Wonder Woman: Stronger than Superman?
Long ago, and perhaps even up till now in some societies, women were seen as no much more than a possession. In order to gain allies, kings married off their daughters to princes of other countries. In China, when the one-child policy was implemented, families from rural areas abandoned their newborn daughters to die so that they could have another child, which had a chance of being a boy. And lastly, even now in India, to be married, the bride’s family must pay the groom’s family.
As such, given that women have such a low status in some societies, some people view them to be unfit of great power. After all, they seem to be inferior to men, don’t they? Well, not really.
Forbes magazine had recently published a new list of powerful women in its publication on the 19th of August. Heading the list was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, while the rest of the top ten held top positions in their companies.
People in societies where women hold a low status simply cannot fathom why women can be allowed to lead a company, even a whole country. As such, this gives them the fear that women, indeed, have too much power on their hands nowadays, and not without reason. They believe that women are not allowed to meddle themselves with “greater things” which are to be accomplished by men, and certainly not capable of accomplishing them either. When they discover the trend of more and more women being granted control of these “greater things”, they become fearful that women are getting more power than they deserve.
However, I think that this is not true, even though I am a male. The above argument solely builds upon an assumption that women are “lower beings”, which is formed in their society; hence they are unable and therefore not allowed to do “greater things”. However, from my point of view, which I believe is the mainstream mindset in the modern context, women are not lesser beings but instead stand on equal grounds with men. Therefore, in an argument built upon this view, women should get more power! Next, I will attempt to support this stand with two points.
First of all, these people seemed to have forgotten the fact that men still have more power than women generally. Even if Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany, the leaders of many other countries, such as the United States, Singapore, and People’s Republic of China have male leaders. There are also more male millionaires than female millionaires. According to Forbes’ list of millionaires (2008), only one female managed to enter the top twenty. Therefore, men will still have more power than women, whether or not it is through monetary assets or by rank.
Secondly, more women still hold the title of the domestic mother in a household than men holding the title of domestic father. Although more and more females are entering the workforce, in many societies, women still choose to become a domestic mother if their husbands could earn enough to support the family. This gives the women more freedom on making the household run, but the men are still the ones who determine how the household operates since he is the one who brings home the money. Therefore, this shows that men still have power over the women in most households.
In conclusion, the argument of whether women have too much power really depends on the pre-determined assumptions made by the individual. Although the fact remains that their argument on how women have too much power is true and well-supported from their viewpoint, the mindset that women have an equal footing with men is the mainstream mindset and if anything goes, these people might have to change their argument to suit this mindset should they wish to be able to mix in the mainstream society.
(644 words)
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
ERP - The Cost of Reading a Short Story ("Euphoric Reading Piece")
Q4c) ‘Sometimes we laugh not out of good cheer, but to avoid and absolve ourselves of a deeper pain.’ Drawing on your experiences, write a narrative essay that illustrates this quotation.
Laughter has been regarded by many to be the best medicine. Should it be stress or depression, laughter has been found to alleviate these undesirable health risks.
However, as a healthy young man, I would like to add one more benefit to the list. Laughter has also been known to alleviate the effects of guilt. Please let me elaborate.
When I was ten years old, I was selected to be part of my class’ soccer team for the upcoming interclass soccer match. Of course, being able to represent my class for such an event made my pride swell within me. After much sweating buckets of perspiration in preparation for the competition, we were certain that we would emerge champions. Our passes were well-coordinated and we had prepared special formations for assault and defence.
Of course, that was until I had observed Class 4A’s team rendering another class’ team helpless against their attacks during a friendly match. Granted, it was all due to the skills of their lead striker, however, the fact that the game had been a one-man show still remained. He had made shots at the goal like Beckham and his passing skills had seemed only secondary to Ronaldo’s.
It was as if he was the one who was controlling the game. As short and thin as he might be, he seemed to tower over the opposition team and even his own teammates. Hence, it was no wonder that Class 4A’s team won by 15 points by the end of the game.
After the game, the lead striker of 4A, who happened to be the captain, advised the team to rest until the day of the competition itself. As his team members dispersed while chattering gleefully to each other, I was livid. It was unfair to me for them to win without even practising as much as my class did. As such, in exasperation, I swore to myself that I would find to a way to make them lose terribly.
The only way for an ‘inferior’ team to win a ‘stronger’ team in sports is to use tactics. However, there are times in which the use of tactics crosses the line of fair competitive play. When such things happen, there would usually be a referee to make a judgement. However, even a referee’s power is limited in the sense that he only has his power during the course of a match.
Therefore, I came up with a plan to eliminate the captain before he could even step foot into the stadium.
