Minding my own business

I recently read this post on how Ellen Pompeo fought to be paid what she deserved in tv show Grey's Anatomy and I went, you go girl! It's always uplifting to read about women who hold their own, especially in industries which are typically male-dominated at the top.

As most of you know by now, I've been running my own copywriting agency since 2002. That's coming up to 16 years. Do you know how many women run their own agencies in Singapore? Ok, I don't either, because 1) I don't know where to get the figures and 2) I'm too lazy to find out. But I work with other creative agencies on a regular basis - design agencies, advertising agencies, web agencies, PR agencies - and while a few are helmed by women, the vast majority are run by men. If there are female owners, more often that not, they have male partners.

I think this is true of businesses in general but it's something that struck me only recently. It was when I started thinking about grooming a second-in-command that I realised how difficult it was to find a right-hand woman. From talking to other women, these reasons keeping coming up as to why they don't want to run a business: Dunno how. Too risk-averse. No business mind. Can't commit to the time needed. Can't manage clients. Can't deal with the stress.

It's not that these reasons are invalid. It's just that underlying all these reasons, I feel that a major stumbling block is the lack of confidence. Women constantly doubt and underestimate their abilities, including their ability to learn and adapt. Men, on the other hand, tend to be more gung-ho. Even if they don't have all the information or knowledge, they are more assured of their abilities to be willing to give it a go. Read this BBC post on the confidence gap between genders.

So why did I, a woman, decide to go into business? The entrepreneurial streak doesn't run in my family. Neither my parents nor theirs ever went into business. While I told everyone it was because I wanted to spend more time with my kids, truth be told, a huge push factor was that I was thoroughly sick of the warring factions and politics happening in my last workplace. Sometimes, decisions are simply made out of reaching the limit of your patience (plus I probably didn't know what I was getting myself into).

So I launched myself into the big, scary world of business. For the most part, my gender didn't come into play, but the few times that it did, it left an indelible mark on my memory. People in Singapore don't think much about gender inequality because unequal pay or outright discrimination is not condoned. But gender stereotyping and coloured perceptions of people simply based on their gender still exist and are therefore insidious, because there's less awareness of their impact.

Most of my clients are very decent in this respect. They usually accord me with respect and don't treat me any differently because of my gender. In some particular industries however (I won't say which ones), male chauvinism is alive and well. On a few occasions, within five minutes of meeting the client (always a middle-aged or elderly man), I'd know that I was being judged at first sight and not in a positive way. Despite my long-standing track record and portfolio, the client would dismiss me as too ditzy or dumb to understand his very complicated business. Full of technical stuff, you know, beyond the comprehension of a young female. He would adopt a patronising tone and proceed to treat me with great condescension.

I once walked out on an interview because the client decided to deride me even before the interview started. I was furious and called the PR agency contact who had appointed me to tell him he could find himself another writer. He was very sympathetic and said with all the concern in the world, "I hope he didn't make you cry. I think it's so ungentlemanly when men make women cry." OMG. THAT made me feel like weeping. His statement encapsulated all the stereotypes about women being weak and emotional.

I guess it doesn't help that I'm small in stature and hence, look younger than I really am. While I appreciate this now, it was a handicap when I was in my 20s and early 30s. It was a handicap when I was heading departments in the workplace and a handicap when I was meeting clients (some people are both sexist and ageist). To make my presence felt, I found myself projecting an extroverted personality when meeting clients, to sound as chirpy, charming and authoritative as possible. It has become a habit and I still do this today (when I'm actually very much an introvert).

Because I was fortunate enough to have had two fantastically empowering female bosses, and my own conviction that women need to be empowered, I deliberately scouted out mums as potential writers. I won't go into it since that has been covered in detail in this post. Out of my 13 writers, 9 are mums and one is a mum-to-be. (In case you're wondering, I have male writers too. I don't discriminate. I take on whoever can do the job well).

When it comes to managing my writers, I consciously never wanted to be one of THOSE female bosses - you know, the temperamental and irrational ones who make decisions based on their mood-of-the-moment. The ones who give female bosses a bad reputation. I was going to go the rational route, much like how I approach all other business matters. Problems are to be solved one at a time, using logic and reason.

And yet, despite my awareness and intention not to let emotions run the field...

I let personal feelings get in the way of decisions sometimes. I feel bad making tough decisions even though they're right. And then I berate myself for it because it's illogical. Too often, I use "I think..." when I really mean "I know...", just to soften the blow. I still care too much what people think of me and I constantly need emotional support, especially when going through rough patches. In other words, almost unwittingly, my "female" side still reveals itself, in spite of everything.

However, I've long accepted that's who I am, and it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a softer side in business, as long as it doesn't get in the way of things getting done, and done ethically. 

Sidenote: On the homefront, I raised Lesley-Anne to be a strong woman. I wanted her to see that women can run a business, write books, blog, raise kids. Or not. It's not about being a superwoman or trying to grab everything in sight, like at a buffet spread. It's recognising what your strengths are, what you want in life, and then going for it purposefully. It's about choice and about empowerment - two things that shouldn't be dictated by societal expectations about gender. 

And guess what, Lesley-Anne is even more petite than I am but boy, she has perfected her death glare. It can shrivel you down to the size of an ant. She has no qualms about voicing her opinions, especially when boys with big egos and little substance try to talk over her (that really sets her off). Don't get me wrong - I didn't teach her to be rude. You don't have to shout or put others down. (Being kind should be a universal trait, regardless of gender). It's about being confident.

Mothers sometimes forget that we're role models not just for our daughters but also our sons. I love that having grown up in this family, Andre values women for their brains and heart. In fact, he is annoyed by girls in his school who "act cute", are bitchy, or focus only on their looks or material things. "Why can't they be more like you two?" he laments. (I'm glad because it means I'm less likely to get a bimbotic daughter-in-law 😆). And of course, kudos to the hubs for being secure enough to appreciate the strong women in his household.

Back to running a business: I didn't set out to be a flag bearer for women at the workplace. The women-friendly initiatives I took in my business journey were truly in response to each need that came along, that had to be resolved. But maybe that's how it is - the little incremental steps that are done to offer women a work outlet, flexible hours, even just a supportive community - maybe it all matters in the bigger scheme of things. I'd like to think so anyway. 

To end this very long and rambly post, I know many mums follow this blog. If you (and especially my female writers) are reading this, I just want to say: claim your confidence. You're stronger than you think. You're also capable of so much more than you know. You go, girl.

