Y not let women serve ns n do minute things
-
cannot... if not we will have a nation of sick and chow keng men and a women's army liao...Originally posted by hisoka:..... free some of them from having to serve ns.
actually want women to chiong, they can lah.. but men still can do combat better. combat roles that suit women are probably those that can be deployed far from frontline like artillery units.. (heard arti women do reservice too, not sure true or not). one more possibility is for them to clear landmines .. since women usually are more meticulous and take their own sweet time
otherwise they can be put to better use in navy or airforce.
i cannot imagine platoons of women laying bridges or doing recce or laying signal cables... -
wah scary thought.. women rambos..Originally posted by mistyblue:So the commander should put all the angry, bloated, PMS-ing women together and they can act like Rambo and gun down all the enemy ... the men stand aside and lah-kopi..
in that case, gay men can be excused from army, but lesbians (only brutches!) must be enlisted! -
can lah those who want to chao geng and can will chao geng to get service appointments anyway so no diff except they no ns. i seriously feel those serving as clerks or as service medics, storeman etc should be freed since we dont really need THEM to defend the nationOriginally posted by commonsense:cannot... if not we will have a nation of sick and chow keng men and a women's army liao...
actually want women to chiong, they can lah.. but men still can do combat better. combat roles that suit women are probably those that can be deployed far from frontline like artillery units.. (heard arti women do reservice too, not sure true or not). one more possibility is for them to clear landmines .. since women usually are more meticulous and take their own sweet time
otherwise they can be put to better use in navy or airforce.
i cannot imagine platoons of women laying bridges or doing recce or laying signal cables... -
he suggested using women as bullet absorbers in the front line(really in front of the troops)Originally posted by hypercurry:Yes. Please say it .
the whole class was stunned silent.
even the open minded ang moh teacher also abit..lost -
That's so bizzare, yet I have heard that argument before. It is said, I can't remember my source, PES C guys that go for BMT and reservist are used for the same purpose too...Originally posted by bismarck:he suggested using women as bullet absorbers in the front line(really in front of the troops)
the whole class was stunned silent.
even the open minded ang moh teacher also abit..lost -
LOL. i noticed some females r disgruntled? haha anyway each to his own ideas. btw i never suggested tt women chiong to the front.. i believe another female distorted or misinterpreted my previous post becz she nvr did ns n doesnt know what service support is.. but nvm lets close this thread.
^-^ + -_-" =p -
hey y not let the men be nanny?do household chores?take care of children n wash the ladies clothes n clean our room? u take the woman as wat ur maid izzit...go f#@king eat sai la uOriginally posted by Hells:Y not let women serve ns n do minute things, for eg, cleaning rifles for ns man after live firing exercises, cleaning our uniforms n boots, do the dishes... etc. saves money for saf plus the new generation ladies can learn how to be better housewives.<--------- to tt A'star scholar i hope u will understand the S$%^ tt nsman endure.. -
aiya... Getting pregnant is voluntary one lor... No one putting you into DB for not having babies la...
Somemore still have maternity leave, baby bonus and stuff and even sue the company for discrimination blah blah.
In army dun kena sargeant tekan can praise the lord already.
But then cannot say the same for NS la.... Kena force there lor and have totally no rights at all....not even voting rights la.
We are the unwilling serving the ungrateful lor.(quote from somewhere)
Unfair to the guys lor but then life is unfair.... -
I am currently serving my national service. While I wish to be in the university with my female compatriots, I fully understand the responsibilities I have to fufil as a citizen of this country. So, I have no qualms whatsoever abt servin my nation though this is sometimes put to the test - this being a free to view site, I dun wish to go into details.
Concerning the issue of whether females should serve national service, I believe that the status quo should be retained.
I would like all of you to consider the impact of females being drawn into national service.
Firstly, the changes would lead to a whole batch of female undergraduates/workers being withdrawn from their academic and job persuits. This has serious economic consequences, given the fact that there would be fewer graduates/workers introduced into the job market for that particular year and the subsequant years to come (depending on how long they decide females should serve).
