AWARE Singapore Goes Too Far with Its Survey. Here’s Why.

AWARE Singapore’s Survey on Men’s Attitudes in August made serious claims about men. How well do they hold up?

“From the late-19th century to now, women are experiencing mass feminist liberation. Men have not yet had that moment … Men are stuck with the expectations of a much more patriarchal era.”

That is how AWARE’s executive director Shoon Lim launched its survey findings of 1,084 Singaporean men in August 2026, in partnership with YouGov. “The first step toward liberation from these gender expectations, is to acknowledge the prevalence of unhealthy attitudes that men have toward women and themselves,” she declared.

Consider the numbers AWARE cites:

• More than a third believe men cannot control themselves when sexually aroused.
• 67% believe a woman who flirts “bears at least some responsibility for what ‘follows'”.
• 37% of men “believe men cannot be expected to stop sexual activity if a partner changes her mind”.

But what does the survey actually support? Do the numbers it has found tell of a serious problem needing “feminist and intersectional” intervention?

The Questions Don’t Match the Headlines

Credit: AWARE Singapore, Facebook (Links: 1 | 2)

The chief weakness is in the wording of the questions. Several allow materially different interpretations, but AWARE treats agreement as evidence of the particular belief it wants to challenge.

Without distinguishing those interpretations, the survey cannot establish how many respondents hold the belief AWARE attributes to them. Consider these statements from the survey:

1.         “A man cannot control himself when sexually aroused.”

Does this mean he cannot stop wanting sex, or that he cannot stop acting on that desire? Desire and conduct are different. The wording does not establish which a respondent means.

The combined figure of over 33% also groups “slightly agree” with “strongly agree”, obscuring how firmly respondents endorsed an already ambiguous statement.

2.         “In a marriage, a man is entitled to sex from his spouse.”

This drew 72% agreement, the highest in the section. But ‘entitled’ could mean anything from “sex is a reasonable expectation within marriage” to “a wife has no right to refuse”.

This statement does not establish whether respondents believe a wife has the right to refuse. Agreement with marital ‘entitlement’ cannot automatically be treated as rejection of that right.

3.         “After a woman consents to sexual activity, a man cannot be expected to stop if she changes her mind.”

What does ‘cannot be expected’ mean? A respondent might predict that men will behave badly without believing they’re right to do so. Its wording does not establish which of these beliefs a respondent holds.

The headline reports 37% agreement without distinguishing its strength: 19% “slightly agree”, 13% “agree” and 5% “strongly agree”. Another 9% preferred not to say. More than half of those counted as agreeing therefore selected the weakest level of agreement. Thus, a respondent who answered ‘slightly agree’ is lumped in with someone who does ‘strongly agree’.

In footnote 8 on p. 6, AWARE itself recognises that grouping responses into “Agree” and “Disagree” loses differences in strength. Its regression models preserve those distinctions; its headline percentage does not.

4.         “If a woman flirts with a man, she is partly to blame if she is harassed.”

This statement on victim-blaming uses the word ‘harassed’. Yet the press release discussion says she bears responsibility “for what ‘follows'”.

The survey uses the already ambiguous harassment, but the release leads the reader to imagine any circumstance that follows. That broadens the claim beyond what respondents were asked.

Do AWARE’s Conclusions Really Follow from the Data?

Credit: AWARE Singapore, Facebook (Link)

AWARE only surveyed men, not women. It can’t say therefore which of these views are more common among men than women. Yet on Facebook, it blames “so many men” for views it never checked against women. Without that comparison, readers cannot tell whether these are distinctively male attitudes, or beliefs shared more widely across society.

For instance, for all we know, surveying women could shift the story from “men blame women” to “men and women share a view about risqué dress in public”. But attracting unwanted attention and deserving blame for harassment are different claims; the question must distinguish them.

AWARE also finds that high-income men were more likely than middle-income men to say wives should do more housework and childcare. It says this “echoes feminist theory that once men begin to inhabit patriarchal ideals such as wealth and power, they start exhibiting those patriarchal views as well.”

But the survey did not observe men acquiring wealth and changing their views. It compared different men at one point in time. The findings establish an association, not the process the theory describes. The theory was not tested but opportunistically placed next to the data.

AWARE’s own figures also complicate its bleak account of men: 78% say childcare should be shared equally, 74% say the same of housework, and 70% feel proud to provide for their families. Yet the press release qualifies the egalitarian answers: “While there is overwhelming egalitarian sentiment, the survey did not explore if this truly occurs within Singaporean households.”

That shifts the goalposts. People do not always live up to their values, but that does not make those values insincere. If favourable answers require checking against actual behaviour, unfavourable answers require the same check.

The Emotional Questions Are Too Broad

Credit: AWARE Singapore, Facebook (Link)

The emotion questions also fit too many people in too many situations to show the problem AWARE warns about. It says on Facebook: “> 70% of men say they hide emotions such as sadness, fear, anxiety or stress … Men equate masculinity with toughness and suppression.”

This summary blurs what was measured. The survey asks separately about hiding fear, sadness and stress. Its anxiety question asks whether men feel anxious or depressed while meeting gender expectations, not whether they hide anxiety. The public summary should preserve that distinction.

Nor do the answers tell us why, from whom or in what circumstances. For instance, “I often feel the need to hide emotions like fear” can be agreed with by a father staying calm in front of a scared child, or a man with no one to talk to.

Another statement reads: “I prefer not talking about my feelings because it feels weak.” But does ‘weak’ mean personal shame, fear of ridicule or vulnerability with a particular listener? AWARE reads the answer as emotional suppression without establishing what lies behind it. Without distinguishing honest acknowledgment of fear from loss of composure, the survey cannot tell which respondents reject.

The Jump from Survey Answers to a National Curriculum

The report says the patterns “indicate that current approaches to gender and sexuality education in Singapore do not adequately equip young people”. It then calls on MOE to replace the abstinence focus with a consent-based approach aligned with UNESCO.

But the survey links no answer to what respondents learned—or did not learn—in a classroom. It establishes neither that the current curriculum produced the beliefs AWARE criticises nor that its proposed alternative would change them. AWARE must justify that change, including its likely effects on premarital sexual activity and young people’s physical and psychological wellbeing.

AWARE itself says evidence-based curriculum design “depends on an accurate understanding of how young people learn about sex, relationships, and gender norms”. The organisation must explain what students would be taught, how the lessons would differ from current teaching and what evidence suggests they would change the beliefs surveyed. (For a more thorough look at AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education framework, see Regardless’ coverage here.)

AWARE also interprets its data through “feminist and intersectional frameworks”. Why should those interpretations guide national policy unless their assumptions are stated, tested and justified? An ideological label is not evidence of objectivity.

Conclusion: Reading Data at Its Worst

AWARE read its numbers at their worst, attached a theory about men the survey could not test and prescribed a national curriculum change the findings did not justify.

If a third of men hold a belief that puts women at risk, the public needs to know which men, how firmly they hold it, whether they act on it and why. That is the evidence needed to understand the problem and change it.

AWARE owes the public that case if it wants its recommendations taken seriously. Until then, its material should be read as activist research interpreted through an ideological lens. It is not an established case for national policy.