Singapore government does not support sexual equality
-
Whatever it is. Discrimination saves money.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Practicality or business sense.. it is still a form of discrimination.
When you choose one over another.. without regards to individual merits you are already discriminating.
In the case of men vs men.. Local men with reservist do face discrimination vs foreigners who has no obligation to serve reservists. So, in this regards.. ofcors employers will discriminate against the local men. That is why I do not agree with the open door policy our gahmen implemented.
But when you are comparing a local man vs a mother for potential employee , employers will ofcors prefer to hire the man. So in that sense.. employers are already discriminating against a mother, (even if the individual ability may be the same).
you don't understand do you? It is precisely because of individual merits that the preference occurs and not discriminating. The employers don't discriminate against local males with ns liabilities they merely choose the foreign person because the foreigner can contribute more. of course when the disadvantage originates fromthe government policies, pple are unhappy and certain legislation is needed to fix what the screwed. similarly for mothers and males. They don't discriminate because they are females or mothers. the employer chooses the male because the mother is more likely to want to spend more time with the family or the male is more likely to be willning to commit 24/7. It's discrimination when boththe male and female have similar abilities and are able/willing to commit the same amout of time and effort. (Well I'm not count PMS or personality lets assume they are the same. ) and the employer chooses the guy or the girl and even then It's hard to pin on whether it's just random chance or really a discrimination -
Originally posted by hisoka:
you don't understand do you? It is precisely because of individual merits that the preference occurs and not discriminating. The employers don't discriminate against local males with ns liabilities they merely choose the foreign person because the foreigner can contribute more. of course when the disadvantage originates fromthe government policies, pple are unhappy and certain legislation is needed to fix what the screwed. similarly for mothers and males. They don't discriminate because they are females or mothers. the employer chooses the male because the mother is more likely to want to spend more time with the family or the male is more likely to be willning to commit 24/7. It's discrimination when boththe male and female have similar abilities and are able/willing to commit the same amout of time and effort. (Well I'm not count PMS or personality lets assume they are the same. ) and the employer chooses the guy or the girl and even then It's hard to pin on whether it's just random chance or really a discriminationthe end result is the same..
u are saying that its due to preference due to ability, that employers choose a male over a pregnant female..
so if it's a pregnant male vs a single female, the employer will choose the female.. the company will PREFER the single female.. becos she can commit.
here comes the problem: only women becomes pregnant.. well currently that's the case..
as long as u are pregnant, u are not prefered, whether u are male or female.. but, u can only be female if u are pregnant what.. so the end result is the same..no point of telling the pregnant lady "we are sorry, we dun discriminate against u, we just prefer the guy who can work longer hours..=)"
-
Originally posted by hisoka:
you don't understand do you? It is precisely because of individual merits that the preference occurs and not discriminating. The employers don't discriminate against local males with ns liabilities they merely choose the foreign person because the foreigner can contribute more. of course when the disadvantage originates fromthe government policies, pple are unhappy and certain legislation is needed to fix what the screwed. similarly for mothers and males. They don't discriminate because they are females or mothers. the employer chooses the male because the mother is more likely to want to spend more time with the family or the male is more likely to be willning to commit 24/7. It's discrimination when boththe male and female have similar abilities and are able/willing to commit the same amout of time and effort. (Well I'm not count PMS or personality lets assume they are the same. ) and the employer chooses the guy or the girl and even then It's hard to pin on whether it's just random chance or really a discriminationWhy you want to make life so complicated ?
Let say you want to compare single male vs single female.
Can a employer tell the female to guarantee not to give birth ? Cannot right?
But a employer very sure the male guarantee cannot give birth mah. Unless miracles happen lor.
So if you are the employer.. you sure take the guaranted one lah.
Like that.. you understand anot ? Very simple right ???
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Whatever it is. Discrimination saves money.
I am very impressed.. you finally made some sense ...:))
-
so if you want to remove discrimination against women from spore society, you can start convincing ur fellow women to stop discriminating against themselves. that is one real positive step you can take.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Practicality or business sense.. it is still a form of discrimination.
When you choose one over another.. without regards to individual merits you are already discriminating.
In the case of men vs men.. Local men with reservist do face discrimination vs foreigners who has no obligation to serve reservists. So, in this regards.. ofcors employers will discriminate against the local men. That is why I do not agree with the open door policy our gahmen implemented.
But when you are comparing a local man vs a mother for potential employee , employers will ofcors prefer to hire the man. So in that sense.. employers are already discriminating against a mother, (even if the individual ability may be the same).
