rokkie: May I enquire as to how you came to the conclusion that women are generally better at language than men are? Only I haven't heard this one before and would like to read up more on it and I can't find any sources that support this statement.
Also we are not talking about the rights of women, currently we are discussing the prejudice against men. You also said that marriage requires mutual trust and love to last. That is true. Yet people make mistakes and when they do, the law should not be their financial downfall.
Anyways, there are many other issues not relating to divorce whereby the laws of the Republic of Singapore seem to be prejudiced to a certain extent against men. Examples that have been given here include the NS controversy, the law that allows caning to be meted out only to males and certain sexual rights.
Originally posted by MrSean:rokkie: May I enquire as to how you came to the conclusion that women are generally better at language than men are? Only I haven't heard this one before and would like to read up more on it and I can't find any sources that support this statement.
Also we are not talking about the rights of women, currently we are discussing the prejudice against men. You also said that marriage requires mutual trust and love to last. That is true. Yet people make mistakes and when they do, the law should not be their financial downfall.
Anyways, there are many other issues not relating to divorce whereby the laws of the Republic of Singapore seem to be prejudiced to a certain extent against men. Examples that have been given here include the NS controversy, the law that allows caning to be meted out only to males and certain sexual rights.
Good point about not letting marriage be men's financial downfall.
Why should it be for the women then ?
Before you go into a marriage, shouldn't certain goals and ambitions be already discussed and agreed upon ?
Like how many children both desire. Should the wife stay home or continue to work.
If a couple goes into marriage with separate mindset pertaining to their life goals. The marriage is doomed from the on set isn't it ?
So the man lets the wife be a housewife, yet penalize her during a divorce.
If a man does not wish for the wife to BE leeching on him. Why is it so difficult to just TELL HER before they get married ?????????
By not doing so, isn't men guilty of bear trapping his wife ?????????
Perhaps she will not have wanted so many kids. Perhaps she would have planned her life differently. Perhaps she wouldn't want to invest so much of her life into this marriage.
During a marriage, the man tells the wife " I will take care of you."
During a divorce, the man says " I'm taking it all back."
In view of this kind of thinking. I believe it is reasonable to include ONE MORE LAW to marriage.
Housewives are to be paid a monthly fee by the husband into her retirement account and paid a monthly salary/fee . And this should be put in a form of contract.
If the husband refused to sign it, then the wife has the right to continue working outside and not bear him any children and be able to walk out of him with no penalty whatsoever, this will not amount to neglect.
Is this what a man wants ?
Is a man really so helpless in his own marriage ?
Or does he just wants to blame his helplessness on the Women's Charter ?
Originally posted by MrSean:
Also we are not talking about the rights of women, currently we are discussing the prejudice against men. You also said that marriage requires mutual trust and love to last. That is true. Yet people make mistakes and when they do, the law should not be their financial downfall.
Anyways, there are many other issues not relating to divorce whereby the laws of the Republic of Singapore seem to be prejudiced to a certain extent against men. Examples that have been given here include the NS controversy, the law that allows caning to be meted out only to males and certain sexual rights.
So, you believe the law will now be just when it can be meted out to both gender ?
If an unjust law is given to both gender, does it now makes it a just law ?
You see caning as a form of punishment.
I see caning as a form of TORTURE. And as a human rights believer, this should be abolished for the greater good.
Compulsory NS is a form of human rights violation. And this should be dealt with in a gender neutral manner.
Originally posted by MrSean:rokkie: May I enquire as to how you came to the conclusion that women are generally better at language than men are? Only I haven't heard this one before and would like to read up more on it and I can't find any sources that support this statement.
Also we are not talking about the rights of women, currently we are discussing the prejudice against men. You also said that marriage requires mutual trust and love to last. That is true. Yet people make mistakes and when they do, the law should not be their financial downfall.