Thankfully, one member of our team had been classmates with the captain of 4A. As such, he would first strike a conversation with the captain while I prepared the trap. I instructed my accomplice to lure the captain to the staircase during recess, where I would stick my foot out, causing him to trip down a whole flight of stairs and hopefully fracture a limb.
And it happened. The captain of Class 4A’s soccer team was totally caught off guard and he went headfirst to the floor at the bottom of the flight of stairs. As I dashed off (in glee, no less) to inform the teachers of the mishap, my accomplice rushed up to him to ask if he was all right.
By then, he felt sharp pain whenever he attempted to move his left arm. That meant that his arm was disabled for good and that he would not be able to play in the competition, which was a mere three days away.
During the competition, we scored five goals against Class 4A’s now ace-less team and won. Eventually, we fought our way to the finals and emerged champions. When my team captain carried the cup like a Holy Grail amidst the cheers and laughter of my teammates, I took a last glance at Class 4A’s team.
They were dejected. I could imagine how the news that their captain had fractured his arm after taking a bad fall tore through their morale not unlike the way bullets sliced through thin pieces of cloth.
At that moment in time, I laughed. Not out of the sense of prideful victory, but at a feeble attempt to absolve myself of a greater and deeper pain within my heart, a feeble attempt to hide my guilt and shame.
Laughter has been regarded by many to be the best medicine. Should it be stress or depression, laughter has been found to alleviate these undesirable health risks.
However, as a healthy young man, I would like to add one more benefit to the list. Laughter has also been known to alleviate the effects of guilt. Please let me elaborate.
When I was ten years old, I was selected to be part of my class’ soccer team for the upcoming interclass soccer match. Of course, being able to represent my class for such an event made my pride swell within me. After much sweating buckets of perspiration in preparation for the competition, we were certain that we would emerge champions. Our passes were well-coordinated and we had prepared special formations for assault and defence.
Of course, that was until I had observed Class 4A’s team rendering another class’ team helpless against their attacks during a friendly match. Granted, it was all due to the skills of their lead striker, however, the fact that the game had been a one-man show still remained. He had made shots at the goal like Beckham and his passing skills had seemed only secondary to Ronaldo’s.
It was as if he was the one who was controlling the game. As short and thin as he might be, he seemed to tower over the opposition team and even his own teammates. Hence, it was no wonder that Class 4A’s team won by 15 points by the end of the game.
After the game, the lead striker of 4A, who happened to be the captain, advised the team to rest until the day of the competition itself. As his team members dispersed while chattering gleefully to each other, I was livid. It was unfair to me for them to win without even practising as much as my class did. As such, in exasperation, I swore to myself that I would find to a way to make them lose terribly.
The only way for an ‘inferior’ team to win a ‘stronger’ team in sports is to use tactics. However, there are times in which the use of tactics crosses the line of fair competitive play. When such things happen, there would usually be a referee to make a judgement. However, even a referee’s power is limited in the sense that he only has his power during the course of a match.
Therefore, I came up with a plan to eliminate the captain before he could even step foot into the stadium.
Thankfully, one member of our team had been classmates with the captain of 4A. As such, he would first strike a conversation with the captain while I prepared the trap. I instructed my accomplice to lure the captain to the staircase during recess, where I would stick my foot out, causing him to trip down a whole flight of stairs and hopefully fracture a limb.
And it happened. The captain of Class 4A’s soccer team was totally caught off guard and he went headfirst to the floor at the bottom of the flight of stairs. As I dashed off (in glee, no less) to inform the teachers of the mishap, my accomplice rushed up to him to ask if he was all right.
By then, he felt sharp pain whenever he attempted to move his left arm. That meant that his arm was disabled for good and that he would not be able to play in the competition, which was a mere three days away.
During the competition, we scored five goals against Class 4A’s now ace-less team and won. Eventually, we fought our way to the finals and emerged champions. When my team captain carried the cup like a Holy Grail amidst the cheers and laughter of my teammates, I took a last glance at Class 4A’s team.
They were dejected. I could imagine how the news that their captain had fractured his arm after taking a bad fall tore through their morale not unlike the way bullets sliced through thin pieces of cloth.
At that moment in time, I laughed. Not out of the sense of prideful victory, but at a feeble attempt to absolve myself of a greater and deeper pain within my heart, a feeble attempt to hide my guilt and shame.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Results of One Mind-Boggling Session in the Computer Lab. No, wait. It was a torturous hour...
1. Summary
Article: Deaf to the World
A research has been carried out to test whether youngsters absorbed in cellphones or music players face greater risk of accidents on the road. The results showed that this is true.