Some might argue that this might be the perfect solution to our close to stagnated economy. We might be able to get 'foreigners' to fill in the jobs. However, another problem arises when the females together with their male compatriots ORD! We will have to compete with foreigners for jobs, and there might be even a shrtage of jobs and this problem will be here to stay with a surplus of graduates entering the job market after fufiling their academic persuits.
Eventually, a rise in unemployment (our current predicament is that we are struggling to create new jobs) may see a rise in social problems and that is just the beginning of it all
Secondly, the changes would require a radical overhaul of the structure of the SAF. How would such changes affect the operatability of the SAF? In such precarious times (with the ever looming threat of terrorism and rising oil prices), what would be the consequances?
Thirdly, are Singaporean men willing to give due recongnition to their female compatriots after undergoing NS. The females will demand for greater gendar equality. Are we men prepared to recognise this? Are we prepared to face the social consequances of 'a more independent-minded woman'? Male-Female relations will never be the same, I'm talking abt a cultural shift here.
NS is a way of life in Singapore. Hate it or like it (I saw some Officer wearing his number 4 in orchird road. Really feel like slapping him!) We lanlan have to serve. Change, we do need change from time to time, but the changes we take have to be calculated.Personally, I'm all for gender equality and thus there should not be one law for man and another for woman. The introduction of females has several permutations; which in this present climate might lead to undesirable consequances for our nation as a whole. This, we cannot afford to bear. -
Negative. We can make NS compulsory in the future. In say 5 years time. Employers will have plenty of time to prepare.Originally posted by nasiusanna:Concerning the issue of whether females should serve national service, I believe that the status quo should be retained.
I would like all of you to consider the impact of females being drawn into national service.
Firstly, the changes would lead to a whole batch of female undergraduates/workers being withdrawn from their academic and job persuits. This has serious economic consequences, given the fact that there would be fewer graduates/workers introduced into the job market for that particular year and the subsequant years to come (depending on how long they decide females should serve).
Some might argue that this might be the perfect solution to our close to stagnated economy. We might be able to get 'foreigners' to fill in the jobs. However, another problem arises when the females together with their male compatriots ORD! We will have to compete with foreigners for jobs, and there might be even a shrtage of jobs and this problem will be here to stay with a surplus of graduates entering the job market after fufiling their academic persuits.
Eventually, a rise in unemployment (our current predicament is that we are struggling to create new jobs) may see a rise in social problems and that is just the beginning of it all
Secondly, the changes would require a radical overhaul of the structure of the SAF. How would such changes affect the operatability of the SAF? In such precarious times (with the ever looming threat of terrorism and rising oil prices), what would be the consequances?
Thirdly, are Singaporean men willing to give due recongnition to their female compatriots after undergoing NS. The females will demand for greater gendar equality. Are we men prepared to recognise this? Are we prepared to face the social consequances of 'a more independent-minded woman'? Male-Female relations will never be the same, I'm talking abt a cultural shift here.
What flooding of the job market? I do not follow.
Re the structure of the army, is it really that difficult? Further, the suggestion is that women be drafted into the civil service as well. That would include hospitals, etc etc. Those not in the army will be able to stay at home. As for the army, we could have unisex toilets, or, alternatively, we could make all the guys use one toilet while the girls use the other. Most barracks will have two toilets serving a corridor anyway.
What effect will more manpowert have for the op eff of SAF? Well, we could have larger infantry sections for one. We could be able to deploy the SAF on more POI missions for another. Plenty of poss.
As for the equality issue, eh, women are already on par with men in almost all areas. I say almost because i'm sure there are some areas of the law that haven;t been updated. I can't think of any such area though. To make them serve NS would serve to create gender equality. Not the other way around.