Anyways, there are many other issues not relating to divorce whereby the laws of the Republic of Singapore seem to be prejudiced to a certain extent against men. Examples that have been given here include the NS controversy, the law that allows caning to be meted out only to males and certain sexual rights.
sorry i didn't make myself clear,i think women are more sensational,in contrast of rational which represent men.And these is general statement ,there are exceptionals.
And in asian culture ,woman is always the weak and soft part of the family,someone said ,women are made of water,of course nowadays women independence and feminism is strenthen but compare to man that's their good part and short part.
And i agree that there is no absolute equality in this world ,because every part of the world is different and speciality.But as a man ,we should comfort female ,and get comfort ourselves why doing that,if u happen to get financial downfall after divorce,because he marry u.And ideally women scariface their own career for the men's career.If u have a child ,imagine how painful,when ur wife is giving birth to him.
Complete equality is impossible in the firth place,because u r marrying a women ,they r different in the first place.And i think if u choose the right one u marry,u will scarifice everything for her.Let's love about.I remeber someone said love is not about accepting but giving.If everything is so clearly set in law,getting divorce is like disslove a company,that will be a sad story
Originally posted by deathmaster:
but it is very hard to prevent abuse of the system by hateful individuals. there should an equivilent of women's charters for men, to prevent abuse of the system by women.
every system is abusable,i didn't see any system can be perfect.
Originally posted by rokkie:
every system is abusable,i didn't see any system can be perfect.
so do you expect men to sit there and guai guai get half of their assets suck away, watching helplessly, being able to do nothing, since it is "legalize snatching"?
you guys are talking base on the assumption that all married women end up as housewives. clearly, this is not so. in fact, there is a rising trend over the past few decades where women continue working even after they have children.
also, there is a increasing trend of men doing household chores, with increasing no. of married women staying in the job after childbirth. it clearly tell you that men do not just earn money and sit around when he reach home. he also do his share of the household chores.
what do wives do at home that husbands not do? cooking? laundrying? i can't think of anything which is handled 100% by the wives. if you want to forcefully list the role of a housemaker as an occupation, by that sense, shouldn't it be the men who have more to complain about, having to slog hard to feed his family at the workplace, and having to slog as hard to do housework when he reaches home from work.
who live a more pampered life? if housewives get to claim salary from husbands, for doing housework, then from who do the husbands claim their fee for doing housework from?
Originally posted by deathmaster:
so do you expect men to sit there and guai guai get half of their assets suck away, watching helplessly, being able to do nothing, since it is "legalize snatching"?you guys are talking base on the assumption that all married women end up as housewives. clearly, this is not so. in fact, there is a rising trend over the past few decades where women continue working even after they have children.
also, there is a increasing trend of men doing household chores, with increasing no. of married women staying in the job after childbirth. it clearly tell you that men do not just earn money and sit around when he reach home. he also do his share of the household chores.
what do wives do at home that husbands not do? cooking? laundrying? i can't think of anything which is handled 100% by the wives. if you want to forcefully list the role of a housemaker as an occupation, by that sense, shouldn't it be the men who have more to complain about, having to slog hard to feed his family at the workplace, and having to slog as hard to do housework when he reaches home from work.
who live a more pampered life? if housewives get to claim salary from husbands, for doing housework, then from who do the husbands claim their fee for doing housework from?
Okaaaayyyy....
So how much should the wife be allowed to claim ? NOTHING ?
You guys keep crying "Foul".
But when asked to come up with a tangible answer. You can't even decide what you want.
Dudes, if you think the current is unfair, then pray tell what is FAIR ?????????
Don't forget you also have a mother and father. If your parents divorce now, how much do you think your mother should claim ?
