Singapore government does not support sexual equality
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
What do you know?
If NS is supposed to produce a conscript force, what good is 6 months?
My training alone took 8 months.
Sure I don't know shyt.
Why don't you go ask the swiss and the germans how come their conscription is less than 1 year ?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
U got your time of the month. We got ours. I'm just saying..
pfffftttt.... men also get discriminated at. talking cock is not part of what ?
No we got our time of the month. You got the time anytime.
Talking cock is part of your DHS, no ?
-
to TS..
it's not the singapore govt la pls..
this world IS unfair.. i do not understand your concerns..
if the world is fair, there will be 6 billion prime ministers making millions per year..
-
Now, give me a good reason why women shouldn't rule the world ? And when that happens, there will be NO more war.
For some reason I highly doubt that will happen, whoever rules the world there'll still be war, and a lot of it. I believe women are equally as capable as resorting to force if need be.
-
look at the law. it is obviously bias.
while 377a is against gays, it has NOTHING on lesbians.
when a couple divorce, the wife (or ex-wife), can gain up to 50% of the husband's assets. ( even when she contributes nothing to the assets). let say, you (male), inherited a bungalow from your decreased grandfather. you were an average bloke all along, not too rich, not poor either.
when you divorce, half of your ANCESTOR's hard earn money(in the form of the bungalow) disappear to the ex-wife.
is this reasonable? if the house is co-paid by the couple, that to me, splitting half-half is acceptable. but in the above case i mentioned, do anyone here thinks that its fair?
don't tell me that this is a hypothetical scenario. these cases are frequently reported in the news.
you can argue that its all right, since the women bears child for their husband, tend the house etc. but, as we all know, there are alot of tai-tai out there, who live the life of luxury, with all their comforts paid for by their husbands.
maids to do their housework. some of them don't even have children. so what is their justification in claiming 50% of their spouse assets?
and since this discrimination against men is written in the law, linking back to the question, doesn't it tells us that our government does not support sexual equality?
doesn't it shows that the government does not protects men's rights as vigorously as it protects women's rights?
-
life ain't fair..
get over it...
-
LOLs at topic
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
life ain't fair..
get over it...
i agree,
but its not like when you are so suay to be struck by lightning.
this is one thing the government has power to improve. -
Middle East is a good place for male rights
-
can rape the girl and the girl gets punished. I LOVE IT!
-
Originally posted by elindra:
Middle East is a good place for male rights
how about jurong east? xp -
Originally posted by deathmaster:
look at the law. it is obviously bias.
while 377a is against gays, it has NOTHING on lesbians.
when a couple divorce, the wife (or ex-wife), can gain up to 50% of the husband's assets. ( even when she contributes nothing to the assets). let say, you (male), inherited a bungalow from your decreased grandfather. you were an average bloke all along, not too rich, not poor either.
when you divorce, half of your ANCESTOR's hard earn money(in the form of the bungalow) disappear to the ex-wife.
is this reasonable? if the house is co-paid by the couple, that to me, splitting half-half is acceptable. but in the above case i mentioned, do anyone here thinks that its fair?
don't tell me that this is a hypothetical scenario. these cases are frequently reported in the news.
you can argue that its all right, since the women bears child for their husband, tend the house etc. but, as we all know, there are alot of tai-tai out there, who live the life of luxury, with all their comforts paid for by their husbands.
maids to do their housework. some of them don't even have children. so what is their justification in claiming 50% of their spouse assets?
and since this discrimination against men is written in the law, linking back to the question, doesn't it tells us that our government does not support sexual equality?
doesn't it shows that the government does not protects men's rights as vigorously as it protects women's rights?
May I ask you.
You believe your wife don't deserve half of that bangalow because... she married a bloke ? Think about it, couldn't she have married someone else who is NOT A BROKE BLOKE ????? Instead because she loves you , SHE MARRIED YOU, A broke BLOKE ???
And when you are done with her love, you chuck her aside like a used tissue paper because she didn't PAY for it ?
OK.
If you are a rich businessman, and your earn say... $80K per month. Are you going to let your wife stay in a 3 room flat, and give her a monthly allowance of $500 ?
If you are so afraid someone is going to steal your money, why don't you just stay single ?
So once you are done with your wife, who bore you no child and live a tai tai life after say... 15 years of her life. Sharing the same bed and living in the same home.
Are you going to throw her out on the street to fend for herself and perhaps if she gets lucky.. finds herself a cleaning job which pays $600 per month , while you happily marries another young chick and have children to start a new family ?
If a man is so heartless.. why should any woman marries him ?
