Discrimination against men?
-
We're talking about a smart guy.Originally posted by hyuuga neji:but when the girl you love so much gives you the ultimatium...
you got no choice also wat...
also pre nup is not recognised here in s'pore...
the law should be updated...
too many outdated laws... bj still illegal here in s'pore...
There's no such thing as a smart guy turning stupid overnight.
-
I wonder why ladies treat you like these. I can only guess:Originally posted by Nelstar:Question, that applies to you right?
I date women, they insist on paying their own tabs.
Women date me, they insist on treating me too.
Talk about uglies.
1. You are, ahem, too handsome
2. The ladies you date must be obsenely ugly
3. They pity the way you look
4. You give them the impression that you are dead broke
-
1Originally posted by baderange:I wonder why ladies treat you like these. I can only guess:
1. You are, ahem, too handsome
2. The ladies you date must be obsenely ugly
3. They pity the way you look
4. You give them the impression that you are dead broke 
not true and subjective.
2 One of those that treat me is so gorgeous she got queues waiting for her
3 Subjective.
4 I am known for having fluency in my cash flow
-
no. just look at the number of men whining here. increasing day by day. caramon. then chewbacca. now you. who's next to whine?Originally posted by baderange:I thot it should be the other way round. U just arrived from Mars sis? I assume u mars be a woman -
meOriginally posted by HENG@:no. just look at the number of men whining here. increasing day by day. caramon. then chewbacca. now you. who's next to whine? 
. After being bitten by a certain mon-mon creature and a self-proclaimed feng shui master(haven't seen him around), I have decided to join in this universal brotherhood of women haters, down with women yeaqh and other associated rubbish...
Now if you'll excuse my Mistress has ordered me to log off... -
Old assumptions and legal precedents based on men's positions as main breadwinners and providers were too strongly biased in favor of women in terms of maintenance provisions and asset divisions causing hardship to too many men nowadays. In the long run, men might switch off and vote with their feet and be deterred to get married especially the successful ones. If past legislations were antiquated or outdated then they should be updated
actually all tat is asked by robertteh is to make it fair to both sides... Any one here do not want the law to be fair ? I also agree tat women charter should be reviewed now since situation had changed. The reasons why these laws exists to protect the women is the same reason why it should be reviewed to protect the male. -
Who wants to close this threadOriginally posted by baderange:U call this rubbish? If u disagree with me, say so like the other chap. If u dont like this thread, go suck a ruler! No one force u to read this! What do u mean this will start flame war? I have seen more fire inducing threads here! Wanna flame again? Do it shitbag!!!
Give me 5 +1 and it shall b3 done -
Laws are reviewed on a long term basis. Therefore we have the judges and lawyers to bridge the little gap in between such that the law is not being abused or too outdated. Every change require time to reassess the situation and it is painful as some people might exploit untested changes. And if the law changes yearly, it shows inefficiency of law makers and the court.Originally posted by stupidissmart:actually all tat is asked by robertteh is to make it fair to both sides... Any one here do not want the law to be fair ? I also agree tat women charter should be reviewed now since situation had changed. The reasons why these laws exists to protect the women is the same reason why it should be reviewed to protect the male.
Anyway, it's due for review in another 2 years time, why worry now and whining like what was set in 1997 is ridiculous to follow?
Are you telling me you were borned in 1998 and married in 2005?
And stop insisting the law is unfair. Fairness is subjective. -
+1Originally posted by greengoblin:Who wants to close this thread
Give me 5 +1 and it shall b3 done
+1
+1
+1
+1
I cant stand whiners who blame women for their inability. -
The court might not be. But quite a number of judges are.Originally posted by Nelstar:Chapter 353 does state that it is still up to the court to decide upon the hearing on what each party is entitled to.
Do not assume that the court will be biased against men.
-
if the judges are extremely biased, it doesnt matter what laws you have.Originally posted by Devil1976:The court might not be. But quite a number of judges are. -
Its no secret that men surf the net more than women, thus......Originally posted by HENG@:no. just look at the number of men whining here. increasing day by day. caramon. then chewbacca. now you. who's next to whine?
