Originally posted by jojobeach:Then you should be asking. Why don't they recognise the issue ?
Most of them are men themselves. Why are they not fighting for men rights as fervently as you ?
Like I mentioned so many times before.. it is the family court judges that decides the awards. If you think the judgements are unfair.. you are saying the JUDGE is unfair.
Then it is the JUDGE who should be removed. Yes ?
Well yeah, if the hypothetical judge in question ruled unfairly.
Anyway, not all judgements are unfair, but why provide the gap in the system anyway? If they're not abusing the system, it wouldn't affect them. So why let a gap be there in the first place?
It's like refusing to build barriers on a staircase until someone breaks his neck.
i do not have much time to do this..
in the workforce, who do u think a boss hires? a mother, a pregnant lady? or a man?
in the govt sector? what is the highest rank a woman can go? for the last 40yrs of NS.. ask urself..
just ask urself, how many female presidents.. democracy my balls..
and abt ur women not interested in marriage to dvorcees above 40, seriously.. u noe the rules..
and to answer deathmaster.. there are women who are educated, there are women who are not.. there are many who are unaware of how to seek legal advice.. even with the women's charter today.. as YOU quoted, 40% of abuse cases are women... even with the law blatantly siding with the women, the men are still doing it.. what will happen if there is NONE?
and i din say the law must be unfair to be fair.. i said the law must be unfair to protect the victims..
i told u so many times.. the law IS unfair.. it IS biased.. but there is a good reason for it.. because men and women are different.. and the society ACKNOWLEDGES IT... that's why it stands, as a LAW..
because SINGAPOREANS acknowledges that men and women are different, when they are in SINGAPORE.. get the idea?
ur views do not represent the majority.. my views dun represent the majority too.. and dun say all men, and half the population.. because not every guy wants to see women caned...
Originally posted by MrSean:
Well yeah, if the hypothetical judge in question ruled unfairly.Anyway, not all judgements are unfair, but why provide the gap in the system anyway? If they're not abusing the system, it wouldn't affect them. So why let a gap be there in the first place?
It's like refusing to build barriers on a staircase until someone breaks his neck.
If the judge ruled unfairly, either party can still appeal against the judgement.
The so called " gap" in the system is to allow for flexibility.
A divorce is not a criminal case, where you can prescribe fixed or very clear cut punishment once you are proven guilty.
In a divorce, it is not about who is guilty and who is not.
The judge has to look into many factors before he decides who gets what.
Ofcors, a couple can always agree on the asset division so there will be no need to contest , that will make life so much easier. But during a divorce.. who's gonna be so nice to each other ? If they can be so nice to each other.. there wouldn't be a divorce now, yes ?
By making it rigid, there will be a lot more who's gonna break their necks.
Originally posted by MrSean:
Again, the view that NS is no big deal is simply your opinion, and I clearly do not share it. Anyway, if it was no big deal, then why aren't women put through it too? The reason: guys are assumed to be natural devils of the world while women are the angels who don't deserve to be punished.I disagree with the way a lot of things are run in NS. If the NS system at least focused on being productive, I would not be so against it, but the fact is that often they focuse on areas that are highly unproductive and are simply out to waste us away mentally and emotionally.
Take for example, marching drills. They claim that this instills discipline, but they are assuming that all men are naturally without this, even by the time they reach the age of roughly 18 years. (I believe this varies depending on your education options.) If it instilled discipline, are women therefore assumed to be fully disciplined while men are not? Not only that, but it is unproductive. It's not like we're learning any actual useful skills or constructing something of worth...
They also have several highly unnecessary rules (these may be petty, but I still feel that they are unproductive and a waste of time.) Even the simplest of things are taken advantage of by the army to exploit and to make a rule without good reason. Take eating for example, it is a warranted assumption that when they provide you with food, you are allowed to eat it. Yet you will probably be severely punished if you do not ask for permission to eat before doing so. I am unsure as to whether this tradition still stands so please correct me if I am wrong. In short, they are forcing upon us several cultural restrictions that we may not share with them. (I believe that this specific tradition that I have provided as an example may stem from chinese traditions of telling one's elders to eat before doing so. Probably evolved to what I stated above.)
In any case, this is not the only issue that I have presented, please read the first post (and if you have time, other replies) for more information.
Anyway, in response to your reply that women should be treated better because men and women are fundamentally different... Again I pose this question, people of different races are biologically different as well (some are more susceptible to certain diseases and disorders, some have different ratios of hormonal output etc.) , yet we promote racial harmony and equal treatment of all races. Why is this? It is for the simple reason that different though we may be, one is not valued above any other. Different does not translate to being unequal, and quite clearly our laws do not agree.
MrSean, for someone who has YET to gone through NS, I can understand where you're comming from. However, apparently you have a pretty warped understanding of the things that are done in the army.
With regards to marching drills, yes one of the reason is to instil discipline but many people do not see HOW it is so. In the army, everyone has to work together to achieve a specific goal and to do so, individual excellence is essential, however, teamwork is crucial. Marching drills instil that sense of teamwork when done in a unit. Every step, every swing of the shoulders and every movement of the rifle is synchronised. If done properly. not only is it a sight to behold, it aims to be a reflection of the mentality and attitude a soldier must have serving his unit, formation and country.
It sounds very ridiculous to me that a men has to do marching drills to instil discipline therefore in the first place he lacks discipline? Its as good as saying some people have tution teachers, hence the people who don't are less capable academically? It doesn't work that way.
Whoever that told you all about the food issue? Personally haven't experienced that. But Im sure many will agree that end of the day, the system is actually not flawed in the army. Its the people in command that are flawed. Some of these sorry SOBs just make it a personal agenda to make people's life miserable. But that being said, there are always others on the other end of the spectrum but most of the time the highlight and stories are often cast on the assholes.
