Discrimination against men?
-
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.
From another viewpoint, if the wife earns about $2000 as well, then doesn't the wife get 2600, 2 times more income than the male ? We do expect the wife to come out with the money for the child as well isn't it ? Why should all the fiancial burden rest on the guy solely ? Isn't 1200 a bit too much for a single kid when it can be used to substain a whole family ?
$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?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.
Why do u blame a broken marriage on the guy solely ? Maybe it is the female tat cause the marriage to break up isn't it ? So the man cannot break any promise while the girl can ? Isn't tat the reason why a men charter or something be around to protect the male in such cases ?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.
The law is meant to protect the weak. In the past where people goes around just robbing and snatching things and therefore the strongest will get to have the best of everything. it is after law was implemented so tat everyone will be treated as equal regardless of their physical strength or status.You think defining the laws is easy, SIS? There are easily few billion possible outcomes from something as simple as A and B divorce.
tat is why there should be a law tat protect not just A but B too if the situation arises. If the law only seeks to protect A regardless of situation, then isn't it unfair ?How oftenly does a male engage in sexual activities without the desire to do so as compared to the females?
As said before, both r willing parties. Both understands wat is involved in a sexual activity. If the girl really hates it then don't do it. If she willingly have sex then why blame the guy solely ?Given the modern day standard of living, THE guy is no longer the sole breadwinner. Thus, whining about giving is rubbish.
In today society,the women r no longer victims in a marriage. To be fair to the male tat were abused, we should cater a law tat protect them as much as a law tat protect female.If you don't want to commit to giving the woman a good life, CHOOSE a good partner or don't marry at all.
Then we should throw away the whole women charter. If the girl want 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.
Nobody is forcing women to be lesbians, or fingering their female mates too, Nelstar. No one is forcing the women to marry and be stupid marrying knowing there WC they don't like. So we should do away with the whole women charter isn't it ? The reason why there is no men charter can be used to show why there shouldn't be a women charter.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.
But there r guys who r 20 to 30's and if there is a need to change mindset, change it now. U delay for another 20 years there will still be people in their 60-70's.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.
Then we should throw away the women charter. Don't be stupid and whine because u think women deserves more. If u can't stand the WC in sg, then don't marry guys. The world and country don't owe women a living.If you want changes, trade positions with the law makers. See what difficulties they have to foresee.
Tat is why it is good to show them the difficulties wat society foresee so they can make better decisions. I am not blaming them for their decisions on 1997. i was hoping them will tune the women charter to consider the position of the changing society and male as well. Is tat really too much to ask ?Talk is cheap
u r also talking too -
SIS, your stupidity never ends.
LOL i bz at work. u go argue with the rest, when i have time i come and entertain u.
-
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.
Correct. i agree tat women charter here will be fair to both parties. However nowsaday the situation can occur where the male is a home maker and the women choose to have an affair with someone else. Wouldn't it be fair for the male charter or something to appear as well ?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.
Agreed. Tat is why I am asking to be fair to both side, nothing more. Is it really tat hard to ask for more fairer laws tat protect both side of the party ? -
The judge's decision would have been based on the salaries earned by both parties at that point of time, wouldn't it? Between us we have no idea if the wife was even earning a salary at that time or if it was indeed as much as $2k. The original poster didn't state that. But the man always has the avenue of going back to court to get a variation on the original order.Originally posted by stupidissmart:From another viewpoint, if the wife earns about $2000 as well, then doesn't the wife get 2600, 2 times more income than the male ? We do expect the wife to come out with the money for the child as well isn't it ? Why should all the fiancial burden rest on the guy solely ? Isn't 1200 a bit too much for a single kid when it can be used to substain a whole family ? -
OK time to clarify. My friend take home pay is $2000. The wife take home pay is $1600. When they were staying together, my friend give her $350 a month for expenses. As for monthly household bills they share equally.
Now after divorce, my friend take home = $1399. (minus $600 for sole child and $1 for her) Wife will now have $1600+$601 = $2201 to play around with!