Let's talk gender stereotypes

So by now, most of you would have read about the saga where 17-year-old student Agatha Tan's open letter to her Principal which lambasted Focus on the Family (FotF) for their relationship programme. To me, this is an open-and-shut case and MOE has rightly shut down the programme.

In a truly strange coincidence, Lesley-Anne attended the very same session as Agatha. (I know, right? What are the odds??) So I thought for those who might be curious as to whether there was more behind the scenes from someone who was actually there, I'd blog about it.

Lesley-Anne missed the first half of the session because she was out conducting a Danger Dan school talk at that time and joined in only in the second half. By then, she said the lecture theatre was already all abuzz and her friends told her there had been a heated debate. It sounded like the facilitators were unused to being challenged because Lesley-Anne said they were defensive and tried to deny responsibility of the materials. For example, when the facilitator presented a rather controversial analogy, he threw his hands in the air and qualified himself by saying, "This is not my research. If you want to complain, complain to the author!" Okaaaaay. 

When Lesley-Anne came home that day, even before the saga of Agatha's letter, she told me that the session was a waste of time. Possibly, the programme was intended to be light-hearted but the way it was delivered, issues were inappropriately trivialised. She felt that as an educational session, it should have been more substantial. Instead, the materials were shallow and similar to jokes and satirical pieces easily found on the Internet.

For instance, the facilitator asked a boy something along the lines of: "Would you rather: a) Be unloved and alone or b) Disrespected." The boy answered a) and clarified that he took "unloved" to mean only romantically. But the facilitator immediately jumped to the conclusion that this was evidence of guys' immense need for respect and hence, in a relationship, girls have to give guys respect. Wow, sweeping conjectures much? Incidentally, Lesley-Anne said she would have made the same choice. Does that make her a guy?

Guys were also portrayed as deprived, sex-driven creatures. For example, the students were shown a picture of a guy's compartmentalised brain where SEX was predominant. This idea that guys cared only about sex was repeatedly highlighted. (The male facilitator even waved his arms in the air and declared, "If you give us sex, we're very happy!") Not sure what his point was. Girls have to offer sex to make a relationship work?

Furthermore, most of the research and statistics used to substantiate the material were from the US. Lesley-Anne felt that the facilitators failed to contextualise the info and show how they were relevant to Singapore. For example, they stated that in the US, couples who cohabitate before marriage are 50% more likely to get a divorce and leapt to the conclusion: If you want your marriage to work, don't cohabitate! Even if you discount the flawed logic, please lah. In Singapore, how many dating couples live together? Housing is expensive here!

FotF has claimed this is not a sex education course but a relationship workshop. This is factually correct because what many people don't realise is that FotF is appointed by MSF, not MOE (even though I understand that it's an MOE-approved course. Not sure how that works). But I don't understand how the fact that it's a relationship workshop, not a sex education course, makes the content any less objectionable.

HCI has said that parents could have opted their children out of the programme if they wanted to. Come on! You know these consent forms - "there will be a session, blah blah, sign if you consent to let your child attend it". At most, they give the name of the organiser and a short paragraph of the objective of the programme (which probably said it was to help students de-mystify relationships).

The thing is, I don't know for sure because I don't remember the form at all! Not to shirk my responsibility as a parent but are we saying that any activity or excursion my child goes to, I have to scrutinise the organiser, look up the background, and try to guess whether they have values that go against mine or will present any objectionable material? This was supposed to be a simple post-exam activity in school for JC students and I didn't give it a second thought. I think it's reasonable to expect that any activity endorsed by the school will not promote information that is harmful or false.
 
Some people are angry that a Christian-based group was allowed to administer this programme. I'm less bothered by this because from what Lesley-Anne tells me, religion was never mentioned. I feel that all those who are opposing or supporting Agatha's view based on this are missing the point. It's not about religion and so-called "conservative" views are not limited to any religious group.

To me, why the programme is harmful is because it promotes gender stereotyping which conveniently pigeon-holes people into neat compartments. To those who say things like "but it's true most women are fickle!" "Or are ditzy!" etc etc, I say, that's precisely how stereotyping works - take anecdotes or instances where things happen a certain way and generalise it across large groups of people indiscriminately.

Stereotyping is harmful because it makes judgement on people based on their gender, race, age etc even before one knows them. It also puts pressure on conformity and anyone who doesn't fall within those neat boxes can feel like an outcast. By the way, I can take a joke as well as the next person. The point is this was an official programme, not a woman's magazine or frivolous website.

Stereotyping is a lazy way of seeing the world because it's simple. In other words, it's UNcomplicated. Unfortunately, people as a whole are complicated because we're so diverse. Relationships are complicated. And attempting to tell JC students it's not so by dumbing down materials and reducing people to caricatures is downright insulting and indefensible. I understand that the facilitators repeatedly said these were "generalisations". Incidentally, claiming that stereotypes are mere generalisations can be even more damaging because when someone doesn't fall neatly within a category, you can simply dismiss him or her as an "exception", thus justifying your beliefs.

There are already far too many confused teenagers out there. The last thing we need is for an official programme to perpetuate gender stereotypes and confuse them further.

I've since heard accounts of people attending FotF sessions in different JCs way back from 2007 both as students and teachers, and most agree that it was bad. It's appalling that this has been going on for years and NOBODY spoke up all this time. It made me even more proud of Agatha.

To all those who would diss her letter because they disagreed with something she said or because of her youth, I would like to remind them that here is a 17-year-old who is not just intelligent and clear-minded but who has the conviction and courage to speak up for what she believes in, in a more articulate manner than many twice her age.  Good on her.
 

Mars and Venus

The other day, I asked Andre what topic he was studying in school for science. He told me human reproduction and then followed it up with "it's the most horrible topic ever".

I thought oh, it's probably because he doesn't like to hear the gory details about the birds and the bees, or maybe it's the pictures that embarrass him. Here's a boy who can't hear the word "boob" without covering his ears and emitting a squeal.

Instead, he looked at me accusingly and said, "Your menu-station cycle lah! So complicated! So many different days to remember! And all those words to spell! Like ovulation and o-estrogen!" (He pronounced the 'o').

I almost felt obliged to apologise on behalf of all womankind.

Recently, I was looking at photos of our past holidays and realised how much Andre had grown from his relative height and size with Lesley-Anne.

This was June 2012:

June 2013:

And June 2014:

The funny thing is now that Andre's taller and larger than Lesley-Anne, he's passing her sports t-shirts that he has outgrown. Lesley-Anne accepts them with grace but muses that there's something very unglam about wearing hand-me-downs from one's YOUNGER brother.