While we ar eon the issue of egnder equality, whats this nonsense about women abnd older people having to attain lower stds of Ippt? The logical system would be one where the pass standard is uniform across all genders and age groups. The logic of the current system eludes me. Is the field pack gonna be lighter simply because you are 35? -
That would never happen. It would be too costly to our economy. The guys are already at a disadvantage. However, if girls had really experience what goes on in the army, their perceptions would also change.
-
A woman's place is in the home, making babies and making dinner. Leave the tough jobs to the men.
-
Have you served NS yet? If not then you have absolutely no idea on what you are saying..Originally posted by lwflee:Negative. We can make NS compulsory in the future. In say 5 years time. Employers will have plenty of time to prepare.
What flooding of the job market? I do not follow.
Re the structure of the army, is it really that difficult? Further, the suggestion is that women be drafted into the civil service as well. That would include hospitals, etc etc. Those not in the army will be able to stay at home. As for the army, we could have unisex toilets, or, alternatively, we could make all the guys use one toilet while the girls use the other. Most barracks will have two toilets serving a corridor anyway.
What effect will more manpowert have for the op eff of SAF? Well, we could have larger infantry sections for one. We could be able to deploy the SAF on more POI missions for another. Plenty of poss.
As for the equality issue, eh, women are already on par with men in almost all areas. I say almost because i'm sure there are some areas of the law that haven;t been updated. I can't think of any such area though. To make them serve NS would serve to create gender equality. Not the other way around.
While we ar eon the issue of egnder equality, whats this nonsense about women abnd older people having to attain lower stds of Ippt? The logical system would be one where the pass standard is uniform across all genders and age groups. The logic of the current system eludes me. Is the field pack gonna be lighter simply because you are 35?
If you do, then you need a crash course in human physiology as well as current lifestyle practices...
First of all, how many lean mean 35 year olds do you see around? After so many years of work stress, aging etc many have lost their inherent fitness to the point of no return... At the very least, they have lost the flexibilty and strength that they have at the tender age of 21...
To impose a fitness criteria of a 21 year old to a 35 year old is ridiculous... its like asking your grandfather to run 2.4 right now... Granted you might think that a 35 year old is not much different from say a 24 year old... That is wrong.... there is a huge difference.
Even if a 35 year old wished to continue adopting a fitness regime that he had 14 years old, it would be impossible to expect him to be as fast, flexible and strong as he is before... After the age of 25, the body begins to deterioate.. hence the new test class for age 25 and above...
If you are a fit 35 year old, good for you. But remember that majority of the Singaporean guys at your age is unable to achieve what you can. -
I don't think you got my point. My point is that we should say "OK, this is the minimum level of fitness that a combat soldier will need in order to be effective in combat". After having determined that level, it should be applied uniformly to all combat soldiers, across all age groups and across all genders. In other words, it should be like a qualifying test.Originally posted by DriftingGuy:First of all, how many lean mean 35 year olds do you see around? After so many years of work stress, aging etc many have lost their inherent fitness to the point of no return... At the very least, they have lost the flexibilty and strength that they have at the tender age of 21...
To impose a fitness criteria of a 21 year old to a 35 year old is ridiculous... its like asking your grandfather to run 2.4 right now... Granted you might think that a 35 year old is not much different from say a 24 year old... That is wrong.... there is a huge difference.
Even if a 35 year old wished to continue adopting a fitness regime that he had 14 years old, it would be impossible to expect him to be as fast, flexible and strong as he is before... After the age of 25, the body begins to deterioate.. hence the new test class for age 25 and above...
If you are a fit 35 year old, good for you. But remember that majority of the Singaporean guys at your age is unable to achieve what you can.
I have no objections to varying the standards required for the various silver or gold awards. Those awards are there to motivate soldiers to do better. As such, we should take into account that older ppl will generally have a harder time keeping fit.