I suggest you go read up on the women's charter before you talk rubbish here.
Taken from the women's charter.
"Power of court to order division of matrimonial assets
112. —(1) The court shall have power, when granting or subsequent to the grant of a judgment of divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage, to order the division between the parties of any matrimonial asset or the sale of any such asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of the sale of any such asset in such proportions as the court thinks just and equitable.(2) It shall be the duty of the court in deciding whether to exercise its powers under subsection (1) and, if so, in what manner, to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following matters:
- (a)
the extent of the contributions made
by each party in money, property or work towards acquiring, improving
or maintaining the matrimonial assets;
"
This is the link , go study it.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
No we got our time of the month. You got the time anytime.
Talking cock is part of your DHS, no ?
Nope.
Its just plain talking cock. Got nothing to do with DHS.
we also got our time of the month.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
May I ask you.
You believe your wife don't deserve half of that bangalow because... she married a bloke ? Think about it, couldn't she have married someone else who is NOT A BLOKE ????? Instead because she loves you , SHE MARRIED YOU, A BLOKE ???
And when you are done with her love, you chuck her aside like a used tissue paper because she didn't PAY for it ?
OK.
If you are a rich businessman, and your earn say... $80K per month. Are you going to let your wife stay in a 3 room flat, and give her a monthly allowance of $500 ?
If you are so afraid someone is going to steal your money, why don't you just stay single ?
So once you are done with your wife, who bore you no child and live a tai tai life after say... 15 years of her life. Sharing the same bed and living in the same home.
Are you going to throw her out on the street to fend for herself and perhaps if she gets lucky.. finds herself a cleaning job which pays $600 per month , while you happily marries another young chick and have children to start a new family ?
If a man is so heartless.. why should any woman marries him ?
I suggest you go read up on the women's charter before you talk rubbish here.
Taken from the women's charter.
"Power of court to order division of matrimonial assets
112. —(1) The court shall have power, when granting or subsequent to the grant of a judgment of divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage, to order the division between the parties of any matrimonial asset or the sale of any such asset and the division between the parties of the proceeds of the sale of any such asset in such proportions as the court thinks just and equitable."This is the link , go study it.
there's already a bias in your reply. you are assuming that it's the husband who divorce the wife. why not see it from the other way round?
if you are a bloke:
you get rich.(well, not really, u plan to live in that bungalow. so it is not of much use to you.) for some reason unknown, your wife seeks a divorce, and you will be forced to sell that bungalow you inherited, to be divided between the 2.
i don't agree with your point about using her because she din pay for it.
a family inheritance is supposed to be kept whole. especially when it was willed to you, by your relative. how can you divide up that hard earn asset of your relative to others, even if the person in qsn is/was your spouse?
it is like the nkf donation saga. yes, you have given your money willingly to the organisation. however, you still intend it to go to your intended beneficiary, not into the pockets of others. same logic applies to the above case.
in your 2nd scenario, when you are a rich businessman making $80k/mnth.
when you divorce, it is most likely due to permanent disagreement betwn the 2. all ties are to be severed by the divorce. so what if she is living in a 3rm flat, with $500 a month. 3rm is more than enough for someone living alone.
i believe that you should get what you put in, nothing more. i agree that if the wife had work hard, helping out in her husband's business, whatsoever, then she should be entitled to a larger share of the couple's shared assets.
however, being female, doesn't entitile her to gain her husband hard earn money.
under the local law, regardless of whether its the husband or the wife filing for divorce, the wife is STILL entitled to claim 50% of the husband assets. her personal assets are left UNTOUCHED.
how about this. you are a rich businesswoman making $80k per month. your husband makes only $2k per month as an administrator.
you file for divorce. you lose nothing. your husband has to surrender half of his already-miserable assets to you. in addition, he has to pay you alimony, unless you specify for him not to.
is this fair?
-
s 123 (2)a ...
So guys .. get a prenup agreement done if yous all so worried ya . BEFORE you get married .
-
I dun mind women with rights.. and all that good stuff as long as they dont go challenge everything that is 'masculine' in nature. Challenge the legal system. The corporate system. lol..
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
I dun mind women with rights.. and all that good stuff as long as they dont go challenge everything that is 'masculine' in nature. Challenge the legal system. The corporate system. lol..
ya. i agree with that.
women can go campaigning for rights in the middle east.
here, women have too much rights, at least more than men. if any disagree, i remind you that there's the women's charter, but there's no men's charter.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
ya. i agree with that.
women can go campaigning for rights in the middle east.
here, women have too much rights, at least more than men. if any disagree, i remind you that there's the women's charter, but there's no men's charter.