Yes it is true, but also see this: it was the fact that the government enforced certain rules about maternal leave that has to be given to women that started the problem in the first place... Perhaps the government's move was not a wise one, but there is no denying it was made in the right spirit.In this case, perhaps the mother should be guaranteed her job for a certain period of time, but she should not be paid during this period. Maybe that way women would be hired more willingly without losing their job security. Perhaps taxpayers' money should go to the minimal salary for women during their maternal leave, that would show true support for women to have children, in the sense that individual companies are not penalised for hiring women, and yet they still keep their security.
Also, again, recognise this: it is the fact that the government does not even recognise this as a potential issue that is really bugging us. Within reasonable expectations of the government's control over the law and the country, they have been doing their best to resolve the problems women face finding work, and outside the scope of their ability there is little more they can do.
What is within their control, they have already done. What is within their influence, they have pushed. What is outside that, they cannot help. This, this we can do.
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
the end result is the same..
u are saying that its due to preference due to ability, that employers choose a male over a pregnant female..
so if it's a pregnant male vs a single female, the employer will choose the female.. the company will PREFER the single female.. becos she can commit.
here comes the problem: only women becomes pregnant.. well currently that's the case..
as long as u are pregnant, u are not prefered, whether u are male or female.. but, u can only be female if u are pregnant what.. so the end result is the same..no point of telling the pregnant lady "we are sorry, we dun discriminate against u, we just prefer the guy who can work longer hours..=)"
On this point, I agree with you to some extent. I do agree with hisoka in the sense that there is an actual reason behind it, but then again I question myself: does that mean we can do nothing to help?
Dragon, if you can think of any feasible solution for this (or to reduce the impact of this) I don't think the others would be opposed to it. However, being unfair to men on the other side is not the way to balance this.
As a government, they do indeed have a responsibility to their people. They are accountable to their people. They do what the can, when they can. The difference is that what's left of the bias against women they cannot change (unless you can propose any changes), but on the bias against men there is so much room for improvement that is within the control of the government.
To all readers: I think, up to this point we all have come to some level of understanding and agreement. We all agree that under the law, men are prejudiced against, while we also acknowledge that outside the scope of the law and the influence of the government, women do experience some form of social prejudice.
Yet what we disagree on is this: Some believe that in order to balance what is outside the scope of the law, we should make it unfair for men within the control of the law, while personally I (and hopefully a few others) believe that for true balance, balance and neutrality should be achieved individually on both levels instead of seeing them as one.
What opinions do you have on this?
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Yes it is true, but also see this: it was the fact that the government enforced certain rules about maternal leave that has to be given to women that started the problem in the first place... Perhaps the government's move was not a wise one, but there is no denying it was made in the right spirit.In this case, perhaps the mother should be guaranteed her job for a certain period of time, but she should not be paid during this period. Maybe that way women would be hired more willingly.
Also, again, recognise this: it is the fact that the government does not even recognise this as a potential issue that is really bugging us. Within reasonable expectations of the government's control over the law and the country, they have been doing their best to resolve the problems women face finding work, and outside the scope of their ability there is little more they can do.
What is within their control, they have already done. What is within their influence, they have pushed. What is outside that, they cannot help. This, this we can do.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Like I said.. you want to try to fix a leak.. and yet while you do so.. another pipe burst.
As long as women are the baby carriers , there will always be a trade off.
You make more laws to protect the mothers.. the employers will find ways to go around it or they simply hire less mothers.
You make less laws to protect the mothers.. less mothers will want to have babies.
So you need to find a balance to it.
Anyway you look at it.. women will always suffers from this need for a balancing act as long as babies are not grown in test tubes.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
so if you want to remove discrimination against women from spore society, you can start convincing ur fellow women to stop discriminating against themselves. that is one real positive step you can take.
So you are saying when women stop discriminating their own kind.. men will stop the discrimination too ?
LOL.. don't ya think this is a little too far fetch ?
Personally, I believe mothers should stay at home to look after their own babies until they are at least 5-6 years old before heading out to work. But that will also mean they need to sacrifice their career.
The more babies a mother wants to have.. the more she needs to sacrifice. So, if men are unwilling to give due appreciation to their wives for the sacrifices.. I see no reason why women should have more than one baby.
Since she is expected to fence for herself.
-
Pretty much a no brainer, if you are business when you hire a female you run the 'risk' of paying for maternity leave - i.e paying for no productive work. That's the way business see's it. Likewise if you hire a Singaporean male citizen or 1st generation PR, you have the NS liability.