However, despite his physical growth over the past two years, Andre is still very much a child at heart. He has given me advanced notice that he intends to be a bachelor forever because a girlfriend or wife would just take up his time and spend his money. "How am I going to have cute grandchildren, then?" I pouted. "Go ask jie jie," he replied adamantly.

I've not given up hope yet. Maybe once the hormones hit him full swing, hearts will start swimming in front of his eyes. While he's no heart throb, I think he's shaping up to be quite a pleasant looking chap (ok, mother's bias) so maybe a couple of girls will start looking his way sometime in the future. They'll probably need to be a lot more obvious than flutter their eyelashes though. And if they're smart, they won't use the word "boob".

No longer boy boy, not yet a man

Watching Andre develop over the past year has been interesting. Many boys hit puberty and start transforming into unrecognisable beings at about age 12 or 13, and I've heard from some friends that their sons turned into strangers once they became teenagers. So I was curious as to whether the same phenomenon would hit Andre.

I had always thought that puberty in boys occur when their voices break so I was surprised when I read an article last year and found out that puberty actually happens much earlier. This article is pretty useful if you want to find out more about puberty in boys. In essence, there are five stages of puberty and voice-breaking actually marks stage 3.

Based on the article, I figure Andre is somewhere in stage 2. In the past 12 months, he has grown about 10cm. He's finally taller than Lesley-Anne and comparing photos from a year ago, I can clearly see that both his face and body have become less babyish. He has also become rather clumsy and his longer limbs add to the lack of coordination. He's constantly bumping into furniture and walls and we can hear him muttering, "Stupid gorilla arms!" Even though his voice has grown deeper, it hasn't cracked. (He can still muster up a squeal worthy of Kristin Chenoweth).

I think many boys of this age are surprised by their own physical development. Andre has a primary school classmate whom he met recently at a badminton friendly between schools. This friend, who used to be rather pudgy, is now taller than 1.7m and speaks with an impressive baritone. The friend told him rather delightedly, "I used to do so many situps but no use. I was still fat. Now I do a few and BOOM! Abs!"

I've always known this to be true - physical and mental maturity do not always go hand in hand. Cognitively, Andre's still as childish as ever. He's 13 but he still finds girls annoying (especially when they pat his head and call him "cute"). It's quite funny. I don't have to pre-screen movies because he's terribly embarrassed by love scenes. He will self-censor by throwing a cushion over his eyes, saying, "Yuck! Sick! Tell me when it's over!" He even refuses to watch Disney cartoon characters kiss which baffles me. I mean, those shows are for little kids, right? When we're walking in a mall and go past a lingerie shop, he will make squeamish noises and shield his eyes, much to our amusement. 

Recently, I asked him whether there were any BGRs in his class. He thought for a bit and told me quite a few boys were interested in two girls.

Me: "Wah, only two girls? How come they're so special?"

Andre (looks blank): "How would I know?" 

Me: "Well, are they very pretty?"

Andre (shrugs): "I dunno."

Me (channeling the persistent mum): "Do they have long hair?"

Andre: (looks totally confused): "Long hair? What's that got to do with anything??"

Maybe this is mean, but I laughed very hard at his cluelessness. And secretly, I hope he'll be clueless for a little longer yet.

The final answer is...

Andre is now in the thick of PSLE revision, counting down to the dreaded exam (2 and a half months) and as you can imagine, it's a very painful period for everyone involved.

To me, it's a total waste of a year. He hardly learned anything new - the entire year is practically spent trying to perfect exam techniques by doing exam papers ad nauseum. And for what? PSLE is essentially just a glorified, high-stakes school placement test. It's extremely meaningless and experience-diminishing.

Not to mention, the stress has turned my happy-go-lucky boy into a snappish, angsty pre-teen. I can't wait for it to be over.

In the course of PSLE preparation, there are times when I've despaired over Andre's off-the-wall answers to exam paper questions. In Science, for example, there was a question: "Why are the butterfly chrysalises either brown or green?"

His reply: "Depends whether they ate brown or green plants."

Sometimes, his command of the English language lands him in trouble, like his answer to this question: "Why is it not advisable for a man to place plants in the room where he sleeps?"

His reply: "The plants will fight the man for oxygen."

Wah, monster plants, like Little Shop of Horrors.

One particular question stuck out in my memory. Andre was doing an English paper and as part of the comprehension cloze passage where you have to fill in appropriate words in the blanks, there was this sentence:

"The Trojan war was fought against the city of Troy in Asia Minor which is __________ -day Turkey."

The correct word for the blank is "modern". Andre however, took one look at "day" and "Turkey" (never mind that it's capitalised) and filled in "Thanksgiving".

I know I was yelling at him while shrieking in laughter at the same time. Talk about comic relief.

On a more serious note, I know it's PSLE fatigue when he cares more about getting the work done than getting it right. I'm despairing over his immaturity, yet part of me resents the fact that I have to force him to jump through hoops. And I know I'm not the only one going through this angst. You can usually spot the mum with a PSLE kid cos she's the one who looks the most frazzled.

This is even more so if her child is a boy. Generally speaking, boys mature later. Many of the boys in Andre's class talk and behave like 7-year-olds while the girls look like they've got their future all planned out. In that sense, PSLE favours girls because it calls for extreme discipline, meticulous care and the patience to do repetitive tasks over and over again.

My brother-in-law who has taught Sunday school for secondary level kids, recounts that the girls are usually very socially clued in whereas the boys, especially at sec 1, seem not to know what they're doing there and appear to live on their own planet. Only when they hit sec 3 or 4 (or even later), the boys will suddenly wake up and then outshine the girls.

I realise that we're sometimes in a hurry for our kids to grow up, for silly reasons like the PSLE. We let the system dictate the timetable of our kids' maturity, which is just wrong.

So I'm trying to tell myself to let Andre mature at his own pace. Instead of wishing away his innocence, I should enjoy it while it lasts. It will disappear soon enough.

Women's work

At nine or ten years old, the two genders tend to sound the same over the phone. However, I always know whether it's a girl or boy calling for Andre. How? Let me see... here's what I encounter when I answer Andre's phone calls:

"Hello! I'm Andre's friend. I'm sorry to disturb you. I need to discuss a music project with him. Can I speak to him please?" - Definitely girl. And I'm not exaggerating.

"Uhh.... (pause) can I talk to Andre?" - Boy. Duh.