Originally posted by deathmaster:
so do you expect men to sit there and guai guai get half of their assets suck away, watching helplessly, being able to do nothing, since it is "legalize snatching"?you guys are talking base on the assumption that all married women end up as housewives. clearly, this is not so. in fact, there is a rising trend over the past few decades where women continue working even after they have children.
also, there is a increasing trend of men doing household chores, with increasing no. of married women staying in the job after childbirth. it clearly tell you that men do not just earn money and sit around when he reach home. he also do his share of the household chores.
what do wives do at home that husbands not do? cooking? laundrying? i can't think of anything which is handled 100% by the wives. if you want to forcefully list the role of a housemaker as an occupation, by that sense, shouldn't it be the men who have more to complain about, having to slog hard to feed his family at the workplace, and having to slog as hard to do housework when he reaches home from work.
who live a more pampered life? if housewives get to claim salary from husbands, for doing housework, then from who do the husbands claim their fee for doing housework from?
wat u mean the gal got no asset at all?I cannot imagine u marry a such poor woman.Anyone marraige should choose counter-equivilent
Originally posted by rokkie:wat u mean the gal got no asset at all?I cannot imagine u marry a such poor woman.Anyone marraige should choose counter-equivilent
i am arguing base on jojobeach's assumption. dun ask me why is jojobeach seeing housewives in such a stereotypical view of things.
and to jojobeach, like wad rokkie has said, usually, most of the time, if not all, the wives themselves have assets of their own. even housewives can have their own savings after they stop working, and commit themselves as full time housemaker.
regarding ur qsn on what is fair. here's a tangible answer.
base on our beloved garmen's figure of $300/month per capital as the minimum requirement to qualify for financial assistance. the husbands can give $500/ month, for a period up till 5 yrs as alimony. 5 yrs is more than enough time for someone to find a job and settle down (regardless of whether they remain single or remarried). otherwise, they can give 1 lump sum of $30k, the equivilent of the above mentioned solution.
and given the education level of today's women, it is impossible for them to not be able to find jobs in the workforce. most people have at least a N level cert(i'm not saying n level qualification is the norm, but saying that its the most basic cert everyone has), and that's certainly enough to find a job.
$500 is enough to find you an accomodation. since the husband (no longer related to the wife), has to work for his own living, why shouldn't the ex-wife work for her own living? and regarding the 5 yrs time period, i feel that there should be a time limit to alimony payment.
if there's no cap on the duration in which alimony is to be paid, it would be subjected to more abuse, to the detriment of the male.
for instances, for a couple of the same age, married for 10 yrs, divorced at age of 32. if there's no time limit, the guy would have to pay alimony to the girl for as long as she remains single. so if she remains single for the rest of her life, does that mean that the guy has to pay alimony to her until her death? though they may be once married, he may have started a new life, a new family after the divorce. is it fair to continue paying money to someone no longer related to you, at the expense of your new family life?
alimony allows divorcee to claim up to 75% of husband's salary. assuming that the wife only claims 25%, 25% is still a burden on the husband's new family.
i am only using this example of the financial burden faced by males, as alimony payment stops when the girl remarried, and guys are not paid alimony.
Originally posted by deathmaster:
i am arguing base on jojobeach's assumption. dun ask me why is jojobeach seeing housewives in such a stereotypical view of things.and to jojobeach, like wad rokkie has said, usually, most of the time, if not all, the wives themselves have assets of their own. even housewives can have their own savings after they stop working, and commit themselves as full time housemaker.
regarding ur qsn on what is fair. here's a tangible answer.
base on our beloved garmen's figure of $300/month per capital as the minimum requirement to qualify for financial assistance. the husbands can give $500/ month, for a period up till 5 yrs as alimony. 5 yrs is more than enough time for someone to find a job and settle down (regardless of whether they remain single or remarried). otherwise, they can give 1 lump sum of $30k, the equivilent of the above mentioned solution.
and given the education level of today's women, it is impossible for them to not be able to find jobs in the workforce. most people have at least a N level cert(i'm not saying n level qualification is the norm, but saying that its the most basic cert everyone has), and that's certainly enough to find a job.
