Singapore government does not support sexual equality
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
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.
oei. lol..
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
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.
Hercules and Xena are fictional people.
In the show, do you know why Hercules don't want to kill ? Because he killed his own son with his own hands.
And Xena was a Villian from the beginning who later turned warrior for good. And she fights because she lost her family including her own child to evil doers.
Xena need not be a fighting machine if her enemies were not blood thirsty SOBs now would she ?
Anyway, her story can be googled.
You telling me men don't decapitate whoever stands in their path ?
Look at what happened to Benazir Bhutto, assasinated.
Look at what happend to Ang San Suu Kii ? House arrest for 12 years even though she won the election fair and square.
Honor killings on women who refused to conform in countries dominated by men.
Who are the perpetrators ? MEN and their insecurities !!
If men are so afraid to share their earned assets, why get married ?
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE in Modern Context ??
If it is agreed the couples want no kids, and has no interest in sharing the earned income together. WHY MARRY ? Why sign on the dotted line ???
Isn't marriage based on working towards the same goal in life TOGETHER ?
So during a divorce, why must all those time spent together amounts to NOTHING ?
If this is how men really thinks. Then I see no reason for a woman to marry a man.
She can jolly well earn her own, live her own and get herself a sperm from the sperm bank.
-
I shall try not to break up my posts too much but there are simply too many to reply to.
Jojobeach: I do not seek to promote the propaganda that there are no physiological differences between men and women. Hardly. Once again you do not see my point: my point is not so much that men and women are one and the same. My point is not that men and women do everything equally well. Both you and I know very well that the statistics show there are certain distinctions between the areas men and women tend to excel in, even though there are obvious exceptions as well. None of these are my points.
So what is my point? My point is this: Why do men of our country have to suffer while women do not? See the difference here. I am not saying women have to go through NS, nor that they are suited for it. Yes, we have already seen that men tend to be more suited for NS than women, disregarding the exceptions, and I shall not argue against this even with the presence of exceptions. What I am saying is that it is not fair for men to go through something nasty while women don't have to. Again, I am not saying that women have plotted against men in Singapore. I feel that if men are generalised by the government to have deserved some form of hardship, so do women. Also remember that I am not saying NS was designed simply to torture men. What I am saying here is this: Men in Singapore lead a harder life than the women do. Remember that NS is not the only issue here. There are several issues to look at and when you have all of these put together it really just shows that men in Singapore are somewhat unfairly treated as compaired to women.
For those who are again saying that the world is unfair, get over it, etc., (Dragon amongst others) I have this to say. The world does not have to be totally unfair. Take racial harmony for example. Our government apparently sees fit to promote racial harmony. Dare any of you here say that this is entirely unecessary and that the government is intefering with the order of nature? Really? We have already seen how racial harmony can destroy our country. The world is unfair, true. We will never be perfect. That doesn't mean we can't progress towards perfection. Even if we never actually reach there, we would still have benefited somehow in the process.
More to come in the next post~
-
Hercules and Xena are fictional people.
In the show, do you know why Hercules don't want to kill ? Because he killed his own son with his own hands.
And Xena was a Villian from the beginning who later turned warrior for good. And she fights because she lost her family including her own child to evil doers.
Xena need not be a fighting machine if her enemies were not blood thirsty SOBs now would she ?
Anyway, her story can be googled.
You telling me men don't decapitate whoever stands in their path ?
Exactly my point, these shows are a modern spin reflecting a modern mindselt. TV is reflective of our own idealogies on progressing gender roles, and a flawed one in my opinion, not to mention one that actually sets women back years rather then being any sort of progressive.
Having women act badly as men acting badly is hardly any sort of freedom at all... basically we are saying that women have the right to be as stupid and hardheaded as men while the idea of the "progressive" guy increasingly slants towards the "nice guy". Both I think are deficient.
Why should women act like men in order to be respected? They ought to be respected as women.
I think a lot of feminism miss this point entirely.