Last week, Andre brought home a sheet of instructions detailing a group project for music. It required extensive research on African percussion instruments and looked rather complex. One of his female classmates (the one above) called to discuss the project with him. After he'd hung up the phone, he was looking mighty pleased which surprised me as it didn't seem like the type of topic he would enjoy working on.

"I'm so lucky!" he declared with glee.

"Why?" I thought maybe he was assigned an interesting role. "What do you need to do?"

"There are 9 of us in the group and only 7 things to do, so I don't need to do anything."

"Whaaat?? How can you not do anything for a group project?"

"Oh, my job is to carry the CD."


You've got to give credit to the kids, they learn quickly. Boys learn that if you look blur or bungle it up often enough, you can get girls to do all the work. Girls learn that if you ever want anything done, it's easier to just do it yourself.

Girls are out-performing boys in school

A friend recently sent me this New York Times article which confirmed what I've suspected for a while now - in many developed countries, girls are performing better in school than boys.

I won't reproduce the whole article here but here are some of the statistics quoted (this is in the US):

• The average high school grade point average is 3.09 for girls and 2.86 for boys. Boys are almost twice as likely as girls to repeat a grade.
  

• In elementary schools, about 79% of girls could read at a level deemed “proficient,” compared with 72% of boys.
  
  
• In federal writing tests, 32% of girls are considered “proficient” or better. For boys, the figure is 16%.
  

The only exception to this trend is that boys still beat out girls at the very top of the curve, especially in math.

The finding seems to be paralleled in Singapore. If you look at the cut-off points for secondary schools, the girls' schools have been edging out the boys' schools. At the O levels, again the girls' schools have been churning out better results. I don't have any official numbers but anecdotally, I've found that the girls seem to be thrive in our primary school system much better than the boys.

So what's the reason for this? Just last month, I wrote a post about how the Singapore school system seems to be designed for girls but since this problem is not limited to Singapore, that can't be the only reason. I often hear parents say that boys mature later. I guess if you take "mature" to mean being able to sit still and focus for longer periods, that would be one possible explanation.

The NY Times article quoted Richard Whitmire, author of the book "Why Boys Fail" as saying that schools have increasingly emphasised verbal skills which do not play to the strengths of boys. “The world has gotten more verbal,” he writes. “Boys haven’t.” This is in line with findings on how boys' brains process language differently (and less efficiently) than girls.

The article didn't give any definite answers but one thing seems clear - poor reading habits exacerbates the problem. "Poor reading skills snowball through the grades,” writes Whitmire. “By fifth grade, a child at the bottom of the class reads only about 60,000 words a year in and out of school, compared to a child in the middle of the class who reads about 800,000 words a year.”

If that's the case, then cultivating good reading habits is even more critical than ever. If you have boys like Andre, where reading is not an activity they gravitate towards naturally, then finding books that interest them needs to take priority. As the article suggests, if it takes books with gross bits, wild adventures and explosions to get the boys to read, then so be it. As long as it gets the job done, why not?

How to fit a boy into an education system made for girls

Last week, I received a call from Andre's teacher telling me that Andre had been playing with his pens when he was supposed to be doing his math corrections.

Perhaps I should first paint the background. Every year without fail, I would receive calls from Andre's teachers telling me that Andre had been talking in class/not doing his homework/not bringing his books. I begin every school year ever so hopeful, praying that the year would be different but this dream has so far remained a pipedream.

The complaint call I mentioned above was the third this year (and we're barely into April!) It has gotten to a point where I can feel my blood pressure rising just hearing the teacher's voice. I appreciate that she's being conscientious and concerned but honestly, I feel that teachers are getting slightly too gung-ho about calling parents. I don't want to trivialise the matter but if playing with pens in class warrants a call to parents, she might as well put me on speed dial right now because I can guarantee I'll be hearing from her a lot more.

One of my friends previously remarked, "the Singapore education system is designed for girls." Of course it's a generalisation but it pretty much hits the nail on the head. Our system stresses compliance, following of detailed instructions and neat, structured work. Guess which gender tends to thrive better in such an environment.

Before all you mums of angelic boys and wayward girls protest, let me stress again: it's a generalisation. Much as I dislike gender stereotypes, having spoken to many mothers, I've discovered that for the most part, the kids who struggle to cope in our school system tend to be boys. The most apparent difference comes from parents who have both sons and daughters. Most of the time, the girls fit in better than the boys. My own personal experience attests to this - in all of Lesley-Anne's six years in primary school, I never received a single complaint call from any of her teachers.

I remember last year, Andre recounted to me most indignantly, "the teacher let the girls go for recess first AGAIN!"

"Why was that?"

"She said they were quieter."

"Is it true?"

"Yeeesss... but STILL!!"

My frustration arises from the fact that when teachers call me to complain, I feel helpless because there's a limit to what I can do. I've tried persuading, scolding, counselling, screeching, even pleading. Each time, Andre seems remorseful and repentant, and he accepts his punishment like a man, without whining or complaining. But I know the effects are temporary because it's like trying to tie a squirrel down. For him, having to spend hours at a go, quietly doing focused seat work, is challenging. It's too much to hope that there won't be a lapse every now and then. I can only keep praying that the lapses will be fewer and further in between.

Meanwhile, I'm tempted to tell the teacher, if you're waiting for Andre to turn into a good little girl, don't hold your breath.

I didn't want to turn this post into a whine so on the upside, I'm so thankful Andre discovered badminton. He attends badminton training with his good friend Paul, who's very similar in temperament to Andre. Last week as Paul's mum was observing them, she commented, "they're happiest when they're on the court."

It's true - when they're playing badminton, you can see their joy and utter abandonment. No matter how stressful it gets, our kids have this outlet a few times a week to release the tension from the constant grind of studying and help them recharge. That's truly something to be grateful for.

Girl talk, boy talk

If you have kids of different genders, you might have noticed that girls and boys communicate very differently. My communication patterns with Lesley-Anne and Andre have confirmed as such.

Girls are generally more intuitive communicators, they listen not just with their ears but also take in things like body language, tone, etc. But sometimes, it gets to the point where I can't just make any flippant remark to Lesley-Anne without thinking because it may get misconstrued. It seems like anything can be perceived as an accusation. Hai! For instance, our conversation might go something like this:

Me: "Have you done your homework?"
What she hears: "I hope you've done your homework."
What she says: "Not yet."

Me: "Remember to practise the sums your teacher gave you."
What she hears: "You don't practise enough."
What she says (indignantly): "I do!"

Me: "I'm not saying you don't! I'm just reminding you."
What she hears: "You always need reminding."
What she says (agitatedly): "I was going to do them later!"