The difference biologically between races against the difference between genders are two totally different matters. Your analogy doesn't apply. Furthermore, mentally and physically, men are more suited to fight. I say do your part and serve your country. When it comes to national defence, due to these biological defence between males and females, it is deemed neccessary for a male to contribute as it is proven that they are more capable of doing so. However if females are willing, they can do so too. This is reflected by the number of female regulars.
Originally posted by purpledragon84:i do not have much time to do this..
in the workforce, who do u think a boss hires? a mother, a pregnant lady? or a man?
in the govt sector? what is the highest rank a woman can go? for the last 40yrs of NS.. ask urself..
just ask urself, how many female presidents.. democracy my balls..
and abt ur women not interested in marriage to dvorcees above 40, seriously.. u noe the rules..
and to answer deathmaster.. there are women who are educated, there are women who are not.. there are many who are unaware of how to seek legal advice.. even with the women's charter today.. as YOU quoted, 40% of abuse cases are women... even with the law blatantly siding with the women, the men are still doing it.. what will happen if there is NONE?
and i din say the law must be unfair to be fair.. i said the law must be unfair to protect the victims..
i told u so many times.. the law IS unfair.. it IS biased.. but there is a good reason for it.. because men and women are different.. and the society ACKNOWLEDGES IT... that's why it stands, as a LAW..
because SINGAPOREANS acknowledges that men and women are different, when they are in SINGAPORE.. get the idea?
ur views do not represent the majority.. my views dun represent the majority too.. and dun say all men, and half the population.. because not every guy wants to see women caned...
in the workforce, who do u think a boss hires? a mother, a pregnant lady? or a man?
there are plenty of the above types of people working, as far as i can see. so far, i think age is the main factor affecting employment.
in the govt sector? what is the highest rank a woman can go? for the last 40yrs of NS.. ask urself..
how many women are there serving NS? if all women are to be made to do NS, no doubt we will see a roughly similar distribution of male and female officers.
you want to go higher ranks in NS, first serve ur NS. if not, don't bother raising the status of women in NS.
in govt sector, there are plenty of female perm secs around. if you want to run for MP, or to be minister (of which you first have to be a MP), no one is barring you to run for elections.
with 50% of the populace being women, its their own business if women themselves can't win over the votes of fellow women.
therefore, IMO, the fact that there are few women MP is attributed to the general females' lack of interests in politics.
just ask urself, how many female presidents.. democracy my balls..
again, no one is stopping you, if you meet the requirements to be a presidential candidate. not many men qualify for the post either, apparently, as seen in the walk-over in the recent presidential elections.
and again, if you do qualify to be a candidate for presidency, as i am sure you know, selection of president is carried out by voting. it is still the women to blame, if she is not convincing enough to win over the votes of the populace, since men and women are equal on voting grounds, with the population roughly at 50-50.
and abt ur women not interested in marriage to dvorcees above 40, seriously.. u noe the rules..
wad rules? i am just stating a general observation. alot of single, divorced, never-married men above 40 yrs of age are turning to foreign brides. think this issue was covered in zaobao sometime back, where there is a lot of social debate over foreign brides.
and to answer deathmaster.. there are women who are educated, there are women who are not.. there are many who are unaware of how to seek legal advice.. even with the women's charter today.. as YOU quoted, 40% of abuse cases are women... even with the law blatantly siding with the women, the men are still doing it.. what will happen if there is NONE?
stats have shown that there are more female graduates than male graduates out in the society currently. by the rule of proportion, if there are women who are in some way unaware of how to obtain legal aid (i'm not sure why they don't, since legal aid, be it free or paid, are largely advertised and promoted in today's age. counselling center, the police, clan societies provides free of charge legal services, as they deem fit. an as far as i know, anyone can step into any law firm. even law firms are splashing their ads on TV and newspaper.)
back to the pt, if there really are such ignorant women out there regarding legal aid, judging by the general education level of the population, there would be more males who also do not know where to seek legal aid.
and how ironic for u to quote the 40% figure. u r just smashing ur feet with a rock. yes, there are 40% women in abuse case, but it also means that there are 60% men in abuse cases too. that figures just show that men are the majority of abuse victims.
and since in this thread, where some individuals are advocating the sacrificing of minorities to fit the majority, so can we sacrifice these 40% women, since they are the minority?
i'm sure you would say no. thus, i would like to ask you, why then the double standards? men also deserve equal protection under the law. i am not saying that they are incapable of fending for themselves. but there should be some sort of formalize statement protecting the rights of males.
and i din say the law must be unfair to be fair.. i said the law must be unfair to protect the victims..
u are not making sense here. if laws are unfair, what is the point of having a legal system then? you go to court expecting a fair hearing, not an unfair hearing.
if the laws are fair, victims would have no doubt a mean to protect themselves. if they are unable to protect themselves in a court of law (a fair one), then they must be the guilty party. and u and i quoted, 60% of abuse victims are male, so indirectly, we are agreeing that the law should be made more favorable to males, to protect them, since males form the majority of victims?
i told u so many times.. the law IS unfair.. it IS biased.. but there is a good reason for it.. because men and women are different.. and the society ACKNOWLEDGES IT... that's why it stands, as a LAW..
i dare you to go up to any court and tell the judge that the law is unfair. they will just lock u up for lunancy, since its their job to make laws fair and just for everyone.
as far as i know, a unfair court of law is known as a kangaroo court.
because SINGAPOREANS acknowledges that men and women are different, when they are in SINGAPORE.. get the idea?
are you really sure? from the replies we are getting on this thread, it don't seem that way.
ur views do not represent the majority.. my views dun represent the majority too.. and dun say all men, and half the population.. because not every guy wants to see women caned...
so, as we had long mentioned before, either impose it on both genders or to scrape it totally.
so far, its mostly men who have been arguing on the issue of caning, with women generally uninterested, since it does not affect them at hand.
if women are too caned, we shall start to see more protest on the part of females, and that would sure raise the eyes of our beloved garmen.