OK, ask yourself, if you are in the position of my friend, how do you feel? The act says that both husband and wife must share in providing maintenance for the child. I bet with my 2 balls that the wife will not only be able to maintain the child with the $601 my friend give, and don't need to fork out a single cent from her own pocket, but also got some balance to buy clothes!
I assume some of the ppl here are women. Or maybe you are men. But you will never know how it feels unless you also one day divorce! Don't think your marraige is guaranteed to last. When u kena, than you know!
-
Wah, this kind of comments sounds like "I loose already I don't want to argue for the time being"Originally posted by Nelstar:SIS, your stupidity never ends.
LOL i bz at work. u go argue with the rest, when i have time i come and entertain u. -
Originally posted by baderange:
see, if your friend was castrated at birth, he wun have gotten into such a problem today right? make castration for male babies mandatory!
OK time to clarify. My friend take home pay is $2000. The wife take home pay is $1600. When they were staying together, my friend give her $350 a month for expenses. As for monthly household bills they share equally.
Now after divorce, my friend take home = [b]$1399. (minus $600 for sole child and $1 for her) Wife will now have $1600+$601 = $2201 to play around with!
OK, ask yourself, if you are in the position of my friend, how do you feel? The act says that both husband and wife must share in providing maintenance for the child. I bet with my 2 balls that the wife will not only be able to maintain the child with the $601 my friend give, and don't need to fork out a single cent from her own pocket, but also got some balance to buy clothes!
I assume some of the ppl here are women. Or maybe you are men. But you will never know how it feels unless you also one day divorce! Don't think your marraige is guaranteed to last. When u kena, than you know!
[/b] -
What a lame thing to say! So if ppl complain about high transport cost, ask them don't go work? If ppl not happy with garmen policy ask them to fcuk off the island? Than for good measure, seal up the CB of female babies also?Originally posted by HENG@:see, if your friend was castrated at birth, he wun have gotten into such a problem today right? make castration for male babies mandatory! -
why yes of course! u're catching on pretty fast!Originally posted by baderange:What a lame thing to say! So if ppl complain about high transport cost, ask them don't go work? If ppl not happy with garmen policy ask them to fcuk off the island? Than for good measure, seal up the CB of female babies also? -
This is starting to become a meaningless flame.
Watch your words. -
Aiyah, don't use balls to bet leh. Two fingers, two toes can already.Originally posted by baderange:OK, ask yourself, if you are in the position of my friend, how do you feel? The act says that both husband and wife must share in providing maintenance for the child. I bet with my 2 balls that the wife will not only be able to maintain the child with the $601 my friend give, and don't need to fork out a single cent from her own pocket, but also got some balance to buy clothes!
I assume some of the ppl here are women. Or maybe you are men. But you will never know how it feels unless you also one day divorce! Don't think your marraige is guaranteed to last. When u kena, than you know!
That's the WC the way it stands now and based on it, there are men out there who tend to lose alot more than your friend while their wives, who know they don't need the money, just sit back and enjoy the windfall simply to punish their husbands. Divorce seems rampant these days and with women entering even the political arena, it's somewhat odd that the law makers aren't even looking into this for at least some form of balance between the parties. Too many women's votes to lose, I guess
I was told this by a former colleague: a pal of his knew her marriage was completely dead but she had no intention of divorcing her husband bec it suited her lifestyle just to have him around like an extra 'hand' and she was still very fond of him whatever that means. She doesn't care about his little flings coz at the end of the day she's plain confident, being the main wage earner and all, he could never ask for a divorce. Not only would he lose everything he had in the monetary sense, mostly it would destroy him to lose the kids bec he is the one who takes care of them and sees to their every need. As for what's lacking in the physical aspects of her marriage, the occasional trysts during her business trips out of the country sufficed.