Me (exasperated): "Ok fine!"
What she hears: "You're too sensitive."
What she says (muttering under her breath): "Always criticising me."

Boys are much more straightforward, they take everything at face value. The problem is getting them to hear anything in the first place. For example, this is a conversation I might have with Andre:

Me: "Have you done your homework?"
What he hears: "Have you ggggnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn."
What he says: "Mmm."

Me (louder): "Andre, have you done your homework?"
What he hears: White noise.
What he says: Nothing.

Me (pitch rapidly rising): "Andre, if you don't do your homework, you can't play Mouse Hunt!"
What he hears: "Blah blah blah blah blah blah play Mouse Hunt!"
What he says (suddenly perky): "What? Can I play Mouse Hunt?"

Me (in Wicked Witch screech): "GO DO YOUR HOMEWORK NOW!"
What he hears (finally): "GO DO YOUR HOMEWORK NOW!"
What he says (grumblng): "Ok, ok, don't have to shout at me lor."

So in short, one hears too much, one doesn't hear enough. I'm not sure which is preferable!

Are boys really better at math and girls at languages?

There's a common belief that boys are better at math than girls. Based on my personal experience with Lesley-Anne and Andre, I had accepted this old adage without question.

Well, guess what? A study by a team of scientists conducted on SAT and math scores from 7 million students in the US found that this belief is actually fiction, not fact. Whether they compared average performance, the scores of gifted children or students' ability to solve complex math problems, girls measured up to boys.

So why does this misconception persist? According to University of Wisconsin-Madison psychology professor Janet Hyde, the study’s leader, cultural beliefs like this are “incredibly influential.” “Because if your mom or your teacher thinks you can’t do math, that can have a big impact on your math self concept.”

It makes sense. Sometimes when a friend of mine says her daughter is struggling with math, I spout this glib reply, "Girls lah, they're not as good in math." So slap me now because apparently, not only am I wrong, I'm reinforcing the stereotype and adding to the self-fulfilling prophecy of these young girls - "I can't do this math paper because I'm a girl, I'm not as good in math. I'm not as good in math, so I won't be able to do this math paper." Doh!

I think it has partly to do with our eagerness to embrace the left brain-right brain theory, ie boys are more inclined towards left-brain work (logical, analytical) and girls are more right-brained (creative). That's why along with the boys-are-better-at-math belief, we have the girls-are-better-at-languages theory.

But you know what? The part about girls being better at languages IS true, at least in the early years. Researchers have found that this is due to the way words are processed. Girls use the language decoding portion of their brains, enabling them to decipher abstract information. Boys however, rely more on vision and hearing to process information.

Doug Burman, an aneuroscientist at Northwestern University’s Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory in Evanston explained, “For girls, it doesn’t matter whether you are reading or hearing the words, the information gets converted into an abstract meaning, an abstract thought. For boys, the research suggests it’s really going to be very important whether they’re hearing or reading words. That is going to determine how well they’re processing the language.” These results explain why girls consistently score higher than boys at language tests. But this advantage may taper off after secondary school.

While these findings warrant a separate post on catering to the different learning styles of boys and girls, for now, the lesson here is not to be so quick to dismiss your kids' learning difficulties as biological. Everyone is different. I guess I should have realised this from my own experience - I don't fall clearly under the right brian or left brain style. I'm reasonably good at math but suck at science. People tell me my English is pretty "powderful" but I couldn't learn Chinese to save my life.

So what does this mean? It means that human beings are so complex that we can't compartmentalise them into neat boxes. Even if something holds true for the vast majority, it may not hold true for us. We all have our unique strengths and weaknesses that are largely tied to our interests. If our kids are struggling in certain subjects, let's not be so quick to believe that these are beyond their abilities and instead, try to stir up interest in those subjects. Evidence has shown again and again that the kids who tend to do well eventually are not necessarily those who have the best talents but those who keep persevering.

Let's be AWARE... and use some common sense

I have been following the AWARE saga that has created more awareness (or maybe kaypoh-ness) in Singapore about women's issues in 2 weeks than probably in the past 2 years. I didn't intend to blog about it. Afterall, mine is not a political or civil rights blog.

But there's one thing about the whole ruckus that bothered me deeply on a personal level enough for me to put my fingers to the keyboard. This was succinctly summed up by a writer to today's Straits Times forum: "The tragedy is that two innocent groups will be the real losers: women and Christians." This is true no matter what the eventual outcome of this battle is. And even though I'm on the side of the old guard for many reasons, this alone would have been reason enough.

Because of what this group led by Thio Su Mien and Josie Lau has initiated, the image of women has suffered an irreparable rift. "You see? Women can't get along with each other!" seems to be the predominant sentiment. For over 20 years, AWARE and other advocacy groups have fought hard to empower women in a whole gamut of domains - education, work, marriage, relationships, etc. Now all these very important issues have been buried beneath the trivialisation of women and their cattiness.

As for Christianity, I'm sometimes amazed that when it comes to religion, even the most intelligent individual can display such a lack of common sense. The entire debate now seems to centre around whether AWARE is pro-gay. AWARE has already stated categorically it supports ALL women and that includes lesbians, that neutral-gay is not the same as pro-gay. But people are still nervous. And the idea that it goes out to "recruit" young girls to be lesbians? I mean, seriously!

Anyway, you've probably all read the debate and arguments flying about so I won't go into them. We can argue all we want, to me, I'm just vexed that Christianity is the loser. The new guard claims it is not doing this out of their Christian values but I don't buy it ("oh, we just all happen to come from the same church!" Come on.) But whether they are or not, that is beside the point. In the public's eye, they represent Christians. And unfortunately, their behaviour has been so far from godly that if their original intent was to "save" young girls, I'm afraid they have probably already pushed thousands of souls further away from God.

Yesterday, I wrote on my Facebook status in frustration: "Monica Lim is sick and tired of people invoking Christ's name and then engaging in deceit, hypocrisy and bullying. They're not doing themselves, others... and God any favours." Tolerance is not the same as compromise. AWARE is a secular organisation - it has every right to take a stand that is in accordance with its constitution, that all people should be treated equal, regardless of sexual inclination. Now, as a Christian, the Bible tells us homosexuality is wrong. We are free to believe that. But that doesn't entitle us to take over the runnings of a secular organisation that teaches otherwise just so we can change it to our liking. Common sense!