Originally posted by deathmaster:in the workforce, who do u think a boss hires? a mother, a pregnant lady? or a man?
there are plenty of the above types of people working, as far as i can see. so far, i think age is the main factor affecting employment.
in the govt sector? what is the highest rank a woman can go? for the last 40yrs of NS.. ask urself..
how many women are there serving NS? if all women are to be made to do NS, no doubt we will see a roughly similar distribution of male and female officers.
you want to go higher ranks in NS, first serve ur NS. if not, don't bother raising the status of women in NS.
in govt sector, there are plenty of female perm secs around. if you want to run for MP, or to be minister (of which you first have to be a MP), no one is barring you to run for elections.
with 50% of the populace being women, its their own business if women themselves can't win over the votes of fellow women.
therefore, IMO, the fact that there are few women MP is attributed to the general females' lack of interests in politics.
just ask urself, how many female presidents.. democracy my balls..
again, no one is stopping you, if you meet the requirements to be a presidential candidate. not many men qualify for the post either, apparently, as seen in the walk-over in the recent presidential elections.
and again, if you do qualify to be a candidate for presidency, as i am sure you know, selection of president is carried out by voting. it is still the women to blame, if she is not convincing enough to win over the votes of the populace, since men and women are equal on voting grounds, with the population roughly at 50-50.
and abt ur women not interested in marriage to dvorcees above 40, seriously.. u noe the rules..
wad rules? i am just stating a general observation. alot of single, divorced, never-married men above 40 yrs of age are turning to foreign brides. think this issue was covered in zaobao sometime back, where there is a lot of social debate over foreign brides.
and to answer deathmaster.. there are women who are educated, there are women who are not.. there are many who are unaware of how to seek legal advice.. even with the women's charter today.. as YOU quoted, 40% of abuse cases are women... even with the law blatantly siding with the women, the men are still doing it.. what will happen if there is NONE?
stats have shown that there are more female graduates than male graduates out in the society currently. by the rule of proportion, if there are women who are in some way unaware of how to obtain legal aid (i'm not sure why they don't, since legal aid, be it free or paid, are largely advertised and promoted in today's age. counselling center, the police, clan societies provides free of charge legal services, as they deem fit. an as far as i know, anyone can step into any law firm. even law firms are splashing their ads on TV and newspaper.)
back to the pt, if there really are such ignorant women out there regarding legal aid, judging by the general education level of the population, there would be more males who also do not know where to seek legal aid.
and how ironic for u to quote the 40% figure. u r just smashing ur feet with a rock. yes, there are 40% women in abuse case, but it also means that there are 60% men in abuse cases too. that figures just show that men are the majority of abuse victims.
and since in this thread, where some individuals are advocating the sacrificing of minorities to fit the majority, so can we sacrifice these 40% women, since they are the minority?
i'm sure you would say no. thus, i would like to ask you, why then the double standards? men also deserve equal protection under the law. i am not saying that they are incapable of fending for themselves. but there should be some sort of formalize statement protecting the rights of males.
and i din say the law must be unfair to be fair.. i said the law must be unfair to protect the victims..
u are not making sense here. if laws are unfair, what is the point of having a legal system then? you go to court expecting a fair hearing, not an unfair hearing.
if the laws are fair, victims would have no doubt a mean to protect themselves. if they are unable to protect themselves in a court of law (a fair one), then they must be the guilty party. and u and i quoted, 60% of abuse victims are male, so indirectly, we are agreeing that the law should be made more favorable to males, to protect them, since males form the majority of victims?
i told u so many times.. the law IS unfair.. it IS biased.. but there is a good reason for it.. because men and women are different.. and the society ACKNOWLEDGES IT... that's why it stands, as a LAW..
i dare you to go up to any court and tell the judge that the law is unfair. they will just lock u up for lunancy, since its their job to make laws fair and just for everyone.
as far as i know, a unfair court of law is known as a kangaroo court.
because SINGAPOREANS acknowledges that men and women are different, when they are in SINGAPORE.. get the idea?
are you really sure? from the replies we are getting on this thread, it don't seem that way.
ur views do not represent the majority.. my views dun represent the majority too.. and dun say all men, and half the population.. because not every guy wants to see women caned...
so, as we had long mentioned before, either impose it on both genders or to scrape it totally.
so far, its mostly men who have been arguing on the issue of caning, with women generally uninterested, since it does not affect them at hand.
if women are too caned, we shall start to see more protest on the part of females, and that would sure raise the eyes of our beloved garmen.
Death,
You got mother anot har ?
why don't you ask your mother if she is same same as your father anot ?
why don't you ask your mother if it will be a right thing to do to ensure the wifeys gets only 25% irregardless of the length of marriage and/or spouse contributions ?
I'm imagining your mother will come and kok your head say.
" si gin nah.. later your father divorce me, you want me to go collect carton boxes issit ?"
yes, VoR, you struck the nail on the head. feminists always want to push for more rights, and also at the same time expect to retain their privilege from an earlier era.
Chivalry is conceive in a period where women, undeniably, has a lower social standing in society. nevertheless, it's application is solely optional, and there is no law stating that you must pay respect to women, nor to allow them any legal advantage.
Thank you very much, I am very pleased to be here.
Essentially, I was very surprised at the lack of intelligence displayed by Jojo.. and I am not even starting about her inability in the english language.
Unequal priviledges ? Don't tell me about unequal priviledges until you've castrated yourself ok ?
My, my, someone has issues. Penis envy?
You guys just wanna come here and complain like a little old lady.
I would love to say that I am engaging you in an argument but in doing so, I would elevate you to an exponent, a fighter, an equal.. you were never a match to begin with.
When ask what kinda solution you think is best, I get no answer.
Why should I have to keep repeating myself when you guys are not willing to compromise anyway?
Speak for yourself, what have YOU compromised?
No one insulted you but you dished out insults viciously and vehemently. If you wish to start a fight, be prepared to get one. Don't run, don't hide, don't go crying. You wish to be treated like an equal, STAND and FIGHT like one. Don't do cowardly shit like construct pathetic arguments which connect like America and Europe, meaning they don't connect and attempt to fabricate bollocks.