Im my office, the women whines the most, they know it too and they admit it! -
Mr Mod, don't like that la, this forum is one of very few places we can speak our minds. Closing the thread will not do the forum any good, it means censorship of opinions, and my thread is no threat to National security. Boh ho la... I don mean to start a flaming war, just that I welcome all views. But of course flame also must give views leh, not just say I stupid or whatever... Thank you !Originally posted by greengoblin:Who wants to close this thread
Give me 5 +1 and it shall b3 done -
I beg to differ. If a law is unfair or ridiculous, it ought to be changed ASAP. Remember some laws were changed very quickly in the past. Take for eg. oral sex. How many can say honestly he or she have not or will never do it?Originally posted by Nelstar:And if the law changes yearly, it shows inefficiency of law makers and the court.
Justice is more important than the law. The laws should be changed to accomodate justice, not the other way round. -
+1Originally posted by greengoblin:Who wants to close this thread
Give me 5 +1 and it shall b3 done -
amazin....i can use tis topic to write my journal...gender discrimination
-
Unfair? You define the range. Dont assume what's fair for you is best for all.Originally posted by baderange:I beg to differ. If a law is unfair or ridiculous, it ought to be changed ASAP. Remember some laws were changed very quickly in the past. Take for eg. oral sex. How many can say honestly he or she have not or will never do it?
Justice is more important than the law. The laws should be changed to accomodate justice, not the other way round.
Think. Who are the ones most likely affected by change in women's charter? How unfair can women's charter be? Give examples and state the act and what is wrong with it.
Don't just say and whine because you think so. State which act was abused, and back up with proper evidence and examples. Don't just whine because you think so. -
oral sex law change already ar?Originally posted by baderange:I beg to differ. If a law is unfair or ridiculous, it ought to be changed ASAP. Remember some laws were changed very quickly in the past. Take for eg. oral sex. How many can say honestly he or she have not or will never do it?
Justice is more important than the law. The laws should be changed to accomodate justice, not the other way round.
tot they put it on a backburner... -
So why do you think everyone wanted to remove terrorist?Originally posted by baderange:Mr Mod, don't like that la, this forum is one of very few places we can speak our minds. Closing the thread will not do the forum any good, it means censorship of opinions, and my thread is no threat to National security. Boh ho la... I don mean to start a flaming war, just that I welcome all views. But of course flame also must give views leh, not just say I stupid or whatever... Thank you !
Because of the extemist thinking.
I've been reading this thread and thinking over the points. So I don't give frivious answers especially not on this forum. Here's my take: Your thoughts are your thoughts. Don't mean you are biased that all men are biased and will join in to slam women as you've done. There is no evidence of discussion and its really your narrow views against the reality. Although I would have loved for a level discussion but it seems all you wanted is agreement to your views and it now fighting to keep your thread by saying nice things. So to me its a no brainer. So if you ask me, yes!
+1 -
Laws are reviewed on a long term basis. Therefore we have the judges and lawyers to bridge the little gap in between such that the law is not being abused or too outdated. Every change require time to reassess the situation and it is painful as some people might exploit untested changes. And if the law changes yearly, it shows inefficiency of law makers and the court.
Agreed. But I was worried tat come 2007 there will not be any real changes to the law again. So I guess maybe it is good to talk about it before tat time period so their attention can be caughtAre you telling me you were borned in 1998 and married in 2005?
I just wanna point tat every year there were a few hundreds cases of divorce and IMO, it is not fair to have a women charter tat weighs so heavily in favour for the women. If tis is whining, then in the past when women fights for women equal rights r whining as well.And stop insisting the law is unfair. Fairness is subjective.
well, I was hoping there is a men charter or something If not just change all the phrases of the women charter to fit both sexes. I am just thinking whether it is discrimination to have laws tat favour women much when it was not a sin for men to be borned as men -
Number 1. Women's Charter was meant to prove that Women are never Men's equal.Originally posted by stupidissmart:well, I was hoping there is a men charter or something If not just change all the phrases of the women charter to fit both sexes. I am just thinking whether it is discrimination to have laws tat favour women much when it was not a sin for men to be borned as men
Those equality and fairness idiots need to get this right.