I will never claim to be the person closest to God. Some people may say I'm not as fervent as the next Christian because I don't go up the MRT and preach the gospel to anyone who happens to sit next to me. But here's what my common sense tells me: at the end of the day, Christianity is about saving the lost and loving thy neighbour. When we leave this earth, we will be judged by how well we've done both. And if by shoving the gospel into people's faces, you alienate them, make them hostile and turn them AWAY from Christ, I don't care how good your intentions are, you have failed. Common sense. Instead, I will try (the operative word being 'try') to live my life as sincere, honest and Christ-like as I possibly can and yes, I will try to love my neighbours in words and deeds (even though sometimes I feel like throttling them!)

Here's what Josie Lau and company have done - spout moral superiority, seize control using surprise tactics, spread propaganda, claim martyrdom. Sounds familiar? No, it's not Christianity at all. And I certainly do not want my children learning that as Christians, they have the right to impose their beliefs on others via under-handed tactics.

Let's love God, love our neighbour... and exercise some common sense.

*I know this is a controversial topic, these are my views on the implications of the saga. I will not publish any inflammatory or adversarial comments.

The pursuit of beauty

A few of us mums have been discussing makeup and a certain "miracle" cream. Even though we are strong, independent women, we are helplessly drawn to the allure of some magic potion that might make us look a few years younger. Remember the mad rush for a certain Boots serum a couple of years ago after it was reported in a BBC programme? Even after other reports proved that it's just hype, the ingredients are no different from those in some other brands. Such is the power of the press (and the desperation of women!) But for this reason, the so-called miracle cream that we were discussing shall remain nameless, disclosed only to a select few, hehe.

I will confess now that I am a closet makeup addict. I love to experiment - glitter eyeliner, crimson lipstick, turquoise eyeshadow - it's all so whimsical and fun! (and so contrary to my usual understated preferences). And it's washable afterall, so no need to angst over a temporary change. But there aren't many opportunities to experiment, afterall you can't go for meetings looking like a teenager wannabe, so I usually just end up putting on my "safe" face - the one that I know makes me look awake without being overdone.

Beauty is not as shallow an issue as it may seem. It does require some thought, especially as mothers because the way we view ourselves physically has a huge bearing on the way our kids (especially our daughters) view themselves. To overstate the importance of beauty can be detrimental to our kids' physical self-esteem. But to say beauty it not important at all is just being hypocritical.

I've had this debate on beauty before. In fact, I wrote an article for the Singapore Council of Women's Organisations (SCWO)'s 25th Anniversary coffee table book back in 2005. Since this topic came up, I guess it's timely to reproduce the article here. I'm curious to know your views, so fire away!

The Pursuit of Beauty – Emancipation or Entrapment?

Helena Rubinstein once declared: “There is no such thing as an ugly woman. Only a lazy one.” It is as if by virtue of being female, it is our duty to be beautiful. This concept is rooted in the age-old belief that a woman’s power lies in her appearance. Throughout history, odes have been dedicated to women who have conquered men with their beauty, from Yang Guifei to Helen of Troy.

With the rise in women’s independence, we have seemingly risen above this antiquated notion. We know now that we want to look good for ourselves, not just for others, and certainly not in order to attract a mate and protector. We have been emancipated in our pursuit of beauty.

Or have we, really?

UK Fashion editor, Lowri Turner once said: “The truth is, most women dress for themselves some of the time, for men at other times and attempt a sort of compromise for the rest. If we dressed only for ourselves, we’d all wear leggings and baggy jumpers all the time.”

Beauty as a concept is almost always tied to others’ perception. While beauty and fashion magazines no longer explicitly tell us how to dress in order to snare a man, they still dispense truckloads of advice telling us how to project a desired image, whether “sexy” or “sophisticated” or “natural” (the last ironically requiring the most effort!)

To add to the confusion, the beauty industry is a fickle one, and trends move faster than the stock market. Right now, waif is out, curves are back. Neutral is passé, glamour is in. Faux bronze is the new tan. Pink is the new red. Wait, by the time you read this, melon would be the new pink.

So where lies this elusive line between emancipation and entrapment in the pursuit of beauty?

I pride myself on being a new age feminist, comfortable in my own skin. However, I am far from immune to the lure of beauty promises. Despite being fully aware of the industry’s gimmicks and high profit margins, I find myself succumbing frequently to the newest range of lipsticks. I know I am paying $29.95 for two inches of red dye, yet that little gold tube buys me a little spring in my step for a day or two.

That does not mean I am a slave to beauty. While I hope the new lipstick will step up the glamour quotient for a night out, I do not expect it to miraculously turn me into a Julianne Moore. That new face cream may erase a few wrinkles, but it will not erase the fear of ageing. Each purchase is a trifle to be enjoyed for the moment, nothing more.

And that’s where the insidiousness of the whole issue lies.

As much as the beauty trade empowers women to look good for themselves, the same industry thrives on the insinuation that left on our own, women are not beautiful, not perfect, not ideal enough. Priscilla Presley purportedly went to bed with her makeup on so that her husband would only see her at her best. A beautiful woman draped on the arm of a man is still perceived as a status symbol, an accessory. Scores of dutiful wives worry that once their beauty fades, they will be cast off in favour of pretty young things half their age.

There is a whole multi-million dollar industry waiting to cash in on these insecurities. For every advertisement offering women choices in fashion and beauty, there seem to be three which exclaim: ‘Get bigger breasts and a happier husband!” As quickly as women are gaining economic independence, enterprises have sprung up to exploit this new spending power.

Beyond cosmetics, there is plastic surgery. I am as much in favour of women holding the keys to their own enhancement as the next woman, and I see nothing intrinsically wrong with plastic surgery. It is the way in which plastic surgery is viewed which disturbs me. Plastic surgery used to be a phrase whispered behind closed doors, implying shame and a Machiavellian audacity in trying to manufacture beauty which was not your birthright. But these days, plastic surgery has become a buzzword.

I have a macabre fascination with the reality programme, Extreme Makeover, where each week, candidates are whisked off for a buffet of face lifts, liposuction, implants and laser treatments. My discomfort lies in the fact that many of the candidates are there not simply to change parts of themselves that they don’t like. Many of them appear to have defined themselves and their entire lives based on their physical appearance. They seem to believe that they can physically carve away their past by being stitched, lifted and tightened into a new life, a new self.

Yet, each of these candidates claims they have not abandoned their old selves, merely embraced new improved versions. My concern for this and future generations of women is that the “extreme” nature of plastic surgery has been reduced to a decision as casual as changing one’s hair colour. I realise there are no easy solutions, but in an age where everything has become disposable, I say: let’s not dispose of ourselves so readily.