The minimum level required should, however, be uniform. To suggest otherwise is surely absurd. -
Exactly, the minimum level is already uniform. Cat X, Cat Y and Cat Z all shows the minimum fitness requirements a person is expected to perform for his age.Originally posted by lwflee:I don't think you got my point. My point is that we should say "OK, this is the minimum level of fitness that a combat soldier will need in order to be effective in combat". After having determined that level, it should be applied uniformly to all combat soldiers, across all age groups and across all genders. In other words, it should be like a qualifying test.
I have no objections to varying the standards required for the various silver or gold awards. Those awards are there to motivate soldiers to do better. As such, we should take into account that older ppl will generally have a harder time keeping fit.
The minimum level required should, however, be uniform. To suggest otherwise is surely absurd.
Perhaps you feel that the individual Cat systems are too lenient? Don't forget that the SAF has a commitee deciding such matters and they should have taken many factors such as human physiology into consideration... -
Is the minimum level uniform across all cat. levels?
-
Perhaps I wasn't clear about what I meantOriginally posted by lwflee:Is the minimum level uniform across all cat. levels?
Let me give you an example.. Let say you expect a 21 year old to run 2.4 km at 12 minutes 20 seconds. This is the minimum expected for someone of his age assuming he puts in the effort to stay fit etc. and yes it is currently implemented
Lets review what it would mean for a 35 year old. Let say 12.20 for a 35 year old would be equivilent to 10.00 for a 21 year old, you might disagree on this but this is a rough gauge and is based on what I said earlier about physical differences across the ages
If one were to insist that all of the minimum fitness criterias across the cats be the same, you would be insisting that a 35 year old run must run at near Gold fitness. Perhaps a number would be able to run at that speed. In reality, a huge number won't be able to run at that speed.
Even if they were to dedicate their life to just achieving an IPPT pass, a lot of them will still fail since at their current age, many health problems will arise such as heart problems etc...
Even the current minimum criteria is easily achieved. If one were to lead a sedentary lifestyle, it is not likely that he will pass the "minimum" criteria.
Hence Cat X would have a higher "minimum criteria" than Cat Y for the next age group and the same for Cat Z. -
I feel that the scheme should be like this:
Pass std across all cats and genders:
13:30
Silver for Cat x: 11.40
Sivler for cat y : 12:00
Gold for cat x: 9:45
Gold for cat y: 11:50
etc etc
Obviusly you do not agree. Yes, it gets harder as one gets older. But i think it makes sense to set one standard that all must pass.
Perhaps this is already in place. Maybe a study has been done and it has been concluded that the passing grade required for cat z soldiers is the minum required for any combat soldier to operate efficiently. In that case, i have no real objections. But is that really the case? Or is it a case of granting oldies more leeway? -
If you were to set the minimum for all cats as 13.30, that would provide too much leeway for those age 21 and below.Originally posted by lwflee:I feel that the scheme should be like this:
Pass std across all cats and genders:
13:30
Silver for Cat x: 11.40
Sivler for cat y : 12:00
Gold for cat x: 9:45
Gold for cat y: 11:50
etc etc
Obviusly you do not agree. Yes, it gets harder as one gets older. But i think it makes sense to set one standard that all must pass.
Perhaps this is already in place. Maybe a study has been done and it has been concluded that the passing grade required for cat z soldiers is the minum required for any combat soldier to operate efficiently. In that case, i have no real objections. But is that really the case? Or is it a case of granting oldies more leeway?
You will see a huge increase in passes for ippt by those that are younger than age 25. A lot of them would think they are fit for running at 13.30, even though the reality is that combat fitness at their age requires them to run at 12.20.
Granted some units require a silver, some require a gold. But after ORD, many will aim for 13.30 as their minimum. That will effectively reduce the overall fitness of the Army.
I understand that you are concerned that the oldies might be getting it easy. I can't answer you about whether Cat Z is the minimum requirement to operate as an efficient combat unit. But, it should be the limit that a 35 year old be expected to perform physically, unless SAF is really screwed up..