Nature never made us equals, be it men or women. Men are physically dominant, as shown in sports. Women are naturally build to communicate by nature to pass important knowledge to the next generation.
Number 2. There is no such thing as fairness, if a men screws a women and after the pleasure the two gets, the women suffers hell for 9 months.
Number 3. Unless the guy is impotent, he can have as many offsprings as possible. The women, however, may suffer death, miscarriage and a lot of pain and misfortune when conceiving and after conceiving.
Thus, it is therefore made to acknowledge that the man pays his due for screwing around. The woman suffer physically and the man, monetary.
Why should there be a MEN's charter as if they are oppressed by nature, forced to labour by nature, suffers due to nature poor health, down syndrome because of giving birth?
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to say WC is fair in any sense, but application has to do with understanding. The judges and lawyers are your bridge, your link to that fairness. -
Those equality and fairness idiots need to get this right.
Life is never fair. i agree. but however we should make the system to be as fair as possible isn't it ? Tat is why laws came about to protect the weak. Men r stronger, but for wat ? They r not gonna hunt or anything. One can argue women live longer and have litle problem with balding. So they deserves to be punished for it ? Nature is nature, rights is rights. We should be fair by looking at the role of male and female in society now and determine who is entitled to wat rights.
Nature never made us equals, be it men or women. Men are physically dominant, as shown in sports. Women are naturally build to communicate by nature to pass important knowledge to the next generation.Number 2. There is no such thing as fairness, if a men screws a women and after the pleasure the two gets, the women suffers hell for 9 months.
But again, u can view it as the women understand tat she will get 9 months of hell yet she still wanna do it as well. It is not really forced into her either. So she got to go into labour, and she also got special rights to earn custody of the child and get a 3 months leave. So just because she is borned to be about to give birth then she can demand anything she want ? Just because men r borned to be a man, he have to forfeit his right to his possessions ? She might as well ask for a year leave, let the men give him all his possessions and have to be forever a slave tending to her every whims and fancy just because she is born as a women. Surely some place a line has to be cut isn't it ? Furthermore, there r male who actually want to have the chance to give birth to his offspring. The possibility of giving birth is a gift to them, not a burden. However they will never have the chance to do tat.Number 3. Unless the guy is impotent, he can have as many offsprings as possible. The women, however, may suffer death, miscarriage and a lot of pain and misfortune when conceiving and after conceiving.
So is tis the guy fault ? He purposely made women have all these problems ? If u wanna blame, blame the maker. The male sexual organs is also at a vulnerable position as well. If there r some accidents occur at the groin area, the male may suffer death, impotency, a lot of pain and being humilated as being effiminate if it is lost as well. If u wanna compare about these natural features, it will be never endingThus, it is therefore made to acknowledge that the man pays his due for screwing around. The woman suffer physically and the man, monetary.
If the women felt they really lost so much, then don't have sex lor. When she agree, she agree to take the risks involved. It is not as though women r not enjoying the process as wellWhy should there be a MEN's charter as if they are oppressed by nature, forced to labour by nature, suffers due to nature poor health, down syndrome because of giving birth?
Looking at the other side, men r forced into labour (working. Generally men have to work while women have the opton of being a housewife), oppressed by women in certain areas, die younger and depression due to child being closer to mother. Why shouldn't a men charter appears ? -
I understand that the wife is generally advised to ask for a token $1 instead of completely waiving maintenance for herself (even if she wants nothing from the man) bec this gives her an avenue to go back to the court to ask for a maintenance adjustment should it become a necessity.Originally posted by baderange:My friend recently had a divorce. He is earning a take home pay of $2000. Child and wife maintenance comes up to $601 Oh yes, the $1 is for the wife. Goodwill on the part of the ex-wife in only asking a token $1 for her maintenance? Hell no! Its because if she re-marries she'll only lose $1! How many average S'pore child needs $600 to survive? I mean if the father is only earning $2000? Don't forget the law says that both parents must share in child maintenance, so if say, the wife has her own salary, the child should be getting like $1k a month!