And that’s where I think the line between emancipation and entrapment lies – whether the pursuit of beauty aims to reflect one’s self-worth or in fact, to acquire some. It’s a thin line but it makes all the difference.

In the movie Shrek, after receiving love’s first kiss to break her enchantment, the princess finds herself still an ogre. She says in puzzlement: “I don’t understand, I’m supposed to be beautiful.” And the pot-bellied, disarmingly lovable Shrek affirms: “But you ARE beautiful.” In a world of synthetic beauty, perhaps what we need are more reminders that there is real beauty everywhere - we just have to look for it ourselves and on our own terms.

- reproduced from "Her Story", Tisa Ng ed., SCWO, 2005.

Rejecting gender stereotypes

I am a feminist. No, I don't burn bras and I don't hate men. Feminism has become sort of a dirty word, conjuring up images of brawny women who don't shave their armpits. Nothing could be further from the truth. What feminism is, is simply the belief that men and women should be treated equally (note: equal doesn't mean the same). This is a belief I've held for a long time, since I wrote my thesis on perspectives on equality for women way back in NUS, and I touched on my views briefly in this post.

I feel the need to write about this because it has great bearing on the way I bring up my kids. Don't get me wrong - I do recognise that there are inherent differences between men and women. Despite my determination to raise my kids as gender-neutral as possible, Lesley-Anne is as delicate and fastidious as the next girl and Andre naturally gravitates towards toy cars and soldiers. Nevertheless, gender differences tend to be magnified, so that men and women are often compared to as coming from different planets. In reality, men and women have more similarities than differences, as a human race.

An MCP friend of mine once argued, "It's like an apple and a pear! Men and women are not the same!" My retort was that an apple and a pear are both fruit - they have more in common than they are different.

The problem is that society plays up gender differences (even imagined ones) from the cradle. At the hospital, relatives coo over the new male baby "oh, he's so handsome!" and female infant "oh, she's so pretty!" when in reality, the only way they can tell the gender of that wrinkled bundle is from the colour of the swaddling blanket.

From a very young age, children understand the way they are expected to act in relation to their gender. When boys get into scrapes, they're often told, "Don't cry, you're a boy. Don't be a sissy." Girls hear "Why are you so dirty and untidy? You should be more ladylike." These gender stereotypes are reinforced if their parents have traditional roles, ie dad goes out to work, mum stays home to cook, clean and look after kids.

Once again, there is nothing wrong with these roles, but what I'm saying is that contrary to popular belief, many gender traits not inborn - they are learned. From examining the world around them, kids form their worldview and believe that this is the natural order of the universe. Which may not be a problem if the kids are able to accept these stereotypes in their own lives but the minute they encounter something contrary to what they have internalised, the inevitable angst will set it.

A boy who grows up thinking he should be tough and like tough guy stuff like sports is more likely to hide or smother his passion for music and theatre, for instance, or risk facing the wrath of his parents and ridicule of his peers. A girl who has Wall Street ambitions may feel they are unrealistic as her sole purpose in life as a woman is to be a good wife and mother.

In both scenarios, you will have unhappy children who are more likely to grow up to be unfulfilled adults because they have conformed to societal norms against their hearts' callings. Worst case, they will feel that there is something inherently wrong with them because they are not able to embrace their roles like other "normal" people.

Gender stereotypes have real consequences. Women have struggled with issues of a glass ceiling, menial labour and unequal pay for decades. Men have not had it easy either, mostly with having to live up to expectations of what constitutes being a "man". Like this phrase, "but if I let my son play with dolls, he will grow up gay!" My personal view is that if that's his inclination, forbidding him to play with dolls will not prevent it from coming true. All you'll end up with is one in the closet or worse, one that pretends to be otherwise and lives a lie as an unsatisfactory husband and father (there are many of these out there). If he doesn't have the inclination in the first place, playing with 10 Barbies will not "turn" him. What is more likely to be true is that if you fill your son with all that macho BS, he'll probably grow up to be a jerk.

Whether you have a son or a daughter, both will benefit from a loving family that teaches responsibility, honesty, independence and respect for others. These cut across gender issues. As far as possible, I try to instil in my kids that they can be anything they want to be (unless like in the Baby Blues comic, they want to be giant carnivorous lizards) - they should not be hampered by myopic gender roles narrowly defined by society. In this day and age, I still hear comments like, "it's not so important for her to be smart, she's a girl." Hang on a minute as I throw this Barbie doll at you.

It's difficult because we're still living in the backdrop of an Asian patriarchal society, although mindsets are slowly changing. So even though I try to imbibe gender equality in my kids, it's an uphill battle. Last year, Andre told me one of the girls in his class played soccer with him and a group of boys. Instead of therefore acknowledging that girls can play soccer too, as I'd hoped, he said, "she's not really a girl." (It was meant to be a compliment.) We may laugh but when you think about it, we adults are guilty of this as well. If we see someone not behaving according to our ideas of what men and women should do, do we consider the possibility that our perception might be wrong or do we dismiss that person as perhaps possessing some "faulty" biological wiring?

It's a philosophy worth fighting for and I will continue to treat both my son and my daughter equally. They have the right to equal opportunities to pursue their dreams - Andre shouldn't get priority over Lesley-Anne just by the mere fact that he's a boy... nor vice versa. And that's what being a feminist means.

Which comes first - the girl or the boy?

Staying on the topic of birth order, I think the gender of a child plays a huge part (in Asia at least) in how birth order shapes his or her personality.

As you know, I have a daughter and a son, in that order. I’ve lost count of the number of times people have told me, “You’re lucky the first one is a girl, then she can help out with the younger one.” I used to have a standard response explaining my views but grew tired of appearing churlish. These days, I just smile politely and say nothing.

Why do people persist in spouting clichés as if they were the gospel truth, without actually examining what they’re saying? I can’t be sure but I suspect this belief is rooted in Asian culture, stemming from the patriarchal society we live in. Underlying that simple statement are two loaded assumptions: 1) the girl’s role is to help, 2) the son is more important.

The assumption that the elder girl’s role is helper is one that I reject totally. I’m partial to the case of the elder daughter because that’s who I am and although my younger sibling is a sister not a brother, the role of helper was foisted upon me when I was growing up. A little about me, I am the most undomesticated female I know. I can’t cook (and have no wish to), I’m a horrible caregiver, and I detest cleaning and other household chores. I know nobody really likes to clean but I seriously hate it with a vengeance. I would rather live in an unkempt place than clean up. (That’s why I tell everyone, if I can handle motherhood, anyone can!)