Like I said.. if you guys come out from your father's ass , I got nothing to say.
I was born through by my mother, with the sperm of my father.
At least purpleD knows the difference between men and women.
If you really think so, then you are a simpleton through and through. He has no understanding of the situation, zero reasoning or logic.
His only argument when pushed is "a men's charter will be unfair", failing to take into account the egregious failings happening now, with an unleveled playing field with privileges like the women's charter. It's simple - remove the women's charter, there is no need to have a men's charter.
My point is, and I don't know(or really care) if you agree.
We are not equals, no one ever is, but we should all be treated equally.
If you are a virgin, just say so.
Ad hominem.
So I am assuming that you are proud you whored around? Wow.
Please, fascinate me with your illogical replies.
The difference biologically between races against the difference between genders are two totally different matters. Your analogy doesn't apply. Furthermore, mentally and physically, men are more suited to fight. I say do your part and serve your country. When it comes to national defence, due to these biological defence between males and females, it is deemed neccessary for a male to contribute as it is proven that they are more capable of doing so. However if females are willing, they can do so too. This is reflected by the number of female regulars.
If you are going to cite biology as a reason, I am going to say several things.
1. The army goes beyond combat. There are many other services in the army.
2. It is called national service.. We are not caring how you serve.. you *just* have a moral obligation to serve, be it man or woman.
3. It is also proven biologically that men make better leaders, judges etc(men are logical, women are emotional-fact), does this then mean we should categorically place all men into power? Or, it makes sense for the majority to be filled with male leaders?
Ofcors, a couple can always agree on the asset division so there will be no need to contest , that will make life so much easier. But during a divorce.. who's gonna be so nice to each other ? If they can be so nice to each other.. there wouldn't be a divorce now, yes ?
I am surprised you are willing to admit how women go ballistic and vicious during a divorce. Well done.
Dude, in the early era.. women stays at home and men goes to work to bring home the bacon.
You are forgetting how men have died for many generations. It isn't all smooth sailing in the dark ages. Do you actually know how dangerous the world was several hundreds years ago?
Now, men expect women to bring home the bacon AND give birth to his offsprings AND take care of the family while the men "help out".
I certainly am baffled how you have come to that conclusion. "expect" ? Seriously? Who? Proof?
Not only is she expected to do all the above.. she also needs to know how to groom herself so he can be proud of her. That's why so many women goes under scalpel just to make herself look good for her husband.
You shouldn't fault men for female insecurities. What are men going to do when they tell their wives daily "you are beautiful" but they choose not to believe it? If women are so fragile mentally to HAVE to go for plastic surgery, why blame it on men?
In the older days.. mothers are frumpy and they don't need to even bother dressing up. But their hubby accepts them as they are because that's how it is after child birth.
Now, when the wife loses her pre-pregnancy body.. he thinks she is too fat and ugly for him and goes out and find himself a nice young chick.
What a load of bollocks and feminist spewed bullshit.
Women initiate divorce 70% of the time. It is unlike the feminist contrive "men ditch old wife for young one" but rather the converse. You are so into reality tv huh? Go read up, go check on stats. It will really show how asinine you are.
In the past, men were willing to fight and defend women because they were ladylike, possessing all the traits that a woman should be - mother to a family and a loyal wife. How many women are like that today? Materialstic? Superficial? Unfair privileges? Do I really need to go on? If women are transforming, so will men. Don't expect 'chivalry' .. be grateful for it.
Originally posted by VoiceofReason:Thank you very much, I am very pleased to be here.
Essentially, I was very surprised at the lack of intelligence displayed by Jojo.. and I am not even starting about her inability in the english language.
My, my, someone has issues. Penis envy?
I would love to say that I am engaging you in an argument but in doing so, I would elevate you to an exponent, a fighter, an equal.. you were never a match to begin with.
Speak for yourself, what have YOU compromised?
No one insulted you but you dished out insults viciously and vehemently. If you wish to start a fight, be prepared to get one. Don't run, don't hide, don't go crying. You wish to be treated like an equal, STAND and FIGHT like one. Don't do cowardly shit like construct pathetic arguments which connect like America and Europe, meaning they don't connect and attempt to fabricate bollocks.
I was born through by my mother, with the sperm of my father.
If you really think so, then you are a simpleton through and through. He has no understanding of the situation, zero reasoning or logic.
His only argument when pushed is "a men's charter will be unfair", failing to take into account the egregious failings happening now, with an unleveled playing field with privileges like the women's charter. It's simple - remove the women's charter, there is no need to have a men's charter.
My point is, and I don't know(or really care) if you agree.
We are not equals, no one ever is, but we should all be treated equally.
Ad hominem.
So I am assuming that you are proud you whored around? Wow.
Please, fascinate me with your illogical replies.
So voice,
Are you of legal age yet ?
Have you bed a woman yet ?
If no, then I wait for you to mature first. Then we discuss ok ? Good.
By the way.. there's plenty of good women out there... don't let your fellow classmates make you think otherwise....
What has my personal life got to do with anything?
Why do you have to get so personal?
I *do* have a girlfriend but I don't see how having sex makes me a more matured person. Did you really think that after you lost your virginity? Is having sex your yardstick? You are the fool who needs to mature... but I can see why you would choose to avoid facing me.. because you are a coward and you KNOW you lose.
Weakling.
Originally posted by VoiceofReason:What has my personal life got to do with anything?
Why do you have to get so personal?
I *do* have a girlfriend but I don't see how having sex makes me a more matured person. Did you really think that after you lost your virginity? Is having sex your yardstick? You are the fool who needs to mature... but I can see why you would choose to avoid facing me.. because you are a coward and you KNOW you lose.
Weakling.
You DO have a girlfriend ???
What shocking news... so your gf is " Materialstic? Superficial? and enjoys Unfair privileges?" YES ???