If u noticed , the rights and equality they strive for , in the end is just contradicting themselves. Striving to be like men. LoL All those so called qualities they strive to achieve are all masculine in nature.
Are we going down an era of gender reversal roles ? Men becoming more feminine.. balls castrated unable to stand up for thier own rights. And women becoming more masculine. Well maybe not.. there is still aplenty of developing and 3rd world countries.So we'll see.
lol..
-
I believe both genders are treated unfairly; not necessarily restricted to males.
If I am not wrong, there is a quota for females with regards to the entry into the study of medicine in NUS. Who set this quota? Perhaps the MOE, which is essentially a government organisation.
Also, when a female becomes a government/president, there always seem to be pall of skepticism surrounding her.
That's discrimination against females. BUT at the same time, as posted by deathmaster, there's also discrimination against males - the 50% assest thing + the law against gays, but not against lesbains.
As you can see, both genders are treated unfairly.
@ jojobeach: Please accept the fact. There IS discrimination, be it against males or females. Women have been actively arguing for their rights, and there IS absolutely no wrong if a male also decides to argue for his rights. If you can't even accept that males have a right to argue for their rights, then you are the ultimate discriminator.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster: there's already a bias in your reply. you are assuming that it's the husband who divorce the wife. why not see it from the other way round?
if you are a bloke:
you get rich.(well, not really, u plan to live in that bungalow. so it is not of much use to you.) for some reason unknown, your wife seeks a divorce, and you will be forced to sell that bungalow you inherited, to be divided between the 2.
i don't agree with your point about using her because she din pay for it.
a family inheritance is supposed to be kept whole. especially when it was willed to you, by your relative. how can you divide up that hard earn asset of your relative to others, even if the person in qsn is/was your spouse?
it is like the nkf donation saga. yes, you have given your money willingly to the organisation. however, you still intend it to go to your intended beneficiary, not into the pockets of others. same logic applies to the above case.
in your 2nd scenario, when you are a rich businessman making $80k/mnth.
when you divorce, it is most likely due to permanent disagreement betwn the 2. all ties are to be severed by the divorce. so what if she is living in a 3rm flat, with $500 a month. 3rm is more than enough for someone living alone.
i believe that you should get what you put in, nothing more. i agree that if the wife had work hard, helping out in her husband's business, whatsoever, then she should be entitled to a larger share of the couple's shared assets.
however, being female, doesn't entitile her to gain her husband hard earn money.
under the local law, regardless of whether its the husband or the wife filing for divorce, the wife is STILL entitled to claim 50% of the husband assets. her personal assets are left UNTOUCHED.
how about this. you are a rich businesswoman making $80k per month. your husband makes only $2k per month as an administrator.
you file for divorce. you lose nothing. your husband has to surrender half of his already-miserable assets to you. in addition, he has to pay you alimony, unless you specify for him not to.
is this fair?
No divorce in reality falls under " For some Unknown reason."
Hard earned asset or not, when it gets willed, that relative is gone. The asset becomes your "income". You do what you deem fit according to YOUR will.
What is the difference between inheriting an asset vs winning a $5 mil lottery ?
So if you are the one who pays for the lottery ticket, do you think you should KEEP the $5 million ?? All of it ??? Since your wife didn't pay for it with her income, she shouldn't be entitled to any ?
When you will an asset to your beneficiary, do you specifically state that your he must never share it with his wife should they divorce ? NO, you accept them as a SINGLE entity. SO no the NKF saga does not apply here.
Her personal assets remains untouched ???? Which divorce case is this ?
If your ex-wife has a 20K savings while you have a 500K savings. Are you going to divy up her 20K to give you , then you divy up your 500K to give her ??? Boh liao issit ?
So if she didn't pay for the 3 room flat are you going to tell her she don't deserve to live in one ?????? LOL
Please lah.
If I am a rich businesswoman earning that much money, I'd tell my husband to quit his meagre salary job to stay home and watch the kids and maintain the household.
Then after I get sick of him when he is old and useless, I also throw him a 3 room flat and pay him $500 a months for his "contribution". Fair ??
How many men are willing to do it ?
-
Originally posted by @:)@: I believe both genders are treated unfairly; not necessarily restricted to males.
If I am not wrong, there is a quota for females with regards to the entry into the study of medicine in NUS. Who set this quota? Perhaps the MOE, which is essentially a government organisation.
Also, when a female becomes a government/president, there always seem to be pall of skepticism surrounding her.
That's discrimination against females. BUT at the same time, as posted by deathmaster, there's also discrimination against males - the 50% assest thing + the law against gays, but not against lesbains.