It's when a woman can make a statement like this that prompts any reasonable human being, man or woman, to wonder what the world is coming to. -
we are getting a little heated up in here aren't we??
actually, women aren't getting the bigger half of the pie ya know?? as you all know, the garmen's trying to be smart by giving women more benefits with respects to children and pregnancy. all that extra maternity leave, child care leave, special leave blah blah... employers are thinking twice about hiring women now cos they are more "troublesome". it is during this time that women need more financial help from their ex-husbands. never mind the fact that she gets $2600 and the guy gets half of that. she will need the money in the future for the kid.
but i think it is only fair that if the child is under the custody of the father, he can be spared the money. afterall, i'm only concerned about whether the kid gets fed up and taught at schools. -
we are getting a little heated up in here aren't we??
Another view point worth looking is the fact tat Men have to serve NS (14 days per year) which also makes them more troublesome to employers. For a woman they will take 9 months for 3 kids which is about 270 days in their lifetime. (most women won't give birth to 3 kids anyway) For guys officers they will take 14 days *30 years which is 420 days in their lifetime. The guys lose out more isn't it ? Furthermore men have 2 years lesser than women in working due to serving NS as well. BTW her pay was already listed so there isn't much point debating if she earns lesser or not
actually, women aren't getting the bigger half of the pie ya know?? as you all know, the garmen's trying to be smart by giving women more benefits with respects to children and pregnancy. all that extra maternity leave, child care leave, special leave blah blah... employers are thinking twice about hiring women now cos they are more "troublesome". it is during this time that women need more financial help from their ex-husbands.never mind the fact that she gets $2600 and the guy gets half of that. she will need the money in the future for the kid.
Maybe ti is better to look at things presently instead of future. She may never need the money in the end and the kid will instead give money back tot he mother only since she is the one closest to herbut i think it is only fair that if the child is under the custody of the father, he can be spared the money. afterall, i'm only concerned about whether the kid gets fed up and taught at schools.
but too bad most of the time is the woman who gets the custody. It seems like she get to keep the prize and the other people have to pay her for to keep it. -
hello... besides the 9 months (and it is usually closer to 10 months, if ya wanna know), there's 3 months maternity leave, 14 days childcare, sick child care and special leaves per year. don't do maths here if you don't know how. besides, you don't even get the point. you just don't look around at other people and happenings(too preoccupied with yourself i pressume) to see that employers DO find women more troublesome to hire due to this cause (among a lot others.)
-
I will be back. Just keeping this thread in view before I return after meal.
-
hello... besides the 9 months (and it is usually closer to 10 months, if ya wanna know), there's 3 months maternity leave, 14 days childcare, sick child care and special leaves per year. don't do maths here if you don't know how. besides, you don't even get the point. you just don't look around at other people and happenings(too preoccupied with yourself i pressume) to see that employers DO find women more troublesome to hire due to this cause (among a lot others.)
Okie, 12 weeks equal to 84 days and if u got 3 children, u get 252 days. For childcare and special leaves, I thought men is eligible for tat as well ? Since both parties r the same, why pull it in ? So tat puts 420 to 252. Happy ?
There r also employers tat prefer to use female staff. It is not difficult to see such a trend as well. It greatly depends on where u r working.
Anyway please keep those verbal abuses to yourself. I never use any on u and the more u use it the more it put women to shame (I presume u r a lady). -
Aiyah... how many women will have 3 kids nowadays?
-
You take a long time to have your meal dudeOriginally posted by Nelstar:I will be back. Just keeping this thread in view before I return after meal. -
You are presenting an example w/o the actuality of the situation like the proceedings in court.
-
Women are more lecherous and promiscuous than you think.. I have many decent looking housewives hitting on me all the time when I am alone at the supermart.. sometimes I am shocked and embarassed to have housewives come up to me and ask "are these good to eat? by the way, are you free today?"