And I don't understand why some men are afraid to share their assets with thier wife, this is a materialistic mindset. What's yours is mine and what's mine is yours... the problem is with treating marriage LIGHTLY or as simply a transaction without putting in the effort to make it work. All this splitting hairs over individual rights goes against the very spirit of marriage, which is a union, and I believe more then a legal union.
In the same vein I don't get men who can't share their stuff, but also women who abuse their rights.
As I said, no point shifting the blame, both sides are equally guity of abusing their own roles to get leverage on the other, you can argue till the cows come home and there will be no solution.
I believe women should be protected and have their rights, but at the same time to role of men in soceity out to be RESPECTED and not taken lightly or for granted. It takes a real man to protect and share with his wife unconditionally, and a real woman not to treat her man with lightly or with contempt.
-
@Deathmaster: Thank you for bringing up all those issues. I wanted to in the past myself but when I was writing the post I just couldn't think of it off the top of my head. those issues are highly relevant as well. I shall quote them in my main topic if I have the time too later.
A very important thing to highlight, and here I quote from deathmaster:
"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." - Deathmaster
This is one of the main issues I think should be discussed. Notice, however, that under the law the man does not get similar rights?
Yet another issue to discuss is rape. Any man found to have had sex, whether consensual or not, with a girl below the age of 16, will be charged with statutory rape. (The girl, being underaged, is considered under the law not to have the power nor authority to give legal consent.) Yet we do not have similar laws protecting boys. I know, and indeed it is true, cases of rape against boys are far fewer than that against women. Yet exceptions are not unheard of, nowhere near. Should there not be a law against that too? See how our law system stereotypes men as the bad people of the day: men are assumed to be able to rape women and other men, but not the other way round. And even then, rape cases by women against overaged men: almost totally unprotected.
@Theguywith@s and a smiley face: What you said was not untrue. I guess you are right. However it still stands that the discrimination against men right now tends to be greater than that against women. Perhaps the quota set in place was to retain a cohort that was more sexually balanced. I don't know, but I guess either way you're right, it isn't really fair.
@jojobeach again: I am unsure as to the specific of the case deathmaster was referring to but I can assure you I have read of similar cases whereby the husband's assets were unfairly taken from him and given to the wife just because of laws that protect her and not him. Even if such a case has not occurred yet men are unprotected from the fact that women can ruin their financial status based on a mere technicality in the law that does not appear to have any moral backing. I believe that law was originally created to protect women when they are divorced but it is now flawed. You also talked about caning earlier. I do not disagree that caning should be eliminated. I am simply using this example as evidence that women appear to have superior rights under the law when compared to men.
You also talked again about how equal rights for both genders should be the goal. I agree with you in this respect. Yet with issues such as NS... The reasons are justifiable to a certain extent. Therefore it is inevitable that our men are drawn in. We cannot have a country with an army of a thousand men. Yet still, there are reasons why women should not be drawn in. It creates an imbalance even though the original goal is something that has been justified. Therefore equal rights, (just pertaining to this issue) can involve one of two options: The government could say to itself: Eff it and just drag the women in too. Or the government could make NS something that does not involve yelling at men when they don't deserve it or giving them any other sort of unreasonable treatment. Or the government could give the women something equally nasty.
Of course I do not simply seek to pull the women down with us. The question is: can the men be pulled up to the same level of protection that women enjoy under the law while still providing a country that is safe and productive?
Jojobeach at the end of it all (I think I have replied to you at least 3 times), you still misunderstand that this is an effort to bring equality between men and women, and not an effort by men to fight the women. There is a fine distinction and I think you should understand that.