Soloution to both is simple: bring in paid PATERNITY (i.e for the father) leave for men EQUAL to the paid maternity leave provisions. That sorts that, now the NS issue. That can be solved by introducing NS for females and introducing non-military options for both men and women.
Once this is done, business have no reason to disciminate on basis of gender. That then leaves the issue of racial and non-business related linguistic discrimination, which can be discussed in another post.
-
Originally posted by SGBajoran:
Pretty much a no brainer, if you are business when you hire a female you run the 'risk' of paying for maternity leave - i.e paying for no productive work. That's the way business see's it. Likewise if you hire a Singaporean male citizen or 1st generation PR, you have the NS liability.
Soloution to both is simple: bring in paid PATERNITY (i.e for the father) leave for men EQUAL to the paid maternity leave provisions. That sorts that, now the NS issue. That can be solved by introducing NS for females and introducing non-military options for both men and women.
Once this is done, business have no reason to disciminate on basis of gender. That then leaves the issue of racial and non-business related linguistic discrimination, which can be discussed in another post.
suddenly being a man sounds good.. coz i dun hafta bear the 9mths of pregnancy and suffering and i can enjoy the sex and the baby..
introduce NS for females.. nice.. suddenly an abundance of female in the army too..
and if u think that NS is not only about army, and that the women can be utilised in other govt sectors, nice too, an abundance of nurses and female teachers.. wow..
suddenly being a man sounds good.. suddenly..
suddenly i like the current government too.. suddenly..
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
I am very impressed.. you finally made some sense ...:))
I have always made sense. Just that anything i write more then a sentence long may become incomprehensible by those people who only read a few lines and make a ridiculous summary of your statement and hence,making any kind of decent debate or discussions on any issue.. just.. pointless.
To not get yourself confused, just read my first sentence right to the first full stop.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
I have always made sense. Just that anything i write more then a sentence long may become incomprehensible by those people who only read a few lines and make a ridiculous summary of your statement and hence,making any kind of decent debate or discussions on any issue.. just.. pointless.
To not get yourself confused, just read my first sentence right to the first full stop.
Yah right. Why bother writing at all hor ?
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
suddenly being a man sounds good.. coz i dun hafta bear the 9mths of pregnancy and suffering and i can enjoy the sex and the baby..
introduce NS for females.. nice.. suddenly an abundance of female in the army too..
and if u think that NS is not only about army, and that the women can be utilised in other govt sectors, nice too, an abundance of nurses and female teachers.. wow..
suddenly being a man sounds good.. suddenly..
suddenly i like the current government too.. suddenly..
Oh.. sounds too good to be true hor ?
Reservist is how many days per year har ? Female NS conscript must go back do reservist anot leh ?
Then later got children liao... still have to go back do reservist anot har ?
Then men must take leave to take care of children when wife go do reservist hor ?
Yah... very good.. LPPL
-
Some of the female compadres here are either radical feminists, or Post-Modern feminists, but it would be impolite to just include them in any 1 category. well first off ,PMF's
-they have no meta-theory,
-treat concepts such as 'equality' 'gender' and 'woman' with deep scepticism.
And the problem as we can see, thier tendency towards contextualism can be a mask for injustice.
And as for radical feminists,
- Oppression on the basis of sex
- Women cannot trust the state or the law
- The notion of equality is suspect
- Explain the world from the woman’s perspective
- Key campaigns: Sexual harassment, pornography
Problem is, they fall into the trap of essentialism and too preoccupied with sex and reproduction.
What more can i say.
Damnit i had to study
Wayne Morrison's Jurisprudence: from the Greeks to post-modernism
Feminist and critical race theory by Raymond Wacks
Feminism and Gender in Legal Theory
Regina Graycar and Jenny Morgan's The Hidden Gender of Law <-- that was a ball breaker.
These are just...the surface of the whole shibang waiting to be explored and read. I just really cbb liaw. And i am done with this paper anyways.
-1791 Declaration of the Rights of Woman and Citizen(France) to CEDAW. Yes, SG's Women Charter. Various countries' use of the Rape Shield.
The Battered Woman Syndrom (BWS) and its ridiculous.. concept that its beyond understanding of ordinary juror and .. pretty much means.. us men.
So yes, i know i make sense.And yes , i had to god damn write about the effects of various feminist groups and thier influence to the laws made in various countries.The irony.. oooooo the irony..got teamed up with hardcore pro feminist movement girls. Supposed to be an understanding of difference culture group or what nots. Maybe they think i am asian. So i am most likely to be a chauvanist pig. So...
Why cant women just stay home, and the men work. Why cant things be simple. But its not. It will never be. Gender Equality will be an issue that will be debated for centuries to come.