$500 is enough to find you an accomodation. since the husband (no longer related to the wife), has to work for his own living, why shouldn't the ex-wife work for her own living? and regarding the 5 yrs time period, i feel that there should be a time limit to alimony payment.
if there's no cap on the duration in which alimony is to be paid, it would be subjected to more abuse, to the detriment of the male.
for instances, for a couple of the same age, married for 10 yrs, divorced at age of 32. if there's no time limit, the guy would have to pay alimony to the girl for as long as she remains single. so if she remains single for the rest of her life, does that mean that the guy has to pay alimony to her until her death? though they may be once married, he may have started a new life, a new family after the divorce. is it fair to continue paying money to someone no longer related to you, at the expense of your new family life?
alimony allows divorcee to claim up to 75% of husband's salary. assuming that the wife only claims 25%, 25% is still a burden on the husband's new family.
i am only using this example of the financial burden faced by males, as alimony payment stops when the girl remarried, and guys are not paid alimony.
I agree , maintenance should have a time limit on it. Men should not have to pay forever to his ex wife.
Stereotypical or not, I have my own perception of how a housewife stands to lose because I have a sister in law with 4 children. She was a teacher with a degree, earning good salary with excellent health and retirement benefits.
When their twins came along, she had to sacrifice her job. Ofcors, they can afford to hire help while she continues her career.
But when they put the children's needs top prority, the best option is for her to stay at home to raise the children.
Thus, my brother continues to amass his fortunes, while my sister gave up her career to tend to the offsprings.
By the time the children are old enough for her to go back to work she will be likely in her fifties.
By then, how do you think her resume will look like ? Fifty year old degree holder who has not been working for 15 years. Now what is her job prospect, vs her husband who has accumlated 15 years of working experience ?
Do you think a company will accept "Housewife" as working experience ?
She will need to start her career from scratch, competing with younger candidates. Watched the show "Mad Money" ?
So you believe $500 per month is sufficient, and what about the other assets ?
Are you going to throw her out on the street with $500 to survive on ?
To be honest, I'd rather the man pay a lump sum payment to the wife instead of a monthly installment.
So if a woman continues her career during the course of her marriage, and contributes her pay into the family assets. How are you going to split this ?
So you think the fair claim for housewife will be.....
25% of the man's retirement account.
25% of other assets acquired during the marriage .
25% of his monthly up to 5 years.
That seems fair.
If I ever become a housewife, I also put in 25% effort into the household. OK ? Good.
Originally posted by MrSean:There appears to be something wrong with the reply box so I apologise for any typos that I may have here.
Jojobeach: You said that financial details between a couple should have been worked out before a marriage. Ideally, this would happen, but again, we don’t live in an ideal world and it doesn’t make sense not to have a law to protect them just because they made a mistake.
I am not saying that women should not be protected. I am saying that both genders should be EQUALLY protected. Unfortunately right now that is not the case. I am not saying that women should not be allowed to claim at all, just that men should be able to claim from women if the roles were reversed as explained with my previous example.
As for caning, I do, too, hope that it will be abolished. However my point is not whether caning is humae or not, just why it can be applied to men when it cannot be to women. I am not saying that it should apply to women as well. I am simply questioning the system in Singapore, not insisting on any one solution because there are a number that would have to be examined in greater detail before a decision is made.
The situation with NS is not that different. If NS can be abolished, by all means. If not, efforts need to be made to show that the government is not prejudiced against men in favour of women. Again, I am not offering a solution, but suggesting that this needs to be looked into.
As for the laws to protect the financial status of men in the event of divorce, again it is not my job to provide a solution. In my opinion the government would have more experience in dealing with these matters. My job, however, as a citizen, is to ensure that such problems are looked into by the government.
I totally agree that if the role is reversed, men should be fairly compensated too.
But looking at Asian culture and our male's mindset, how likely is this to happen ?
From the many Asian guy friends I have, all of them have no qualms leaving their wives and children at home, while they party outside enjoying life like their family never existed.
None of them are willing to be Mr Mom. It will be like asking them to commit suicide.
All of them, when asked, tells me " Oh the woman's place is in the home. And a man's job is to bring back the bacon."
I have no problem when men fights for just treatment. Like I said, just don't drag the women folks into it because when you do so, not only did you not gain an ally, you gained another enemy.
