of my boyfriend on the computer screen, too.
So, there. Thanks Otto.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
The Irony of trains, wires and fares
Happened to glance at ChannelNewsAsia (CNA) yesterday, reading the little news blurbs that scroll across the screen. One of the first I noticed was how the train service along the North-East Line (NEL) line of our mass transit system was disrupted since about 1pm due to a wire fault. My thoughts were, "Sigh, once again."
Then most interestingly, one of the blurbs following reported that SMRT was proposing to raise its taxi and train fare. What a most unfortunate coincidence.
True, the NEL line is run by SBS Transit, not SMRT. Nonetheless, I don't think the everyday passenger would not notice details like this. And it's certainly understandable. I'm fortunate to drive (but don't get me started on the CTE jams) but I can remember what it was like to have to take public transport everywhere. To have your travel plans disrupted by train failure on one hand then told that the fare prices are being increased on the other hand just doesn't gel.
I recall a while ago, a driver who lost control of his car drove onto the railway tracks between Yio Chu Kang and Khatib MRT stations. The resultant disruption caused massive train disruptions and road jams on Lentor Ave for many hours during the evening peak hours. He was eventually fined for the disruption to the traffice. My question is - shouldn't train operators similarly be fined for disruptions to the train service? What costs to the economy when the trains break down like this? Wouldn't that serve as an incentive for these companies to clean up their act and be more vigilant?
Then most interestingly, one of the blurbs following reported that SMRT was proposing to raise its taxi and train fare. What a most unfortunate coincidence.
True, the NEL line is run by SBS Transit, not SMRT. Nonetheless, I don't think the everyday passenger would not notice details like this. And it's certainly understandable. I'm fortunate to drive (but don't get me started on the CTE jams) but I can remember what it was like to have to take public transport everywhere. To have your travel plans disrupted by train failure on one hand then told that the fare prices are being increased on the other hand just doesn't gel.
I recall a while ago, a driver who lost control of his car drove onto the railway tracks between Yio Chu Kang and Khatib MRT stations. The resultant disruption caused massive train disruptions and road jams on Lentor Ave for many hours during the evening peak hours. He was eventually fined for the disruption to the traffice. My question is - shouldn't train operators similarly be fined for disruptions to the train service? What costs to the economy when the trains break down like this? Wouldn't that serve as an incentive for these companies to clean up their act and be more vigilant?
Thursday, July 20, 2006
(Another) Reason Why We Shouldn't Have Religion...
Yes, many would accuse me of being ungodly with such a statement. And I hope I don't get hit with the Sedition Act, but sometimes, events around me just make me question, objectively, whether religion has benefited the world at large or not.
I mean, I have great respect for many religious individuals, and the individual good that they do can indeed be very inspiring, and sometimes nationally, as evidenced by people like Mother Theresa.
Yet, organised religion seems to overwhelm and negate all these individual good being done on a day by day basis.
What sparked off this chain of thought? Well, as of now, Israel has just murdered 352 people in Lebanon, most of them innocent civilians. Israel has declared an all out war against Lebanon, firing missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas, and last I've heard, have started invading the country.
And what does the rest of the world do? Discuss what sanctions to impose on North Korea for firing a few dud missiles into the sea.
Might I add that this is led by the US.
I can't help but ask myself what would it be like with organised religion. Israel wouldn't have gotten the strong support of the US, through aid and other support, with the strong support of the Christian Right group there. Actually, without religion, Jews would have been absorbed into the surrounding people thousands of years ago after their kingdom fell. Genetically, Jews have largely been indistinguishable from the community they live with, then with each other.
Many of you would say that it is not the fault of religion, that it is the result of politics. But would politics have the power to generate that kind of devastating power without religion?
I mean, I have great respect for many religious individuals, and the individual good that they do can indeed be very inspiring, and sometimes nationally, as evidenced by people like Mother Theresa.
Yet, organised religion seems to overwhelm and negate all these individual good being done on a day by day basis.
What sparked off this chain of thought? Well, as of now, Israel has just murdered 352 people in Lebanon, most of them innocent civilians. Israel has declared an all out war against Lebanon, firing missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas, and last I've heard, have started invading the country.
And what does the rest of the world do? Discuss what sanctions to impose on North Korea for firing a few dud missiles into the sea.
Might I add that this is led by the US.
I can't help but ask myself what would it be like with organised religion. Israel wouldn't have gotten the strong support of the US, through aid and other support, with the strong support of the Christian Right group there. Actually, without religion, Jews would have been absorbed into the surrounding people thousands of years ago after their kingdom fell. Genetically, Jews have largely been indistinguishable from the community they live with, then with each other.
Many of you would say that it is not the fault of religion, that it is the result of politics. But would politics have the power to generate that kind of devastating power without religion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