As you can see, both genders are treated unfairly.
@ jojobeach: Please accept the fact. There IS discrimination, be it against males or females. Women have been actively arguing for their rights, and there IS absolutely no wrong if a male also decides to argue for his rights. If you can't even accept that males have a right to argue for their rights, then you are the ultimate discriminator.
You know why there is a human rights movement ? Because there wasn't any human rights in the beginning.
Yes there is discrimination, that is why we fight to abolish the unjust treatment.
There is no wrong if men argues for their rights to achieve fair and just treatment for MALE AND FEMALE.
Men can fight for their rights, provided they do not infinge on the rights of females.
A fair and just treatment should be the goal.. not trying to take one another down.
-
I totally disagree with TS!!!!!
The new equality law:
The licence fees for dogs other than in dog farms are as follows:
- For a dog below 5 months of age: S$14.00 per annum
- For a sterilised dog: S$14.00 per annum
- For a non-sterilised dog: S$70 per annum
- For a fourth or subsequent dog: S$175 per annum
Previously, all male dogs whether sterilised or not only cost S$14/p.a. Now, even male dogs must be sterilised!!!!
Have you gotten yours?
Snip snip!
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
ya. i agree with that.
women can go campaigning for rights in the middle east.
here, women have too much rights, at least more than men. if any disagree, i remind you that there's the women's charter, but there's no men's charter.
Why do we need a women's charter ? WHY ?
Because if men are so just and fair and accord what women deserves from the beginning of time, there will be NO need for someone to come up with A Women's Charter now, isn't it ?
Lets face it lah.
Men just wants winner takes all.
Women has to fight for a win win situation.
-
There are 2 reasons why Singapore PAP government sides more of women:
1)Our PAP leaders are "Chee Hong",they are desperate for women coz their wife dont like them anymore.But on the other hand,no women like those impotent n no LP(no cork)PAP leaders as well.So they setup a law that is favourable of women to attract their attention.(u can also say our PAP leaders are attention seekers)
2)Our PAP leaders dont have any working experience under women supervision.Basically,in Lou Lee,young Lee n boot-licker Lou Goh times,women seldom come out n work(not as often as now).So in their minds,they thought that women are angel,and better than men in character.(Laughing Out Loud at their stupidity).In fact,if they have a chance to work as same rank or under women supervision,such as working for women boss or supervisor,they will know how wrong they are n realise that women are no angel.:)
So the conclusion is,our PAP leaders are a bunch of no LP(no cork),no experience,no talent,impotent,no looks and yet try to attract women attention perverts^^
P.S.Our PAP leaders are:Lou Lee,young Lee and....Yes,u are right,boot-licker Lou Goh!!!
-
I doubt women want a win win situtation or men want winner takes it all, this is simply human nature and each gender wanting to shirk their own responsibilities.
Well if you want to look an an idea of progressive ideas of men and women you need to take a look at two TV series, namely Hercules and Xena.
In Hercules you note that people rarely die in the show by Hercules' hand, he is usually your typical nice guy who does not resort to violence except as a last resort.
In Xena however, just about everyone who crosses her path gets killed, though towards the end of the show's run the character becomes more balanced.
But it speaks a lot on ideas of female empowerment and the like, not that it's wrong or what but you can see the mentality that lurks behind it. But I think there's something defective about the idea of being equal as men means having to emulate everything that is wrong with men.
I do not think that in order for women to prove equality they have to be as violent, forceful, or hardheaded as men, this is not all that men are about. It is a bit like a toy poodle needing to prove that it is every bit as big as a quiet great dane by barking as much as possible and being extremely aggressive but at the end of the day one can see.
Is your equality born from the quiet confidence of known that you are already equal or from an inferiority complex? That's a very important distinction to make.
Namely I am not much for the idea of guys complaining about NS, because it is our duty as men to defend that which matters to us. In the same way, women who complain about the troubles and pains of childbirth aren't probably as real as the women they ought to be.
Equality comes from mutal respect and cooperation, not the dumbing down of both sides to the same lowest level. There will be no end to it if you put it that way, in the same way a man can abuse his maleness on women (ie. physical violence and the like), women can abuse their own femaleness on men as well (ie. emotional violence and other vindictive methods). At the end of the day who is right?
No one.
Before you say so much ask yourself, have you been a proper gentleman or lady recently?
But frankly I am a bit saddened to see the role of the homemaker or mother being treated as if it is something inferior to having a life in the office and making money by both sides, it seems to me more to of an effect of our modern soceity then anything else. I do not think real men ought to regard the housewife as a personal slave leeching money nor should women think the role degrading.