-
@Drawer: Let's not take advantage of this to put down the PAP again. There are enough out there already as it is... >_>
@Singaporedinosaur (I'm sorry but the second part of your name is too difficult to spell so I shall just use this temporarily): Perhaps you are right about equality coming from mutual respect and cooperation. The thing is that we men do want to be respected and treated fairly under the law. This is not about men thinking women are inferior or vice versa. This is about how we are respected under the law. See the difference here: This "fight", to put it crudely, is between men who support this reasoning and the lawmakers, and not so much between men and women. Once again, just to remind everyone this topic is not only about NS. It also involves various other issues regarding the law including the caning thing which little mention has been made of so far and also what deathmaster wrote about.
Also, about the homemaker thing being degrading: Frankly as a guy, I do not see being a home mom as degrading. Nor do I see being a working mom as superior nor inferior. Women are the ones who feel that they should be given the chance to advance in their careers and prove themselves to the world that they have potential. Fine, that is their choice, and it is not my call to condone nor criticise that. I think that ultimately the decision between homemaker and working mom is something women need to decide for themselves and other men and women need to respect.
Just finished replying to the people on the second page... Moving on to the third...
-
Jojobeach (again lol): Perhaps your ideas on marriage and divorce are too simplistic and idealistic. In an ideal world, when men and women get married, nothing would go wrong and they live happily ever after. Unfortunately people change. Men change, women change, for better or for worse. In a marriage if a woman were to become someone incredibly hateful, someone totally horrible, it can come to a point where it is not the man's responsibility, even in their marital status, to bear the torments of what the woman does to him. Yes, it can happen the other way round too, the woman could indeed be a victim and the man the person who has become unbearable, but the difference here is this: legally the man is more vulnerable, in both cases. Of course, in the latter case, it is justifiable to a certain extent that hey, that guy deserved it. However in the former case, has the man not become a victim through and through? He cannot escape without suffering a loss. He is in a lose-lose situation. He cannot leave his wife for his financial status will be in shreds. Yet saving his financial status does not seem worth putting himself through hell everyday. Until it comes to a point where the pain his wife is putting him through outweighs his financial woes, and he just has to get out or he'll break. Still, he suffers for something he shouldn't have to.
Again, (you seem to feel that we hate all women in this world so I shall speak very carefully) I am not saying that all women put their husbands through hell after getting married, but don't you see? It puts the man in a vulnerable position. The woman is well protected, the man can be easily victimised. Should men not be protected too? We are not saying that all women are out to get us; but it is not untrue and you cannot deny that there will be women who want to take advantage of the situation at hand to victimise men. Men, too, have emotional needs. We too want to have the woman of our dreams be with us forever. Yet sometimes we make the wrong choices and when it comes to the point of divorce I think that men should have their rights as well protected as women do.
-
Mr Sean,
Assuming , it is mandatory for females to go for NS.
How long and what kind of training do you think will make it equitable ?
Should females go for BMT too ? Is it 3 or 6 months now ( I don't remember).
Is this female enlistment thing going to change how men are being treated in NS ?
Does it makes sense for female conscript to go for BMT when she is not required to go into a battlefield ?
In any sense, even if females goes to NS, the treatment between the two gender will be different. There WILL BE inequality no matter what.
I have no idea how you are going to balance this out.
As for the case of divorce when the female assets is left untouched. How much of her assets is left untouched ? Does she at the end of the day walks away with MORE than the guy ??? If we want to discuss this, we should have a case study that's not fictional and details included.
If she has to take care of the children, shouldn't she be entitled more than a man who lives alone ?
She may be entitled to CLAIM.. but will she GETS what she claimed ?
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Jojobeach (again lol): Perhaps your ideas on marriage and divorce are too simplistic and idealistic. In an ideal world, when men and women get married, nothing would go wrong and they live happily ever after. Unfortunately people change. Men change, women change, for better or for worse. In a marriage if a woman were to become someone incredibly hateful, someone totally horrible, it can come to a point where it is not the man's responsibility, even in their marital status, to bear the torments of what the woman does to him. Yes, it can happen the other way round too, the woman could indeed be a victim and the man the person who has become unbearable, but the difference here is this: legally the man is more vulnerable, in both cases. Of course, in the latter case, it is justifiable to a certain extent that hey, that guy deserved it. However in the former case, has the man not become a victim through and through? He cannot escape without suffering a loss. He is in a lose-lose situation. He cannot leave his wife for his financial status will be in shreds. Yet saving his financial status does not seem worth putting himself through hell everyday. Until it comes to a point where the pain his wife is putting him through outweighs his financial woes, and he just has to get out or he'll break. Still, he suffers for something he shouldn't have to.