I stand-by what I said earlier, there can be no one-standard for all age groups.. Each group requires specific criterias -
About the economy being affected...Well I am sure Mr Lee Kuan Yew thought about it thoroughly when he enlisted all the men into NS. I sure did not hear anyone complaining that it would affect the economy or cause an influx of foreign workers or anythig. If the guys could be enlisted without a big fuss why not the girls...
Gender equality. Are u implying that girls are inferior to guys in singapore today. If yes then please do tell me where? In studies, don't girls score as well or even better than the guys and get an head start of 2yrs to start their job.
In the job market, 2yrs head start and qualifications is all that matter and girls can even sue for the simplest slight of discrimination.
Are we guys getting more respect from the girls that we serve the army?
Do the girls go 'omg, ur are protecting our lives!!! I love u sooooo much' or isit 'Haha, kena NS ah, gd luck...my sympathies la.'
You muz be kidding me.
I am sure if the girls were made to do the equal amount of work in other sectors such as simply doing clerk work or data entry or stuff and being paid like we NS man do, I am sure the country could save a huge chunk of money and rely less on foreigners even if its for 1year. Wouldn't it be a greater 'service' done to singapore. -
Lets put it this way. I'm a NSF currently, and i have been pissed time and time again in the army. It sux...i can give you that. But if you take a step back and think, this consrcipted army status has been chosen for what i feel to be good enough reasons.
MM Lee once stated the reasons behind implementing a conscripted army. Once the Brits left, defence was left to ourseleves. We had 3 options. 1 was to sign a defence treaty with neighbouring nations, for example Malaysia and Indonesia, stating that in times of war, THEIR armies would defend US. This method is not unproven as Gambia and Senegal have a similar treaty that has been put to the test before. It held up. But seriously, would you like Singapore to always be at a dis-advantage by having neighbouring countries defend us?
The second option to provide protection to this small nation would be to have an almost entirely mercenary army. Whether they would hold key positions was never contemplated, as this option was thrown out the minute it was brought up for obvious reasons.
The last option was to have a conscripted army that would provide the country with a continous stream of soldiers to fall back upon should war truly break out. This, supplemented with defence treaties with other nations would at least ensure that we have a chance should someone try to attack us. So in view of all this...i guess not matter how much i hate this, i have to agree with it. It is not perfect, but it is the best that we have.
Also, as for whether girls should serve national service too? I don't think it would be a good idea. Girls will hardly understand guys as will guys understand girls, so lets just leave it as that. Having them serve in a hospital environment would be extremely dangerous not only to the patients, but also to fellow full-time staff and even more to themselves. The number one cause of fear for nurses arround is a needle prick injury. You can be infected with HIV if you are not careful. And if you say that NS nurses don't have to handle needles, put it this way. You can't plan for everything. Shit happens.
So i say...this NS thing has become part of our culture. Live with it. Girls are meant to complement guys, not do the things we do. If they don't understand, then so be it. We don't understand a lot of things that they go through also. And no matter what, i feel that the army is for guys only, at least the frontline army. It is battle proven that if guys fight besides girls, they will fight much worse than if its all guys because they naturally will want to take care of the girls and not take new grounds. -
Actually bef NS came in 1967, they had wanted to follow Israel, gals go for NS... But then, it may mean shortage to the growing of the industries back then...
But I dun think we really need gals doing NS... -
females best not to be in the military because in case of wartime, she need to take care of her children. If both sexes are used in the military alot of orphans will result during war time. From humane point of view we leave one parent alive for the kid.
-
your 1st point i guess its valid but i would say restructuring of the economy and job market occurs all the time i doubt it will really have as much an impact as you would infer. out of point but perhaps takign a leaf out of malaysia's system where balloting is done might be a good idea where the problem you describe is negated but the guys do not feel as shortchanged.Originally posted by nasiusanna:I am currently serving my national service. While I wish to be in the university with my female compatriots, I fully understand the responsibilities I have to fufil as a citizen of this country. So, I have no qualms whatsoever abt servin my nation though this is sometimes put to the test - this being a free to view site, I dun wish to go into details.