First of all, cellphones and music players distract road users’ attention. Studies showed that sending messages while driving reduced reaction time by 35 percent. This amount of time could easily determine whether an accident would occur.
Secondly, such devices can render a pedestrian or a driver oblivious to his or her surroundings. These devices silence almost 100 percent of ambient noises, leading to the possibility of accidents.
97 Words
2. Commentary
Title: Devices of Mass Distraction
Have you ever had the experience of listening to your MP3 player while walking on a pavement, only to turn around and be shocked to notice that a bicycle was coming in your direction? Or have you ever crossed the road while typing an SMS, only to be jolted back to your sense when an angry car horn was sounded at you by a car which had narrowly avoided hitting you?
Well, I have had such unpleasant experiences before. Back then, I used to dismiss myself as being simply ‘ignorant’. But a few days ago, a frightening realization hit me: I might have gone through a lot worse if I were not so lucky.
The word ‘unlucky’ here of course would refer to the many road accidents that happen frequently in Singapore, many of which had cost lives. However, the issue on whether road users should be banned from using handphones or music players would be a more complex issue than being plainly lucky or unlucky.
Personally, with reference to my experiences, I agree that road users should be barred from using handphones and music players on the road. Despite the fact that such precautions could cause much inconvenience to many road-users, the fact that such distractions can cost lives comes as a stern reminder that we perhaps should reconsider using these devices while travelling on the road.
There are many reasons why handphones and music players should be banned from the road. First of all, devices such as handphones and music players distract the road users’ attention from the road. The RAC Foundation, a British non-profit organization, found that sending messages and driving simultaneously reduced reaction time by 35 percent. This 35 percent could mean the difference between life and death in the event of an accident.
As such, let us think for a moment: If such distractions were eliminated, how many accidents would have been avoided? How many lives would have been spared from these accidents?
Secondly, devices such as noise-cancelling earphones can silence up to 100 percent of ambient noises. This would mean that people wearing such earphones would be oblivious to their surroundings in their sense of hearing, probably leading to them either being unable to react in time to an oncoming threat such as a speeding vehicle, or rendering them unaware of their situation at all. In the event that the driver is unable to steer the vehicle away from the pedestrian in time, an accident would almost certainly occur.
However, many commuters have argued that if they were barred from using these devices on the road, they would be unable to receive updates and reply to them, especially if these updates are emergencies. For example, if they do not answer their company’s boss’ call, they might make their bosses angry, and in face of the recent economic regression, it might give a reason for a boss to sack a worker.
Others also argue that there would be much inconvenience for them. For example, if a spouse has asked a commuter out for dinner, a difference of a few minutes in answering them could mean the difference between a secured relationship and drifting away. This might be something that such commuters regret doing.
However, how would these commuters answer given the stone-cold truth that they run an increased chance of endangering not only their own lives but also of other commuters? Have these selfish people not realized that such accidents have not only caused the involved parties great pain, but their family members have also suffered along with them? As such, such small inconveniences would not be comparable to that of lives being lost.
In conclusion, although barring these devices can cause much inconvenience for commuters, the fact that many accidents would be reduced, thus leading to many lives being saved is not an undeniable fact.
After all, if you did manage to avoid an accident in time, wouldn’t you be grateful?
657 Words
Article: Deaf to the World
A research has been carried out to test whether youngsters absorbed in cellphones or music players face greater risk of accidents on the road. The results showed that this is true.
First of all, cellphones and music players distract road users’ attention. Studies showed that sending messages while driving reduced reaction time by 35 percent. This amount of time could easily determine whether an accident would occur.
Secondly, such devices can render a pedestrian or a driver oblivious to his or her surroundings. These devices silence almost 100 percent of ambient noises, leading to the possibility of accidents.
97 Words
2. Commentary
Title: Devices of Mass Distraction
Have you ever had the experience of listening to your MP3 player while walking on a pavement, only to turn around and be shocked to notice that a bicycle was coming in your direction? Or have you ever crossed the road while typing an SMS, only to be jolted back to your sense when an angry car horn was sounded at you by a car which had narrowly avoided hitting you?
Well, I have had such unpleasant experiences before. Back then, I used to dismiss myself as being simply ‘ignorant’. But a few days ago, a frightening realization hit me: I might have gone through a lot worse if I were not so lucky.
The word ‘unlucky’ here of course would refer to the many road accidents that happen frequently in Singapore, many of which had cost lives. However, the issue on whether road users should be banned from using handphones or music players would be a more complex issue than being plainly lucky or unlucky.
