Oily estrogen-like isoflavones and what this has to do with sexism in politics & the economy.
PS: If I didn't already turn you off with that weird title, then cool. U must be intellectual.:) Btw, oily estrogen-like isoflavones have nothing to do with sexism la, then again, maybe they do.. hmm~)

Some recent headlines include (starting with the most attention-grabbing ones first): Soy reduces sperm count in Men. Okay, I will give a short summary on the findings. Soy contains isoflavones that act quite similarly to the estrogen hormone in females. So whilst it does help boost some physical activities in certain organs, it however, inhibits sperm production. That makes enough sense I suppose. It probably also means that all you male soy lovers, you're bound to be effeminate la. Okay, that last line was my own ridiculous (but come on!) derived conclusion.

Next: Oil prices have been declining, and fetched the lowest bid in the last 3 months at about 119.smtg dollars (US of cos). Economists have attributed this more to declining demand(!) factors rather than supply issues. I initially thought that was a good thing cos I mean hey, declining demand for oil has GOT to be good right? It just goes to show that we the consumers of the world have learnt to be thrifty and are starting to embark on more conservative lives (with lesser greed and needs, yadda yadda) but think again. Declining demand (especially that of the largest economy in teh World will have repercusions not just on the biggest economy of the world, but all that smaller dependant economies. Cos the US consumers contribute close to 67% of their GDP, and a decline in their consumption, will mean lower growth rates, which would mean lower import expenditure, which would mean lower income for countries like us (Yes,like us SIngapore) whose export income encompass 75% of our GDP. So, stop cringing or smirking everytime u hear about the other American ending up in debts. It is ironically their debts and ridiculously exorbitant lifestyles that keeps the world's economy floating ya'll. Okay, lets end this econs lecture. Next.

1 in 2 Singaporeans would accept a female President and 80% would accept a female Cabinet Minister. As I re-read this last sentence I just typed, I surprise myself really. Cos at the first glance, I am appalled that ONLY 1 in 2 (50%) would accept a female President. Then again, it is hard to imagine a female President, not so much because I doubt any female's abilities, but somehow the President figure has always undertaken the 'grandfatherly' image, so much so its just weird imagining a female President. So much for thinking I am a feminist. But its not so much sexism lah, (though the undercurrents of it may have close relation to that), its more of custom and what we're used to. Like imagine if it was the reverse, and that we've always had a female President instead, then the survey question would read quite differently of course, surveyng on people's receptiveness towards a male president. The other statistic, the 80% one is something I am in agreement with, even slightly saddened by. Why only 80%. Female Ministers will, I believe be amazing, especially so because given that its so rare, they're bound to be outstandingly good even before they can be considered. So, its still a sexist world. Not as much as it used to be of course, but still sexist. Yes, the last sentences were as usual my input to the matter.

Just in case you're wondering, all these headlines were those featured on yahoo.com.sg. It has filled the void of my otherwise outdated and World-unaware self. Though I find many of them a tad too influenced by the writer's subjective views. Un-avoidable though. Every piece of reported news is bound to reflect some-kind of opinion of the writer, unless its some financial stock market's statistical report I suppose. Then again even those type of reports involve a certain degree of analysis and interpretation which boils down to the writer's perspective, knowledge and experience. I guess when its too obvious that the writer is subjective, that's when the credibility of the article is questionable.