Well.. good for you dude.
And... you do know that you're the result of your mother whoring around , yes ?
Ofcors personal experience is important in this kind of discussion.
If you are still a virgin and not of legal age..
It's like trying to explain to an Ang Moh who has only heard of a Durian and that it stinks. But never seen, touched, or ate one before.
And dude.. there's no point facing you..if all you do is spout nonsense.. at least MrSean is a more reasonable and mature chap than you, that's why I don't mind engaging in a discussion with him.
So dude.. thanks but not thanks.
You DO have a girlfriend ???
Why not? I am not a weak beta male.
What shocking news... so your gf is " Materialstic? Superficial? and enjoys Unfair privileges?" YES ???
How foolish. Apparently, you can't grasp simple points. Is that too much for your feeble mind? Or do you need a father to guide you along?
And... you do know that you're the result of your mother whoring around , yes ?
No, I come from a perfectly functional family, unlike you. That is perhaps why you run your mouth off like a whore and I don't.
Ofcors personal experience is important in this kind of discussion.
If you are still a virgin and not of legal age..
What kind of horseshit is that? Do you need to personally experience murder before you can discuss it? You are really that stupid huh?
It's like trying to explain to an Ang Moh who has only heard of a Durian and that it stinks. But never seen, touched, or ate one before.
That's so stupid I can't even believe you said it. When you learn about fire, you don't have to touch it to know it's hot. When you learn about the USA, you don't have to travel there to know it's a democracy. Information and knowledge flow like that through logical connections, deductions, reasoning and credibility.
Really, try to come up with something smart. You are amazingly pathetic.
Originally posted by VoiceofReason:Why not? I am not a weak beta male.
How foolish. Apparently, you can't grasp simple points. Is that too much for your feeble mind? Or do you need a father to guide you along?
No, I come from a perfectly functional family, unlike you. That is perhaps why you run your mouth off like a whore and I don't.
What kind of horseshit is that? Do you need to personally experience murder before you can discuss it? You are really that stupid huh?
That's so stupid I can't even believe you said it. When you learn about fire, you don't have to touch it to know it's hot. When you learn about the USA, you don't have to travel there to know it's a democracy. Information and knowledge flow like that through logical connections, deductions, reasoning and credibility.
Really, try to come up with something smart. You are amazingly pathetic.
well well.. at least I have a good reason for misbehaving.
You have a functional family and yet you behave worst than an orphan.
That's just too bad.. your parent didn't teach you any manners. Shame on them.
I pity your girlfriend.. but then she's probably also a whore. that's why she don't mind a guy like you.
If you don't know what I'm talking about.. then you're probably too dumb anyway.
So kid.. I'm not interested in your nonsense.
You can continue your rubbish.. I'm through with ya. That'll be all, now SHOO !!!
Originally posted by deathmaster:in the workforce, who do u think a boss hires? a mother, a pregnant lady? or a man?
there are plenty of the above types of people working, as far as i can see. so far, i think age is the main factor affecting employment.
in the govt sector? what is the highest rank a woman can go? for the last 40yrs of NS.. ask urself..
how many women are there serving NS? if all women are to be made to do NS, no doubt we will see a roughly similar distribution of male and female officers.
you want to go higher ranks in NS, first serve ur NS. if not, don't bother raising the status of women in NS.
in govt sector, there are plenty of female perm secs around. if you want to run for MP, or to be minister (of which you first have to be a MP), no one is barring you to run for elections.
with 50% of the populace being women, its their own business if women themselves can't win over the votes of fellow women.
therefore, IMO, the fact that there are few women MP is attributed to the general females' lack of interests in politics.
just ask urself, how many female presidents.. democracy my balls..
again, no one is stopping you, if you meet the requirements to be a presidential candidate. not many men qualify for the post either, apparently, as seen in the walk-over in the recent presidential elections.
and again, if you do qualify to be a candidate for presidency, as i am sure you know, selection of president is carried out by voting. it is still the women to blame, if she is not convincing enough to win over the votes of the populace, since men and women are equal on voting grounds, with the population roughly at 50-50.
and abt ur women not interested in marriage to dvorcees above 40, seriously.. u noe the rules..
wad rules? i am just stating a general observation. alot of single, divorced, never-married men above 40 yrs of age are turning to foreign brides. think this issue was covered in zaobao sometime back, where there is a lot of social debate over foreign brides.
and to answer deathmaster.. there are women who are educated, there are women who are not.. there are many who are unaware of how to seek legal advice.. even with the women's charter today.. as YOU quoted, 40% of abuse cases are women... even with the law blatantly siding with the women, the men are still doing it.. what will happen if there is NONE?
stats have shown that there are more female graduates than male graduates out in the society currently. by the rule of proportion, if there are women who are in some way unaware of how to obtain legal aid (i'm not sure why they don't, since legal aid, be it free or paid, are largely advertised and promoted in today's age. counselling center, the police, clan societies provides free of charge legal services, as they deem fit. an as far as i know, anyone can step into any law firm. even law firms are splashing their ads on TV and newspaper.)
back to the pt, if there really are such ignorant women out there regarding legal aid, judging by the general education level of the population, there would be more males who also do not know where to seek legal aid.
and how ironic for u to quote the 40% figure. u r just smashing ur feet with a rock. yes, there are 40% women in abuse case, but it also means that there are 60% men in abuse cases too. that figures just show that men are the majority of abuse victims.
and since in this thread, where some individuals are advocating the sacrificing of minorities to fit the majority, so can we sacrifice these 40% women, since they are the minority?
i'm sure you would say no. thus, i would like to ask you, why then the double standards? men also deserve equal protection under the law. i am not saying that they are incapable of fending for themselves. but there should be some sort of formalize statement protecting the rights of males.
and i din say the law must be unfair to be fair.. i said the law must be unfair to protect the victims..
u are not making sense here. if laws are unfair, what is the point of having a legal system then? you go to court expecting a fair hearing, not an unfair hearing.