Personally, with reference to my experiences, I agree that road users should be barred from using handphones and music players on the road. Despite the fact that such precautions could cause much inconvenience to many road-users, the fact that such distractions can cost lives comes as a stern reminder that we perhaps should reconsider using these devices while travelling on the road.
There are many reasons why handphones and music players should be banned from the road. First of all, devices such as handphones and music players distract the road users’ attention from the road. The RAC Foundation, a British non-profit organization, found that sending messages and driving simultaneously reduced reaction time by 35 percent. This 35 percent could mean the difference between life and death in the event of an accident.
As such, let us think for a moment: If such distractions were eliminated, how many accidents would have been avoided? How many lives would have been spared from these accidents?
Secondly, devices such as noise-cancelling earphones can silence up to 100 percent of ambient noises. This would mean that people wearing such earphones would be oblivious to their surroundings in their sense of hearing, probably leading to them either being unable to react in time to an oncoming threat such as a speeding vehicle, or rendering them unaware of their situation at all. In the event that the driver is unable to steer the vehicle away from the pedestrian in time, an accident would almost certainly occur.
However, many commuters have argued that if they were barred from using these devices on the road, they would be unable to receive updates and reply to them, especially if these updates are emergencies. For example, if they do not answer their company’s boss’ call, they might make their bosses angry, and in face of the recent economic regression, it might give a reason for a boss to sack a worker.
Others also argue that there would be much inconvenience for them. For example, if a spouse has asked a commuter out for dinner, a difference of a few minutes in answering them could mean the difference between a secured relationship and drifting away. This might be something that such commuters regret doing.
However, how would these commuters answer given the stone-cold truth that they run an increased chance of endangering not only their own lives but also of other commuters? Have these selfish people not realized that such accidents have not only caused the involved parties great pain, but their family members have also suffered along with them? As such, such small inconveniences would not be comparable to that of lives being lost.
In conclusion, although barring these devices can cause much inconvenience for commuters, the fact that many accidents would be reduced, thus leading to many lives being saved is not an undeniable fact.
After all, if you did manage to avoid an accident in time, wouldn’t you be grateful?
657 Words
The Goodness of Goodness
Qn: Drawing from this article and your personal experience, say why you believe human beings are willing to do good to others.
I think, ultimately, many human beings are social animals and found it beneficial to do good. Talking from an evolutionist point of view, doing good to others can help humans to form a network, which, in many cases can help with their own survival. Early men found having a social network useful in hunting for food and for protecting oneself from external threats.
From a more personal point of view, I think that humans enjoy doing good. Many humans derive joy from helping others. When one helps another, the receiving end feels good for accomplishing a task, while the giving end feels good for helping a person in need. Happiness has been associated with many health benefits, and perhaps this is why many people want to make each other happy.
I think, ultimately, many human beings are social animals and found it beneficial to do good. Talking from an evolutionist point of view, doing good to others can help humans to form a network, which, in many cases can help with their own survival. Early men found having a social network useful in hunting for food and for protecting oneself from external threats.
From a more personal point of view, I think that humans enjoy doing good. Many humans derive joy from helping others. When one helps another, the receiving end feels good for accomplishing a task, while the giving end feels good for helping a person in need. Happiness has been associated with many health benefits, and perhaps this is why many people want to make each other happy.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Hope this will not receive sabotage... YES NO Sabotage occured!
Some improvements based on Bryan's comments:
I still remembered the time I was in primary school. My science teacher was asking the class what a 'stem cell' is. Without hesitation, I answered, "It is a cell from the stem of a plant!" Of course, this incited laughter from the rest of the class.
Of course, right now, 'stem cells' should be part of any science student's vocabulary. It would refer to cells in human body which can adapt their structure to give rise to any mature cell structures.
But that would not be the $64 question. Instead, many still question whether stem cell research should be proceeded with. It certainly was not a question as clear cut as 'What is a stem cell?'.
Personally, I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
I still remembered the time I was in primary school. My science teacher was asking the class what a 'stem cell' is. Without hesitation, I answered, "It is a cell from the stem of a plant!" Of course, this incited laughter from the rest of the class.
Of course, right now, 'stem cells' should be part of any science student's vocabulary. It would refer to cells in human body which can adapt their structure to give rise to any mature cell structures.
But that would not be the $64 question. Instead, many still question whether stem cell research should be proceeded with. It certainly was not a question as clear cut as 'What is a stem cell?'.
Personally, I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
McCommentary Introduction Level 2
Harhar. Lets try writing a short story....
I still remembered the time I was in primary school. My science teacher was asking the class what a 'stem cell' is. Without hesitation, I answered, "It is a cell from the stem of a plant!" Of course, this incited laughter from the rest of the class.