Again, (you seem to feel that we hate all women in this world so I shall speak very carefully) I am not saying that all women put their husbands through hell after getting married, but don't you see? It puts the man in a vulnerable position. The woman is well protected, the man can be easily victimised. Should men not be protected too? We are not saying that all women are out to get us; but it is not untrue and you cannot deny that there will be women who want to take advantage of the situation at hand to victimise men. Men, too, have emotional needs. We too want to have the woman of our dreams be with us forever. Yet sometimes we make the wrong choices and when it comes to the point of divorce I think that men should have their rights as well protected as women do.
OK. So how much do you think a marriage is worth in financial terms ?
Say a 15 years marriage, or a 30 years marriage ? Or a 5 years marriage ( approaching the 7 years itch) ????
During a divorce, how much of the shared asset should men be willing to forgo in order to not feel victimized ?
-
Jojobeach: I'd prefer not to go into specifics when trying to equate how much a woman has to be put through to experience roughly the same amount of pain that a man goes through when he goes for NS.
Again, like I said, the alternative for women need not be a "female NS", it could be one of any number of things. The point is there should be equal stress between what women go through and what men go through. Putting women through a program that is equally stressful that may ultimately have different goals from NS is fine with me, but that need not be the only possibility we can turn to. We can also aim to reduce the amount of unreasonable treatment our men go through. Surely even you as a woman have heard the stories. You know that they do not treat men very fairly in there. It's like being sent to prison when you don't deserve it. I will not attempt to equate specifically the amount of stress a woman undergoes when she goes through this hypothetical training plan. I'm sure our government is creative enough as it is.
Regarding the laws protecting men in a marriage: Yes I do agree that we should have an actual case. I can only tell you that there have been real cases where the man has been unfairly treated under the system. I cannot provide more details as yet because I cannot recall any specific case. Perhaps deathmaster can oblige further on this front, he appears to be more familiar than I with matters regarding this. Anyway, remember this: even if there is no real case as yet where a man's right to justice has been compromised, there is already an open loophole. We should not have to wait for a man to lose his future before we decide to patch it up. It is an accident waiting to happen.
Again, I shall not attempt to equate how much a marriage is worth in dollars and cents. A marriage is not supposed to be about money. It's only when the divorce comes that both parties in the marriage have to be treated fairly and that the issues we are discussing come about. I can only say that men should be equally protected under the law, formally. The fate of a man should not only rest on the hope that the judge will understand his plight. There is still the possibility that the woman in a marriage will get off on a mere technicality.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Jojobeach: I'd prefer not to go into specifics when trying to equate how much a woman has to be put through to experience roughly the same amount of pain that a man goes through when he goes for NS.
Again, like I said, the alternative for women need not be a "female NS", it could be one of any number of things. The point is there should be equal stress between what women go through and what men go through. Putting women through a program that is equally stressful that may ultimately have different goals from NS is fine with me, but that need not be the only possibility we can turn to. We can also aim to reduce the amount of unreasonable treatment our men go through. Surely even you as a woman have heard the stories. You know that they do not treat men very fairly in there. It's like being sent to prison when you don't deserve it. I will not attempt to equate specifically the amount of stress a woman undergoes when she goes through this hypothetical training plan. I'm sure our government is creative enough as it is.