if the laws are fair, victims would have no doubt a mean to protect themselves. if they are unable to protect themselves in a court of law (a fair one), then they must be the guilty party. and u and i quoted, 60% of abuse victims are male, so indirectly, we are agreeing that the law should be made more favorable to males, to protect them, since males form the majority of victims?
i told u so many times.. the law IS unfair.. it IS biased.. but there is a good reason for it.. because men and women are different.. and the society ACKNOWLEDGES IT... that's why it stands, as a LAW..
i dare you to go up to any court and tell the judge that the law is unfair. they will just lock u up for lunancy, since its their job to make laws fair and just for everyone.
as far as i know, a unfair court of law is known as a kangaroo court.
because SINGAPOREANS acknowledges that men and women are different, when they are in SINGAPORE.. get the idea?
are you really sure? from the replies we are getting on this thread, it don't seem that way.
ur views do not represent the majority.. my views dun represent the majority too.. and dun say all men, and half the population.. because not every guy wants to see women caned...
so, as we had long mentioned before, either impose it on both genders or to scrape it totally.
so far, its mostly men who have been arguing on the issue of caning, with women generally uninterested, since it does not affect them at hand.
if women are too caned, we shall start to see more protest on the part of females, and that would sure raise the eyes of our beloved garmen.
you know as well as I do, that a company will hesitate to hire a mother of 3 over a father of 3, when they are of equal qualifications..
why is the number of women in the force limiting the maximum rank that a woman can promote to? for ur info.. the max that a woman can reach is Major, which is pathetic.. given the number of women who signed on..
you want to go higher ranks in NS, first serve ur NS. if not, don't bother raising the status of women in NS.
don't bother? you mean to say that it's too bad that they signed on? seriously, they are not conscripted and yet you are limiting their career opportunities in NS?
with 50% of the populace being women, its their own business if women themselves can't win over the votes of fellow women.
the fact that women who run for MP or presidency have to try to win votes from women, doesn't that show anything? that the men are already biased against a female candidate?
wad rules? i am just stating a general observation. alot of single, divorced, never-married men above 40 yrs of age are turning to foreign brides. think this issue was covered in zaobao sometime back, where there is a lot of social debate over foreign brides.
rules meaning links.. anyway.. most men will not be interested in a single, divorced or never-married woman above 40 anytime, anyday.. and the woman cannot turn to foreign grooms..
Originally posted by flabber:MrSean, for someone who has YET to gone through NS, I can understand where you're comming from. However, apparently you have a pretty warped understanding of the things that are done in the army.
With regards to marching drills, yes one of the reason is to instil discipline but many people do not see HOW it is so. In the army, everyone has to work together to achieve a specific goal and to do so, individual excellence is essential, however, teamwork is crucial. Marching drills instil that sense of teamwork when done in a unit. Every step, every swing of the shoulders and every movement of the rifle is synchronised. If done properly. not only is it a sight to behold, it aims to be a reflection of the mentality and attitude a soldier must have serving his unit, formation and country.
It sounds very ridiculous to me that a men has to do marching drills to instil discipline therefore in the first place he lacks discipline? Its as good as saying some people have tution teachers, hence the people who don't are less capable academically? It doesn't work that way.
Whoever that told you all about the food issue? Personally haven't experienced that. But Im sure many will agree that end of the day, the system is actually not flawed in the army. Its the people in command that are flawed. Some of these sorry SOBs just make it a personal agenda to make people's life miserable. But that being said, there are always others on the other end of the spectrum but most of the time the highlight and stories are often cast on the assholes.
The difference biologically between races against the difference between genders are two totally different matters. Your analogy doesn't apply. Furthermore, mentally and physically, men are more suited to fight. I say do your part and serve your country. When it comes to national defence, due to these biological defence between males and females, it is deemed neccessary for a male to contribute as it is proven that they are more capable of doing so. However if females are willing, they can do so too. This is reflected by the number of female regulars.
I disagree on your point regarding the marching thing. Surely there are more productive ways to learn to work as a team? More constructive ways? For example, in schools there is project work to encourage teamwork and cooperation, but at the end of the day it still serves a higher purpose. (Perhaps promoting environmental awareness, etc.)
Also you are right in that men are more biologically capable of physical fighting, but since we are doing our part for our country in the first place, why is every recruit treated like <insert worst swear words here> when they go in? What I'm saying is that if the main purpose there was to serve our country, we are doing our country a service, and surely in return we deserve to be treated at least reasonably. (Many have commented that jail life is surprisingly easier than NS, for example. Of course, being neither an ex-NSman nor prisoner I am unable to verify this.) If the sole goal was to learn to protect our country, I don't think there would be so much of the undeserved yelling at + other undeserved punishments etc. Do you see what I'm getting at?
It seems the goal of NS has changed from that of teaching our people to protect our country and ourselves to that of torturing and making everyone that goes through it have hell.
You yourself contended that half of the SOBs (I don't know what an SOB is though) are assholes, so maybe our government should have policies to eliminate being an asshole. Perhaps it is time for the army to refocus on its original goals because it seems to have been sidetracked along the way.
If women can serve society in ways that do not include being punished undeservingly, than perhaps men should be able to serve NS the same way...
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
you know as well as I do, that a company will hesitate to hire a mother of 3 over a father of 3, when they are of equal qualifications..
why is the number of women in the force limiting the maximum rank that a woman can promote to? for ur info.. the max that a woman can reach is Major, which is pathetic.. given the number of women who signed on..
you want to go higher ranks in NS, first serve ur NS. if not, don't bother raising the status of women in NS.
don't bother? you mean to say that it's too bad that they signed on? seriously, they are not conscripted and yet you are limiting their career opportunities in NS?
with 50% of the populace being women, its their own business if women themselves can't win over the votes of fellow women.
the fact that women who run for MP or presidency have to try to win votes from women, doesn't that show anything? that the men are already biased against a female candidate?
wad rules? i am just stating a general observation. alot of single, divorced, never-married men above 40 yrs of age are turning to foreign brides. think this issue was covered in zaobao sometime back, where there is a lot of social debate over foreign brides.
rules meaning links.. anyway.. most men will not be interested in a single, divorced or never-married woman above 40 anytime, anyday.. and the woman cannot turn to foreign grooms..