-
very true...sought of like being parasitic even after a divorce, i mean rather ludicrous to base the expenses/allowances for the other party to maintain their 'standards of living' like going to their favourite restaurants or having their weekly spas especially for those young couples.
no men is going to beja sucker for life aka whats mine is yours and what's yours is yours? come to think about it, having a more balanced approach to these laws will serve both men and women in the longer term. the traditional views that the men bring food to the table and women stay indoors may be good in a time where women were taught to be homemakers to rear children and tend the household like your grandfather's time. you could then argue that the women sacrificed their lives for the family and as a result, do not possess the professional skills to seek sustanence in the 'harsh' outside world. in this 'modern' age, some of these condtions are absent and when theres disharmony, the laws will never serve their purpose to be fair and protect both parties but biasly penalize one based on useless precedence. if women were to think these as their entitlement, wouldn't they be slapping their own mouths and undoing what their feminist predecesors have tried to champion all along in their bra burning and shaved heads movements? Can you split a coin into 2 and have both sides? Or perhaps just placing too much emphasis in the self serving nature shielded by the 'law'? maybe theres a correlation with lower birthrates, more men becoming soft or turning to those gay nation parties and more spinsters left on coldstorage...we just think it is rather scornful or rebut every arguments depending if you are a man or woman or which side you go to, but isnt that too superficial? have the laws already impotent the men and caused women into menopause?Originally posted by baderange:So much have been said about sex discrimination but so far most has been for the support of women. It is right that they must be given equal rights and oppurtunities, freedom from abuse and so on. The govt has done the right thing recently by granting women civil servants equal medical benefits as their men counterpart. I am all for women getting equal rights. Now how about equal responsibilities?
Aside from the sore point of women not having to serve NS, the reason I am writing this is that I have come across a few cases of divorces in which the men paid heavily and very often, unfairly for their divorces. I have came across some who have to fork out half of their take home pay, leaving themselves with less than a thousand bucks to survive. Very often, the women will emerge none the worse and in fact some of them came out laughing all the way to the bank!
The law must know that the days of uneducated ignorant women are over and that they have an equal responsibility to maintain the children. True, most women still perform a greater percentage of household chores over the men, but the disparity is becoming lesser nowadays. So pray tell me why must men shoulder the bulk of the burden of maintaining their children?
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!
I can go on. If you want more details, ask me. Anyway, something here for you to ponder on:
When men dates women, they pay, dinner, movies, taxi......
When men marries they pay, wedding dinner, dowry, gifts....
When men married, they pay, renovation, bills, fees, family outings...
When men divorce, they pay, alimony, maintenance, legal costs....
When men don't marry, they pay prostitutes, karaoke hostesses....
All opinions welcome, including flames!
-
Perhaps Singaporean males should start considering making pre-nuptial agreements. Some people put aside some assets in the name of a trusted relative eg. a brother but that can be risky in itself, since even a father in the church may not be trusted. I would rather give everything to an Old Age Home with the condition that they will take me in for as long as I live should I get divorced.
-
Nowdays woman can remarry and get lot of money. So as you see. Most woman are like whore in the area of Singapore. They like to divorce ! After divorce. Got money. Got lot of money for maintance. Man like us ? Suffering just because we refuse to go geylang and FXXK !
But I support man to go Geylang and have sex ! Paid for it. It's your rights. She sell and you buy for one shot. It's perfectly alright and best of all. You don't need to worry aftershock ! Remember the word. " I DO" then you suffer already. So if you want to marry.
A few advise.
Make sure the woman you are marry are OK. VIRGIN IS THE BEST ! NOT VIRGIN meaning she is not worth it. Usually non-virgin thinking is very deep. Once cheated. Always suspect others will cheat her ! So avoid such woman !
Tell her you want children. If man not for children ? Go geylang better ! Every week is fresh meat ! Remember to wear condom !
Go to other country to get marry ! Like China. Where b4 marriage. Every of your assents is recorded. Because China government know if they protect the woman too much. The woman are cheaters will make full-use of everything !
Or go to a country where there is no such things as divorce ! -
The best is to shame them !Originally posted by caramon:Women are more lecherous and promiscuous than you think.. I have many decent looking housewives hitting on me all the time when I am alone at the supermart.. sometimes I am shocked and embarassed to have housewives come up to me and ask "are these good to eat? by the way, are you free today?"
Ask them ! How old you are ? You think you are 20++ huh ? -
sorry too busy in my rendezvous with someone than to bother about sour grapes.Originally posted by baderange:You take a long time to have your meal dude