Regarding the laws protecting men in a marriage: Yes I do agree that we should have an actual case. I can only tell you that there have been real cases where the man has been unfairly treated under the system. I cannot provide more details as yet because I cannot recall any specific case. Perhaps deathmaster can oblige further on this front, he appears to be more familiar than I with matters regarding this. Anyway, remember this: even if there is no real case as yet where a man's right to justice has been compromised, there is already an open loophole. We should not have to wait for a man to lose his future before we decide to patch it up. It is an accident waiting to happen.
Again, I shall not attempt to equate how much a marriage is worth in dollars and cents. A marriage is not supposed to be about money. It's only when the divorce comes that both parties in the marriage have to be treated fairly and that the issues we are discussing come about. I can only say that men should be equally protected under the law, formally. The fate of a man should not only rest on the hope that the judge will understand his plight. There is still the possibility that the woman in a marriage will get off on a mere technicality.
When you are not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Very true isn't it ?
So your solution is to,
a) give women equal stress, or
b) "aim to reduce the amount of unreasonable treatment our men go through".
Now wouldn't it make more sense to choose B ?
When it comes to divorce, technicality or not. The decision of the judge is not final from the get go.
My friend is an air stewardess who married a man worth millions.
After two years of marriage, NO kids.
She walks away from the marriage with NOTHING. Now how is this possible if the family court is truly unjust?
-
Jojo: Seriously, I'm all for B if it's possible. I'm just saying that A is a possibility too. So if you do agree with me on this, than you agree that there is indeed a sexual inequality in Singapore, and that our government should do something about it? If so, then let's set that aside for now since we have come to an agreement.
About the marriage rights: The thing is that even though judges are allowed to use their discretion to decide if something should or should not happen, don't you think that it would be a lot better if they could formally modify the law. The point of the law is that it's supposed to be a guideline. Judges use these guidelines to decide what should happen. Why is it that we should depend on judges to use their discretion to save a man's future? Shouldn't we modify our laws such that they are fully relevant and updated instead.
As for the case study: That's just one case. We shouldn't make generalisations and assume that all cases go through in the same manner as your friend's did.
P.S. It is 5 in the morning so I'm kind of going to bed. I'll check back asap to reply further.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Jojo: Seriously, I'm all for B if it's possible. I'm just saying that A is a possibility too. So if you do agree with me on this, than you agree that there is indeed a sexual inequality in Singapore, and that our government should do something about it? If so, then let's set that aside for now since we have come to an agreement.
About the marriage rights: The thing is that even though judges are allowed to use their discretion to decide if something should or should not happen, don't you think that it would be a lot better if they could formally modify the law. The point of the law is that it's supposed to be a guideline. Judges use these guidelines to decide what should happen. Why is it that we should depend on judges to use their discretion to save a man's future? Shouldn't we modify our laws such that they are fully relevant and updated instead.
As for the case study: That's just one case. We shouldn't make generalisations and assume that all cases go through in the same manner as your friend's did.
P.S. It is 5 in the morning so I'm kind of going to bed. I'll check back asap to reply further.
Which part of the law are you unsatisfied with ?
Every family case is unique, and every motives behind the divorces can be disputed.
-
An article on Yahoo
"Women lawyers less likely to make partner: study" And this happens in the USA.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080530/lf_nm_life/women_lawyers_dc
Gender inequality at works.
-
if women go thru the same kind of stress as men do in NS, how to show off to the girls next time?
we wun be able to say "aiyah ä½ æ²¡æœ‰åŽ»NSä½ ä¸�懂的啦“.. haha..
and there are so many countries with conscription too.. no need for this argument at all seriously..
if the government try to make everything equal, sg girls will kua suay sg guys.. lol.. some already do..
-
Equal does not mean fair, it's apples and oranges.
You cannot treat an orange like an apple, or an apple like an orange.
Is there gender inequality at works in the lawyer case? Probably, but not as much as you would think. It's seems to me a case of women trying to break into what was previously a male dominated arena, but it seems to me more to be the difference between men and women then men actively working to stop them.