Regarding your point about how the highest possible rank for women in NS should be raised... Yes I agree with you on this one, but I think you misunderstood deathmaster. What he said was taken out of context, I believe he meant that when there are more women serving, the number of women of a certain status will be roughly equal to the men of that same status. I'm not sure about this though so perhaps he can clarify in his next post.
Originally posted by MrSean:Regarding your point about how the highest possible rank for women in NS should be raised... Yes I agree with you on this one, but I think you misunderstood deathmaster. What he said was taken out of context, I believe he meant that when there are more women serving, the number of women of a certain status will be roughly equal to the men of that same status. I'm not sure about this though so perhaps he can clarify in his next post.
yep. that was wad i am saying. PurpleD, you know that every year, there are around 20,000 or more guys serving their NS. double that for 2 batches, u get 40,000 males serving NS.
and clearly, there are always a certain percentage of these males who chose to sign on. of course you will have more majors and other senior officers from the males.
ask yourself, how many female actually volunteer to serve NS? yes, they do sign on. but how is signing on going to help them in their promotion, if they did not make the cut for ocs?
officership observe the rule of proportion. if you have a small base of females to choose from, obviously you will end up having lesser female officers.
likewise, assuming that even if women do get into ocs, and become one of the junior officers, for their subsequent promotion, they still have to compete with other officers of the same rank ( who are mostly males).
ask yourself, wads the odds of women surviving thru all these challenges to rise beyond the rank of major?
the army is meritocratic,elitist, and only the best among the best are selected for the highest command. wads the possibility of 1 woman competing with 99 men for a promotion? little.
but if you have more women in the force, (which is not possible, since from the posts above, women are highly reluctant to serve their NS), at 50-50, they too will have a fair chance of attaining senior rank.
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
you know as well as I do, that a company will hesitate to hire a mother of 3 over a father of 3, when they are of equal qualifications..
why is the number of women in the force limiting the maximum rank that a woman can promote to? for ur info.. the max that a woman can reach is Major, which is pathetic.. given the number of women who signed on..
you want to go higher ranks in NS, first serve ur NS. if not, don't bother raising the status of women in NS.
don't bother? you mean to say that it's too bad that they signed on? seriously, they are not conscripted and yet you are limiting their career opportunities in NS?
with 50% of the populace being women, its their own business if women themselves can't win over the votes of fellow women.
the fact that women who run for MP or presidency have to try to win votes from women, doesn't that show anything? that the men are already biased against a female candidate?
wad rules? i am just stating a general observation. alot of single, divorced, never-married men above 40 yrs of age are turning to foreign brides. think this issue was covered in zaobao sometime back, where there is a lot of social debate over foreign brides.
rules meaning links.. anyway.. most men will not be interested in a single, divorced or never-married woman above 40 anytime, anyday.. and the woman cannot turn to foreign grooms..
you know as well as I do, that a company will hesitate to hire a mother of 3 over a father of 3, when they are of equal qualifications..
why is the number of women in the force limiting the maximum rank that a woman can promote to? for ur info.. the max that a woman can reach is Major, which is pathetic.. given the number of women who signed on..
don't bother? you mean to say that it's too bad that they signed on? seriously, they are not conscripted and yet you are limiting their career opportunities in NS?
as mentioned in the previous post.
the fact that women who run for MP or presidency have to try to win votes from women, doesn't that show anything? that the men are already biased against a female candidate?
wad are you trying to say?
first, i shall try to clarify myself by quoting the example for the democrats election campaign between clinton and obama.
clearly, if you have been following the reports on the election, hillary herself failed to convince female voters to vote for her, despite them being of the same gender.
male and female candidates each have a fair share of the voting pie, where male and female voters each make up half of the voting population.
to win, men not only have to win over the votes of fellow men, they must also be convincing enough to win over the votes of females. likewise, for a woman to win, she too must win over the votes of the male populace.
if a woman can't even manage to convince and persuade her fellow women to vote her in, it clearly means that the person ain't fit for the job.
there is no real gender discrimination in voting, since since members of each gender are allowed only 1 vote, and the distribution of the 2 genders are equal.
yes, a man can discriminate against woman, but how is it going to affect the results of the election? even if the entire population of man choose to not vote for a female, they would at best only win 50% of total votes, which is not enough to be class as a majority, to be considered as victor of the elections.
thus, for a male to win, females must have too vote for him.
if females do discriminate against fellow females, then all i can say that its the problem of females and feminists to sort out their own problems.
rules meaning links.. anyway.. most men will not be interested in a single, divorced or never-married woman above 40 anytime, anyday.. and the woman cannot turn to foreign grooms..
are you sure? there are increasing reports featuring middle age singles, males and females tying the knot. these ppl are over 45, fyi.
and not all men will want to marry cute young things 20 yrs younger than themselves. maybe if they are desperate to have a child, an heir wadever. but the trend now is for people to look for soul mates, rather than a potential child-bearer for him.
and i am sure, with money, women can too go buy a toyboy, just like these men are looking to mail-to-order foreign brides.