Concerning the issue of whether females should serve national service, I believe that the status quo should be retained.
I would like all of you to consider the impact of females being drawn into national service.
Firstly, the changes would lead to a whole batch of female undergraduates/workers being withdrawn from their academic and job persuits. This has serious economic consequences, given the fact that there would be fewer graduates/workers introduced into the job market for that particular year and the subsequant years to come (depending on how long they decide females should serve).
Some might argue that this might be the perfect solution to our close to stagnated economy. We might be able to get 'foreigners' to fill in the jobs. However, another problem arises when the females together with their male compatriots ORD! We will have to compete with foreigners for jobs, and there might be even a shrtage of jobs and this problem will be here to stay with a surplus of graduates entering the job market after fufiling their academic persuits.
Eventually, a rise in unemployment (our current predicament is that we are struggling to create new jobs) may see a rise in social problems and that is just the beginning of it all
Secondly, the changes would require a radical overhaul of the structure of the SAF. How would such changes affect the operatability of the SAF? In such precarious times (with the ever looming threat of terrorism and rising oil prices), what would be the consequances?
Thirdly, are Singaporean men willing to give due recongnition to their female compatriots after undergoing NS. The females will demand for greater gendar equality. Are we men prepared to recognise this? Are we prepared to face the social consequances of 'a more independent-minded woman'? Male-Female relations will never be the same, I'm talking abt a cultural shift here.
NS is a way of life in Singapore. Hate it or like it (I saw some Officer wearing his number 4 in orchird road. Really feel like slapping him!) We lanlan have to serve. Change, we do need change from time to time, but the changes we take have to be calculated.Personally, I'm all for gender equality and thus there should not be one law for man and another for woman. The introduction of females has several permutations; which in this present climate might lead to undesirable consequances for our nation as a whole. This, we cannot afford to bear.
2ndly, the overhual in the system would not be that drastic since there are females in the system at the moment even if they are not nsf but they do have to go through most if not all the things guys have to go through. inaddition the overhual can be done gradually with minimal or no effect on the operationality. and the overhual will again i feel not be as disruptive as you are trying to say or feel.
3rd, you mean females are not trying to fight for more advantages/equalities?(just a side note but i feel a system where a company has to employ like 40% females at least is an advantage to the females and not equality since it ensures they have higher chances in the company whereas males do not have this safety net) whether males are willing to give equal credit is not really a issue is it? as long as credit is given if some pple privately do not acknowledge the credit is it really an issue
i am not sure but you seem to feel only bad things can come out of changing the system and that you are unwillign to take risks. i would say that it isn't a veyr good view to take of things, nothign personal -
guys n ladies pls stick to the topic and not bring in the discussion of guys doing ns in the first place becoz if u bring tt up it onli goes to show u dun understand the topic.. just my 2 cents worth" if gals want greater gender equality maybe they cud protest less and show a lil more action"(P.S. the above sentence is not related to this topic in anyway so dun flame hor
)
Btw for the gal who said guys should stay home n be a nanny, u should be aware tt there r now many wives who dun/cant cook hire maids to do their jobs and at the same time there r also househusbands. Also, wat makes u so sure tt u will get married or pregnant?(P.S. again dun reply to this, if u need to just pm me.)
Back to the topic. The speculation of economic chaos could happen, but then again tt is an assumption... n we all know tt assumption is the mother of all F!@# ups. Ministers r encouraging Singaporeans to be entrepreneurs n engage in risk taking, so unless a calculated risk is taken we will nvr know the answer. Right now my stand is with those who suggested tt gals help out in the service n support/logistics sector n be given NS pay. No 1 here ever suggested gals go fight in the frontline, unless they volunteer to. SG cud use Israel as a case study and work things out. If ladies r equiped with basic medical skills, in the event of a war they can help the wounded n save lifes. in peacetime who knows, they cud help, EG, perform CPR on a drowning kid.
There r many pros n cons but u must check out both, dun be 1 sided ok?