Ie, as the article said a lot of the process of making partner is done off work hours in things like "guy talk" where it would be very hard for a woman to get into the culture. Not that it's impossible but these things take time to turn around.
In the same vein, look at women in the US military. They have come a long way but as it stands there are still LESS women then men in the military, especially in combat vocations... is this a result of gender inequality? More like difference, there is no denying the fact that probably less women then men can make the physical cut in getting into a combat vocation.
Same for the Air Force pararescue which holds men and women to the same physical standard... so far no women have made it through to be a pararescue or most men for that matter, the course is so demanding that 9 out of 10 trainees wash out. It is basically an all-male outfit but is this then an example of discrimination?
What is the solution then? Have two different sets of physical standards for men and women to be a soldier? In war this will probably get you and your friends killed.
I don't think NS for ladies is such a bad idea, after all one learns a lot of valuable lessons from NS such as self-reliance and the like. However I think it's a stupid idea to push girls to carry a gun and train to fight on the front just like guys, let boys be boys and girls be girls. There are a ton of jobs that girls can do that guys stink at- ie. things like nursing and the like which girls still pwn guys at doing and it isn't such a bad idea to having things like nursing as part of NS for the ladies. This also means that in war they are not helpless.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Equal does not mean fair, it's apples and oranges.
You cannot treat an orange like an apple, or an apple like an orange.
Is there gender inequality at works in the lawyer case? Probably, but not as much as you would think. It's seems to me a case of women trying to break into what was previously a male dominated arena, but it seems to me more to be the difference between men and women then men actively working to stop them.
Ie, as the article said a lot of the process of making partner is done off work hours in things like "guy talk" where it would be very hard for a woman to get into the culture. Not that it's impossible but these things take time to turn around.
In the same vein, look at women in the US military. They have come a long way but as it stands there are still LESS women then men in the military, especially in combat vocations... is this a result of gender inequality? More like difference, there is no denying the fact that probably less women then men can make the physical cut in getting into a combat vocation.
Same for the Air Force pararescue which holds men and women to the same physical standard... so far no women have made it through to be a pararescue or most men for that matter, the course is so demanding that 9 out of 10 trainees wash out. It is basically an all-male outfit but is this then an example of discrimination.
What is the solution then? Have two different sets of physical standards for men and women to be a soldier? In war this will probably get you and your friends killed.
I don't think NS for ladies is such a bad idea, after all one learns a lot of valuable lessons from NS such as self-reliance and the like. However I think it's a stupid idea to push girls to carry a gun and train to fight on the front just like guys, let boys be boys and girls be girls. There are a ton of jobs that girls can do that guys stink at- ie. things like nursing and the like which girls still pwn guys at doing and it isn't such a bad idea to having things like nursing as part of NS for the ladies. This also means that in war they are not helpless.
SG Dino,
I think ladies joining the St John brigade is actually a great idea.
Although.... I don't think we will need more than 3 months to learn what needs to be learn, unless we are required to learn those hentak kaki chepak jalan maneuvers too ?
I doubt the level of "stress" will ever equal that of NS. So in that sense, TS's wish cannot come true..:P
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
SG Dino,
I think ladies joining the St John brigade is actually a great idea.
Although.... I don't think we will need more than 3 months to learn what needs to be learn, unless we are required to learn those hentak kaki chepak jalan maneuvers too ?
I doubt the level of "stress" will ever equal that of NS. So in that sense, TS's wish cannot come true..:P
Well, having girl joining the St Join brigade for 2 years will be great. If you realised that girl don't need 3 months to learn all that stuff, actually the guys don't need the full 2 years to learn to fire a rifle too.
And there are many guys in NS working as clerk and storeman, why can't the girl take up these vocations since these are well within their physical abilities.
-
I think every man should respect your mother, so we should respect woman
-
Originally posted by Zorro.ding:
I think every man should respect your mother, so we should respect woman
And every girl should respect your father, so they should respect men also?