And finally, i kinda feel like an idiot posting this up, but after typing so much dun post.. really is LPPL. lol. All i dun understand is why pre-nup agreements are not recognised by Sg government ? They should le. Just to be 'fair' . lol Women Charter needs to be looked at more closely, because i read up many cases where, the poor men were sent to prison because of the women abusing the special priviledges under various acts. eg. Women's Charter and Rape Shields.
I just couldnt take it anymore. Sorry, or everytime i check this thread i will laugh to death.I know laughter is the best medicine, but sometimes laugh too much, the jaw will hurt and the stomach will cramp. ou can die from these symptoms if u are unfortunate enough to simultaneously have it while swimming.... in the ocean.
I can only say 1 thing , that i just worry one day that the state will have too much power over our private life. The private sphere of our lives. State intervention against abuse i am fine with it , but that is only the beginning. . be afraid . . be very afraid. Once they have the power to intervene in our lives on the basis of gender discrimination. WE WILL ARE ALL FUKED! Men and Women alike. lol
I wanna say again , i am not against feminism. I am all cool with equal pay and equal position , equal rights to drive a car .etc . But i am NOT cool... with the people who abuse them.. and also people who keep arguing over trivial matters when the whole damn picture is made up of complex situations, that still needs reforming and people that are too stupid to understand what i am talking about.Oh.. and people who are against everything masculine in nature.
Phew.. maybe going back to studying again aint that a bad idea. hahaha! -
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Some of the female compadres here are either radical feminists, or Post-Modern feminists, but it would be impolite to just include them in any 1 category. well first off ,PMF's
-they have no meta-theory,
-treat concepts such as 'equality' 'gender' and 'woman' with deep scepticism.
And the problem as we can see, thier tendency towards contextualism can be a mask for injustice.
And as for radical feminists,
- Oppression on the basis of sex
- Women cannot trust the state or the law
- The notion of equality is suspect
- Explain the world from the woman’s perspective
- Key campaigns: Sexual harassment, pornography
Problem is, they fall into the trap of essentialism and too preoccupied with sex and reproduction.
What more can i say.
Damnit i had to study
Wayne Morrison's Jurisprudence: from the Greeks to post-modernism
Feminist and critical race theory by Raymond Wacks
Feminism and Gender in Legal Theory
Regina Graycar and Jenny Morgan's The Hidden Gender of Law <-- that was a ball breaker.
These are just...the surface of the whole shibang waiting to be explored and read. I just really cbb liaw. And i am done with this paper anyways.
-1791 Declaration of the Rights of Woman and Citizen(France) to CEDAW. Yes, SG's Women Charter. Various countries' use of the Rape Shield.
The Battered Woman Syndrom (BWS) and its ridiculous.. concept that its beyond understanding of ordinary juror and .. pretty much means.. us men.
So yes, i know i make sense.And yes , i had to god damn write about the effects of various feminist groups and thier influence to the laws made in various countries.The irony.. oooooo the irony..got teamed up with hardcore pro feminist movement girls. Supposed to be an understanding of difference culture group or what nots. Maybe they think i am asian. So i am most likely to be a chauvanist pig. So...
Why cant women just stay home, and the men work. Why cant things be simple. But its not. It will never be. Gender Equality will be an issue that will be debated for centuries to come.
And finally, i kinda feel like an idiot posting this up, but after typing so much dun post.. really is LPPL. lol. All i dun understand is why pre-nup agreements are not recognised by Sg government ? They should le. Just to be 'fair' . lol Women Charter needs to be looked at more closely, because i read up many cases where, the poor men were sent to prison because of the women abusing the special priviledges under various acts. eg. Women's Charter and Rape Shields.
I just couldnt take it anymore. Sorry, or everytime i check this thread i will laugh to death.I know laughter is the best medicine, but sometimes laugh too much, the jaw will hurt and the stomach will cramp. ou can die from these symptoms if u are unfortunate enough to simultaneously have it while swimming.... in the ocean.
I can only say 1 thing , that i just worry one day that the state will have too much power over our private life. The private sphere of our lives. State intervention against abuse i am fine with it , but that is only the beginning. . be afraid . . be very afraid. Once they have the power to intervene in our lives on the basis of gender discrimination. WE WILL ARE ALL FUKED! Men and Women alike. lol
I wanna say again , i am not against feminism. I am all cool with equal pay and equal position , equal rights to drive a car .etc . But i am NOT cool... with the people who abuse them.. and also people who keep arguing over trivial matters when the whole damn picture is made up of complex situations, that still needs reforming and people that are too stupid to understand what i am talking about.Oh.. and people who are against everything masculine in nature.