Of course, right now, 'stem cells' should be part of any science student's vocabulary. However, many still question whether stem cell research should be proceeded with. It certainly was not a question as clear cut as 'What is a stem cell?'.
I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
I still remembered the time I was in primary school. My science teacher was asking the class what a 'stem cell' is. Without hesitation, I answered, "It is a cell from the stem of a plant!" Of course, this incited laughter from the rest of the class.
Of course, right now, 'stem cells' should be part of any science student's vocabulary. However, many still question whether stem cell research should be proceeded with. It certainly was not a question as clear cut as 'What is a stem cell?'.
I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
McEssay Formula-1
Ok. Here is an attempt at a commentary (I failed my lit essay though for last year...):
I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
First of all, stem cell research can be the key in discovering the treatment for many diseases and the method of prevention for rejection of organs during transplants. For example, scientists have found that, by injecting two drugs, Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor and Mozobil, they can force a Lymphoma patient's bone marrow to produce more blood-making stem cells, thus effectively curing them. This simple and effective treatment reduces the rate of failure tremendously and does not put the patient in risk of complications, which is frequent for other types of temporary treatment. As such, engaging in stem cell research will allow for more lives to be saved, thus justifying that its benefits are more than what has been sacrificed.
However, many have argued that the manipulation of stem cells have been deemed unethical. They think that researchers, faced with the fact that stem cells can modify their structures to that of other cells in the human body, will attempt to play god by controlling the stem cells to their own will. For example, scientists might make use of stem cells to strengthen an athlete's muscles, thus giving them an unfair advantage. As such, they think that, since control of stem cells can give some humans more advantage over other humans, it would be deemed as playing god, and as such, make stem cell research unethical.
Although this argument cannot be entirely denied, however, I would like to point out that the benefits of stem cell research are altogether much greater than the possible cons. Furthermore, if measures are made to prevent researchers from manipulating stem cells to their own will, I am certain that unethical effects of stem cell research will be kept at a minimum. For example, if regular inspections are made at the researchers' laboratory, it can expose any illegal experiments. I, personally, feel that the human race should not stop at achieving a greater cause even if we risk something during the process.
To conclude, stem cell research should continue as the fruition of its results can potentially save many lives. Although many people argue that stem cell research is unethical due to the fact that scientists are literally playing god, and that such an argument cannot be entirely denied; however, suitable control will bring the cons of unethical stem cell research to a minimal, and instead brings more attention to the benefits of stem cell research.
----
To conclude this drony blog post, never burn midnight oil *yawn*. Ok I was referring to RE.
I believe that stem cell research should be encouraged. Despite the fact that manipulating stem cells is considered unethical to many, research undergoing in this area of science can help to save lives from otherwise incurable diseases and from rejection in transplants.
First of all, stem cell research can be the key in discovering the treatment for many diseases and the method of prevention for rejection of organs during transplants. For example, scientists have found that, by injecting two drugs, Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor and Mozobil, they can force a Lymphoma patient's bone marrow to produce more blood-making stem cells, thus effectively curing them. This simple and effective treatment reduces the rate of failure tremendously and does not put the patient in risk of complications, which is frequent for other types of temporary treatment. As such, engaging in stem cell research will allow for more lives to be saved, thus justifying that its benefits are more than what has been sacrificed.
However, many have argued that the manipulation of stem cells have been deemed unethical. They think that researchers, faced with the fact that stem cells can modify their structures to that of other cells in the human body, will attempt to play god by controlling the stem cells to their own will. For example, scientists might make use of stem cells to strengthen an athlete's muscles, thus giving them an unfair advantage. As such, they think that, since control of stem cells can give some humans more advantage over other humans, it would be deemed as playing god, and as such, make stem cell research unethical.
Although this argument cannot be entirely denied, however, I would like to point out that the benefits of stem cell research are altogether much greater than the possible cons. Furthermore, if measures are made to prevent researchers from manipulating stem cells to their own will, I am certain that unethical effects of stem cell research will be kept at a minimum. For example, if regular inspections are made at the researchers' laboratory, it can expose any illegal experiments. I, personally, feel that the human race should not stop at achieving a greater cause even if we risk something during the process.
To conclude, stem cell research should continue as the fruition of its results can potentially save many lives. Although many people argue that stem cell research is unethical due to the fact that scientists are literally playing god, and that such an argument cannot be entirely denied; however, suitable control will bring the cons of unethical stem cell research to a minimal, and instead brings more attention to the benefits of stem cell research.
----
To conclude this drony blog post, never burn midnight oil *yawn*. Ok I was referring to RE.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)