So when my parents told me I had to look after my little sister, I instantly rebelled (I turned the tables around by tormenting her instead). This earned me the label of being uncooperative which I begrudged. Today, the memory of this is still very vivid. I remember feeling that it was monstrously unfair that from as young as 6 years old, I was expected to be the mature, responsible one, while my sister, even at age 12, could get away with being juvenile and playful. That somehow my birth order doomed me to a pre-determined role.

I’m not saying children shouldn’t have to help out – on the contrary, I think children should learn to take on some responsibility around the house. What I’m against is the implication that because you’re the eldest, somehow the burden of being responsible for the younger children automatically falls on you. Parents, remember the decision to have another child was yours, not your first born’s! Another common phrase that puts my teeth on edge: “Give in to him lah, he’s younger.” And these same parents wonder why the sibling rivalry is so strong and that their first borns have so much resentment against their younger siblings.

I was very conscious not to do the same to Lesley-Anne. When she does help out with Andre, she’s praised because she’s helping out, not because she’s doing her job. I’ve never told her that she has to look after Andre because she’s older. But I do tell her she should help Andre as he’s her brother, the same way I tell Andre he should look out for his sister.

I know generally, most first borns feel the pressure to help out with their younger siblings but I think the pressure is less for boys. I never hear people say to parents who have a son as a first born, “You’re lucky, your son can help out with your younger ones.” Many people will argue that their sons are simply incapable of helping out. This may be true but while this is an acceptable excuse for boys, girls, regardless of their inclination are usually still expected to step up to the plate.

Apart from the stereotype that girls are better helpers than boys, it also sends the signal that boys are valued more. I have been voicing out against this chauvinistic mindset for the longest time. When I was pregnant with Lesley-Anne, before we found out her gender, an elderly relative told me, “It’s better for the first one to be a boy, then the second one can be anything.” I retorted, “no, if the first one is a boy, I want my second child to be a girl.” (She was shocked into silence.) One of my girl friends told me when she found out her first child was a girl, her mother-in-law probably thought she was being kind by saying (in Mandarin) “first one girl is good”. But what she really meant was that the second one should preferably be a boy (and the girl would be able to help out).

In this modern day world, it is inexplicable to me that this archaic tradition still lives on. Every child is a gift! I guess old habits die hard. When I explained to my French friend Isabelle about the Chinese preference for boys to carry on the family name, she replied, “yes, because there aren’t enough Tans in the world!” I thought it was hilarious.

Friendships and the great gender divide

My friend Lilian wrote about her worries over her son Brian's ability to make friends, and how some other parents try to arrange playdates for their kids. Chalk it up to one more thing that never even crossed my mind as a parent - that I had to coordinate my kids' friendships!

Kenneth and I had decided early on that we would always welcome our kids' friends into our homes, but that was the sum total of our involvement. Brian was one of Lesley-Anne's friends who used to come over to play, but that was because Lilian and I are friends and we stayed at the same condominium estate, and our two kids were in the same school, same level and took the same school bus.

It also helped that Brian and Lesley-Anne are very alike in nature. Both are shy, sweet kids with relatively intellectual interests. Here they are playing Reversi, this was back in 2004 when they were in P1. Lilian, I finally got the photos of them together!










The only other friend of Lesley-Anne's that regularly came over to play during the holidays was a classmate of hers, Ryan. I have a soft spot for Ryan because he's the only child whom Lesley-Anne has been in the same class with since P1, so I've seen them grow up together. In P3, they were both streamed into the same class, and in P4, both of them went to the same GEP class. Like Brian, Ryan is a quiet, well-mannered and very cerebral kid. They would mostly play board games although he once told his mum, "Lesley is the only girl I know who doesn't mind playing with soldiers." True praise indeed!

For Lesley-Anne, it's the social aspect that matters, she doesn't really care what she's playing with her friends as long as they're having fun together (although she draws the line at Barbie dolls). And in my opinion, that's one of the differences between boys and girls. Girls, being more social creatures, care more about the relationship while boys care more about the activity. Maybe that's why it didn't really bother Brian that he didn't have a lot of friends in the beginning, he was perfectly happy going off on his own to do his own thing. When Lesley-Anne was in P1, she would often come home looking upset and when probed, she would say, "no one wanted to go to recess with me" or sometimes, "two friends wanted to go to recess with me and I didn't know who to go with". (Not popular got problem, too popular also got problem. Aiyoh...)

Whereas with Andre, it's all about the activity. As long as he gets to play catching or soccer during recess, he doesn't really care who he's playing with. Even in pre-school, the girls were more sociable. He would come home and complain to me, "the girls keep talking, the boys cannot sleep!" Here he is with a group of his male kindy classmates at the year-end concert. Aren't they sweet?

There was this girl in his kindy class who I think had a thing for him. She's the sweetest little chatterbox ever (here she is with the pink hairband) and whenever I went to pick him up, she would regale me with all of Andre's doings that day. The funny thing was when we occasionally ran into her and her family at the supermarket, she would chirp, "Hello Andre!" but instead of responding, Andre would hang his head and pretend not to see her (he had not quite embraced his Mr Personality role yet).

But while I find the girls have no issue mixing with the boys in the earlier years (P1-3), the boys quickly make that gender separation. Even at P1, many of boys don't want to be seen hanging around the girls. If they do, they are teased. I'm organising a birthday party for Andre next week and he only invited all the boys in his class and one girl, whom he said is not really a girl "because she plays soccer". (I'm a feminist! I didn't teach him that!)

When Lesley-Anne had her 8th birthday party, she invited a few boys and those boys kept asking if there would be any other boys attending. It seems they weren't too keen about being surrounded by girls.

By P4, this gender segregation becomes full-blown. Lesley-Anne says she doesn't mind talking to or sitting next to a boy, but she doesn't because she knows she will get teased mercilessly, mostly by the boys. In her GEP class, since there are only 9 girls, all of them go for recess together - they "chope" one whole table and sit together. While I'm glad they share this cameraderie, I'm also a little sad because this artificial gender divide means they could be missing out on some terrific friendships.

Ryan and Lesley-Anne hardly play at each other's homes anymore. Of course, this could also be due to evolving interests and personalities. And I'm sure once Lesley-Anne and Andre hit secondary school, I would be more than glad if they took a little less interest in the opposite sex! But for now, I'm just watching at the sidelines and trusting that it will all fall into place in time.