Phew.. maybe going back to studying again aint that a bad idea. hahaha!Yes I agree.. good idea you go back study. Study hard ok ? Then can migrate to a country where they recognize pre-nuptial agreement. Then you will understand truly what a pre-nuptial agreement really means and how it will affect your marriage life.
-
So lets all hold hands and sing.. 'We are the world' by Micheal Jackson.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
So lets all hold hands and sing.. 'We are the world' by Micheal Jackson.
Solli.. I boycott Michael Jackson. I no like he molest children.. I think he big hypocrite.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
No, she probably wouldn't need to claim much, except perhaps of course for separate living arrangements maybe there should be a joint contribution.
Neither of my parents were involved in my life much. They played equal roles, but yes I admit I'm closer to my grandparents because they took care of me from young, mostly.
Why should there be a joint contribution ?
Since your mother can support herself.. your father shouldn't have to pay for anything mah. Isn't this what you guys want ?
Somemore.. if your father wants to start a new family with another woman.. his new wife have to move in with your father into your house.. then if he has to pay for your mother.. then how is he going to support his new family ?
Base on the guys argument.. men shouldn't have to pay for his wife if she is self sufficient , NO ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Yes I agree.. good idea you go back study. Study hard ok ? Then can migrate to a country where they recognize pre-nuptial agreement. Then you will understand truly what a pre-nuptial agreement really means and how it will affect your marriage life.
Of cours it will affect your marriage life. The pre-nup is there. An option. It can be abused. Unfair to the woman. So is the charter. Rule of law prevails. This is just an idea what can and will happen, instead of what the law ought to be, its becoming what the law is. And outright unfair it may sound to many, unfortunately there are yet to be any kind of body that is effective at determining the right course of action when shit goes bad in your marriage.
And yes, i will study really hard. And i will party just as hard too.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Of cours it will affect your marriage life. The pre-nup is there. An option. It can be abused. Unfair to the woman. So is the charter. Rule of law prevails. This is just an idea what can and will happen, instead of what the law ought to be, its becoming what the law is. And outright unfair it may sound to many, unfortunately there are yet to be any kind of body that is effective at determining the right course of action when shit goes bad in your marriage.
And yes, i will study really hard. And i will party just as hard too.
Yes ofcors there is a body that is effective in managing your marriage..
None other than yourself my fwen.
Open your eyes and observe your woman.
You can fall in love with your eyes close.. but go into a marriage with your eyes wide open.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Of cours it will affect your marriage life. The pre-nup is there. An option. It can be abused. Unfair to the woman. So is the charter. Rule of law prevails. This is just an idea what can and will happen, instead of what the law ought to be, its becoming what the law is. And outright unfair it may sound to many, unfortunately there are yet to be any kind of body that is effective at determining the right course of action when shit goes bad in your marriage.
And yes, i will study really hard. And i will party just as hard too.
yes, thats the whole point, that all laws no matter with how good an intention they were set out to be, they will eventually be abuse by some malignant creature.however, don't you agree that any potential victim should at least be given some sort of legal defence (not lawyers, but legalise laws), to prevent and deter the other party from exploiting his weakness?
an analogy.
an unarm man defending against a mad psychopathic women hacking people about with a parang (the WC). yes, you may say that men are equipped with better physiques and greater muscular strength, but that doesn't amount to anything when you are pitting ur bare arms against a sharp blade that is threatening to hack that very arm off.
shouldn't the men be also equipped with a similar weapon ( men's charter), for deterrence? with the law being fair and on each other's side, people may think twice before actually setting out to harm others. in fact, people will have an equal chance against each other, instead of the current lopsided trend we are seeing now.
and what good is strength when u r arguing for ur case in a court of law? punch the prosecutor and get urself extra jail term? legal protection and legal recognition is more important.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Why you want to make life so complicated ?
Let say you want to compare single male vs single female.
Can a employer tell the female to guarantee not to give birth ? Cannot right?
But a employer very sure the male guarantee cannot give birth mah. Unless miracles happen lor.
So if you are the employer.. you sure take the guaranted one lah.
Like that.. you understand anot ? Very simple right ???
and that's not discrimination merely choosing the better candidate. Not saying thats a good thing, but truth of the matter is thus. -
Originally posted by hisoka:
and that's not discrimination merely choosing the better candidate. Not saying thats a good thing, but truth of the matter is thus.Ok you're right.
Discrimination is perhaps a little bitty extreme.
Let's just agree that women are "disadvantaged" in the work arena. Ok ? Good.