-
since when our government support ANYTHING about equality
-
Originally posted by 333225520:
And every girl should respect your father, so they should respect men also?
men should respect women, and women should respect men.. no wrong ah.. everybody should respect everybody..
unless u did something not respectable.. haha..
-
SG Dino,
I think ladies joining the St John brigade is actually a great idea.
Although.... I don't think we will need more than 3 months to learn what needs to be learn, unless we are required to learn those hentak kaki chepak jalan maneuvers too ?
I doubt the level of "stress" will ever equal that of NS. So in that sense, TS's wish cannot come true..:P
Well I'm not sure TS's wish was a reasonable one to begin with.
Since when did all levels of "stress" need to be equal. Being equal does not mean being the same.
Does this mean that we all guys have to experience the pain of childbirth that all women have to go through? If everything ought to be the same? Nope, let boys be boys and girls be girls. As I said and will say again, what is needed is mutal respect and understanding, not trying to put each other down by saying that what we did was better, more important, or "stressful" in this way or that, there will be no end to it.
AFAIK, there are plenty of women in our airforce and navy, especially in vocations that do not require serious physical ability.
And BTW, parachute packing is a job in our military that is female dominated, for the reason that women are simply better at such things then men.
As I said, equal does not mean same, it means we each know our roles, complement each other, and respect each other.
-
sry for the relatively "lag" reply.
for a specific case, i don't remember when exactly it was, but shd be within the past 2 yrs.
there's this 50+ yrs old ex-businessman, who can no longer work due to his disability. although he still live in a landed property, well, you know, he doesn't work, so i dunoe whether to classify him as a rich man or not.
main pt:
he was making $10k< per month at the time of the divorce.
he is required to pay monthly alimony to his wife, of $5k per month, with a pending lawsuit on 50% of assets (the landed property he is still residing in).
is it fair for the man, since that he is unable to work, to continue paying alimony to his wife? at $5k? also, he has to pay for his children's expenses (custody was awarded to the wife), outside of the $5k he gives to his ex every month.
bear in mind that due to his disability, he is forced to retire early, and stop working, and thus end his source of income. he is expected to live on his savings. is it fair to suck the man dry of his savings to pay for the unreasonably high alimony demanded?
for 5k, u can support dunoe how many ppl alr.
since he is to live on his savings for the rest of his life, assuming that he spends only $500 on himself, a 95% cut in "allowance/income", (not to mention that's impossible, since he also has other bills to pay. power bills, food etc.), he would still have to spend $5.5k per month.
$5.5k is double, or even in some cases, triple of what people are earning out there. bear in mind of that. can he afford to spend that much per month given his current state of permanent unemployment?
the wife, who is healthy physically can jolly well go work for her own money, instead of forcing her poor ex-husband into debt.
-
regarding NS for females, maybe we can look at Malaysia's example.
even Malaysia, a more conservative Muslim society, (women are suppose to stay at home and be wrapped up in tudong etc... let alone going army), imposes compulsory NS for their females.
additional info: not all malaysian males are conscripted into the army. and not all females too. conscription is done by "lucky draw".
females do NS for 3months, i think, if i'm not wrong. and from my malaysian friend, (she's got selected to go for their NS), the 3 mnth ns is more of a national education programme than to actually prepare them for war. nevertheless, they still have to go thru the course, similar in intensity to that of the guys.
i'm not in support of female doing 2 yrs of ns in the army, but perhaps 3 months would be good to let females familarise with the notion of ns, to let them know about the truth behind ns, whether it is indeed as noble as it seems. then we shall see if they will agree if 2 yrs of ns for guys is too long or too short.
OR,
we can let them do 2 yrs of compulsory social service instead, base on the German model. (if i'm not wrong, germany allows their youth to do social services in lieu of military service, which spans only 1 yr long)
community service is more suitable for women, not as taxing as military combat position, and well,... in face of spore's aging population, the community sure needs more care from the youth. what's better than to have a constant supply of welfare workers?