Originally posted by deathmaster:
yep. that was wad i am saying. PurpleD, you know that every year, there are around 20,000 or more guys serving their NS. double that for 2 batches, u get 40,000 males serving NS.and clearly, there are always a certain percentage of these males who chose to sign on. of course you will have more majors and other senior officers from the males.
ask yourself, how many female actually volunteer to serve NS? yes, they do sign on. but how is signing on going to help them in their promotion, if they did not make the cut for ocs?
officership observe the rule of proportion. if you have a small base of females to choose from, obviously you will end up having lesser female officers.
likewise, assuming that even if women do get into ocs, and become one of the junior officers, for their subsequent promotion, they still have to compete with other officers of the same rank ( who are mostly males).
ask yourself, wads the odds of women surviving thru all these challenges to rise beyond the rank of major?
the army is meritocratic,elitist, and only the best among the best are selected for the highest command. wads the possibility of 1 woman competing with 99 men for a promotion? little.
but if you have more women in the force, (which is not possible, since from the posts above, women are highly reluctant to serve their NS), at 50-50, they too will have a fair chance of attaining senior rank.
so u are saying that for the past 40years of NS, that women are not able to get higher ranks PURELY because of a small pool of women regulars not able to compete with the larger numbers of men?
Originally posted by purpledragon84:so u are saying that for the past 40years of NS, that women are not able to get higher ranks PURELY because of a small pool of women regulars not able to compete with the larger numbers of men?
yes.
if u want to point out that there are very few high ranking female officers about, i can too point out that there are more guys out there whose rank had not rise for quite some time.
and seriously, how many females are actually selected for ocs, scholars aside?
yes, u may have females signing on, but that doesn't imply that they will ever get into a position of leadership. if u go by the sarge route in the army, u will never be an officer.
to become colonel etc, u have to get into ocs first, which is not easy to begin with. after that, if u sign on, after many many years den u may be raised to maj.
how many women in reality stay in the army so long to even qualify for colonelship? too few to talk about.
Originally posted by deathmaster:
you know as well as I do, that a company will hesitate to hire a mother of 3 over a father of 3, when they are of equal qualifications..
why is the number of women in the force limiting the maximum rank that a woman can promote to? for ur info.. the max that a woman can reach is Major, which is pathetic.. given the number of women who signed on..
don't bother? you mean to say that it's too bad that they signed on? seriously, they are not conscripted and yet you are limiting their career opportunities in NS?
as mentioned in the previous post.
the fact that women who run for MP or presidency have to try to win votes from women, doesn't that show anything? that the men are already biased against a female candidate?
wad are you trying to say?
first, i shall try to clarify myself by quoting the example for the democrats election campaign between clinton and obama.
clearly, if you have been following the reports on the election, hillary herself failed to convince female voters to vote for her, despite them being of the same gender.
male and female candidates each have a fair share of the voting pie, where male and female voters each make up half of the voting population.
to win, men not only have to win over the votes of fellow men, they must also be convincing enough to win over the votes of females. likewise, for a woman to win, she too must win over the votes of the male populace.
if a woman can't even manage to convince and persuade her fellow women to vote her in, it clearly means that the person ain't fit for the job.
there is no real gender discrimination in voting, since since members of each gender are allowed only 1 vote, and the distribution of the 2 genders are equal.
yes, a man can discriminate against woman, but how is it going to affect the results of the election? even if the entire population of man choose to not vote for a female, they would at best only win 50% of total votes, which is not enough to be class as a majority, to be considered as victor of the elections.
thus, for a male to win, females must have too vote for him.
if females do discriminate against fellow females, then all i can say that its the problem of females and feminists to sort out their own problems.
rules meaning links.. anyway.. most men will not be interested in a single, divorced or never-married woman above 40 anytime, anyday.. and the woman cannot turn to foreign grooms..
are you sure? there are increasing reports featuring middle age singles, males and females tying the knot. these ppl are over 45, fyi.
and not all men will want to marry cute young things 20 yrs younger than themselves. maybe if they are desperate to have a child, an heir wadever. but the trend now is for people to look for soul mates, rather than a potential child-bearer for him.
and i am sure, with money, women can too go buy a toyboy, just like these men are looking to mail-to-order foreign brides.
and i am sure, with money, women can too go buy a toyboy, just like these men are looking to mail-to-order foreign brides.
u look for a soulmate.. and u claim that a toyboy can be one? i dun see how u can equate toyboys to mail-to-order foreign brides.. not all women can afford toyboys, like not all men can afford mail-to-order brides.. but who do u think lose out more, a single old man or a single old woman? a divorced man with kids or a divorced woman with kids?
and as i said, it is obvious who will be hired between a father of three and a mother of three..
regarding elections, u claim that females and males are equal when it comes to election candidates.. u claim that the proportion of male and female population is roughly equal, u claim that there are more female graduates than male graduates, but where are the female? why are the men leading everything and women not given their share? you mean to say that all those educated women are unwilling to step out of their comfort zone to seek political rights? surely, the women are stuck somewhere.. somewhere called the KITCHEN..
how many men are willing to stay at hm and be house-husband while the female goes out to work? are you? even in dual-income families, there are conflicts and times when someone has to sacrifice when something crops up.. and the women are the ones who has to take a step back.. don't ask me for stats because there aren't any.. because, quoting u, this is the general observation, that women despite all the education and so-called abilities in the office, are still the ones who has to be home to do the chores, where the men only "help out".. no matter what, eventually the woman has to be the one taking a step back to the family and eventually depending on the man to bring home the bacon..
and what happens if the man goes out to have fun and make merry and refuse to give money to the wife "out of chivalry"? there is a thin line between chivalry and lawful obligation.. and giving money to ur wife is fulfilling your obligation..
if until now u refuse to accept the fact that our society views men and women differently, which in turn leads to a difference in the treatment of the law, den lets not continue this topic anymore.. quite sick and tired of this topic which is so obvious.. that when a marriage turns ugly, it no longer becomes just about qualifications, or men and women being equal.. it may turn violent.. and the woman loses when it turns violent..
Originally posted by VoiceofReason:What has my personal life got to do with anything?
Why do you have to get so personal?
I *do* have a girlfriend but I don't see how having sex makes me a more matured person. Did you really think that after you lost your virginity? Is having sex your yardstick? You are the fool who needs to mature... but I can see why you would choose to avoid facing me.. because you are a coward and you KNOW you lose.
Weakling.
u mean he's absolutely retarded.