$600 is about a third of your friend's salary. Apparently, if the man earns more, depending on the lifestyle the family has been used to, maintenance can be awarded to as much as 50% of his salary. It is really painful if you think of it just from the man's point of view but out of your friend's marriage came a child and the child has to be provided for. If you think of it the other way round, $601 is for his wife and child; but he gets $1,399 all to himself. And imagine, during the marriage, he might not even have been spending all that on himself but rather on his wife and kid when they go out, when the kid needs a medical, etc.
Depending on the age of the child, $600 may not be very much. Bringing up children can be really expensive, even if parents don't choose to provide their kids with an extravagant life or top class medical attention. School needs alone can add up to quite a bit already. Perhaps part of the $600 awarded was also in consideration of providing a roof over the child's head? Or educational insurance? Won't any decent father want to at least be able to provide what he can for his own flesh and blood? -
sis Dont be naive.
If a man marries a woman, gets her pregnant, after solemnizing the marriage oath, he ought to be responsible some how. You dont promise and break your promise because u think u dont like it.
Another thing like I mentioned before, the laws does not cover every single corner of the world, and although it is comprehensive, it cannot cater for every unique case and thus we have lawyers, judges to feel for, and fight for the margins.
The laws are not meant to protect the weak. This is not your king arthur and his round table theory. The laws are the maintain order, and to punish those who had done atrocities, failed to observe rules, and help those who are believed to be given aid, the laws are made to reflect the public opinion.
You think defining the laws is easy, SIS? There are easily few billion possible outcomes from something as simple as A and B divorce.
How oftenly does a male engage in sexual activities without the desire to do so as compared to the females?
Given the modern day standard of living, THE guy is no longer the sole breadwinner. Thus, whining about giving is rubbish. If you don't want to commit to giving the woman a good life, CHOOSE a good partner or don't marry at all.
No one's forcing you to turn gay, go sodomise your male buddies, stupidissmart, no one is forcing you to marry and be stupid marrying knowing there's WC you dont like.
And please be reminded the LAWS applies because we do have GUYS who are in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and we have to understand by changing the law, we have to understand their mindset.
Dont BE stupid and whine because u think u deserve more, if you think you cant stand the WC in sg, no one's forcing you to marry. The world and country dont owe u a living. If you want changes, trade positions with the law makers. See what difficulties they have to foresee.
Talk is cheap. -
Yeah, I have to agree with this. Although I would add that it might be prudent not just to consider the male and female role in society today but within the family itself, which is what each case should be about, should it not?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Nature is nature, rights is rights. We should be fair by looking at the role of male and female in society now and determine who is entitled to wat rights.
In a situation where the wife is a home-maker or working part-time, who's devoted her time and life to her home and family, then I feel strongly that the WC should be enforced more stringently to protect her and her children. Particularly when it comes to serial non-alimony payers.
In yet another situation where both are working parents, the wife being the higher wage earner, with a future earning capacity exceeding the man's, is it even remotely fair for the courts to blindly follow what is stipulated in the WC? If, while both parents are working their kids are cared for by a maid and grandparents of the father and most of their needs seen to by their father, is it fair then for the custody to be awarded to the wife just because she is the mother? If the man's salary is used to pay for the home they are living in while the woman has other properties, say up for rental to boost her savings, should her properties not rightly come under "matrimonial assets" if they've been acquired during the marriage? Her ability to attain her job and salary could well be bec her husband has sacrificed his time to care for the kids while she works late hours to impress her bosses.
What then?