Sorry i didn't follow ur disscusion,but,the value of man is stronger than woman is widely embraced by everywhere in the world.Like in the saying lady first ,so u want to change to man first.Or change the name of gentleman to gentlewoman.What does this two saying means ,it means man have the resposibility to take care of woman.So why just we accept it.Or i can suggest that,the PAP just look into the law in every country,see how they handling divorse with the asset deviding problem and absorb some good part ,than form it's own divorce law,does it satisfy everybody?
So if a woman continues her career during the course of her marriage, and contributes her pay into the family assets. How are you going to split this ?
So you think the fair claim for housewife will be.....
25% of the man's retirement account.
25% of other assets acquired during the marriage .
25% of his monthly up to 5 years.
That seems fair.
If I ever become a housewife, I also put in 25% effort into the household. OK ? Good.
reasonable enough.
i have seen my mom's friends, in her 40s, after her divorce, lives in a bungalow (owned, not rented), with her 3 daughters, all at her ex-husband's expense. her ex-husband, on the other hand, was slogging on a ship, working hard to feed his 3 kids and his ex-wife. btw, he lives in a 3rm hdb with his parents, in their 70s.
who is better off?
Originally posted by deathmaster:reasonable enough.
i have seen my mom's friends, in her 40s, after her divorce, lives in a bungalow (owned, not rented), with her 3 daughters, all at her ex-husband's expense. her ex-husband, on the other hand, was slogging on a ship, working hard to feed his 3 kids and his ex-wife. btw, he lives in a 3rm hdb with his parents, in their 70s.
who is better off?
Why do you constantly equate wealth with the type of housing one choose to live in ?
Just because the ex wife is living in a bungalow, does it makes her happy ?
You really believe money is everything in life don't you ?
If you are a the husband, what will you do with your ex wife and 3 children ? Put them in a 3 rm flat while you continue to live in a big bungalow ?
My brother lives in a 5000sq ft bungalow.
I also asked him what will he do with this property if they become divorced.
He says, he will move out and rent or purchase a small place closer to his work place, so his children can still live in comfort under their mother's supervision.
The only reason why he decides to purchase such a big house in the first place, was for the comfort of his family.
During a divorce why should that reason becomes invalid ?
What is the purpose of him living in such a big house all alone ?
You are a man are you not ?
Do you only think of your own comfort and wealth above your own children's welfare ?
If you don't know how to take care of your own family beyond a divorce. I suggest you don't even bother starting one. Because a father's responsibility to provide for his family doesn't end with a divorce.
in that case, what makes a divorce a divorce?
the wife when married is well-look after by the husband.
when divorced, get even bettrer treatment from ex-husband, as safeguarded by law.
there need to be a clear difference between marriage and divorce. if not, what is the point of having either of them?
anyone is entitled to his or her own life. the man, after a divorce, is free start a new family, as does the woman. its the woman's choice whether or not she wants to be remarried.
do you expexct the man to remarry, and stay in a 3rm flat with his new family, while his ex-wife and kids stay in a bungalow?
if the mother can't support her kids financially, i think the kids are better off living with their father.
i would rather have new family with the 3 kids living in the bungalow, with the mother living in a 3 rm flat on her own. it is a more logical option.
since you are paying ur ex-wife money to look after the kids, why not do it directly urself? the man is also one of the parent to his children, and too should have parenting rights.
Originally posted by deathmaster:in that case, what makes a divorce a divorce?
the wife when married is well-look after by the husband.
when divorced, get even bettrer treatment from ex-husband, as safeguarded by law.
there need to be a clear difference between marriage and divorce. if not, what is the point of having either of them?
anyone is entitled to his or her own life. the man, after a divorce, is free start a new family, as does the woman. its the woman's choice whether or not she wants to be remarried.
do you expexct the man to remarry, and stay in a 3rm flat with his new family, while his ex-wife and kids stay in a bungalow?
if the mother can't support her kids financially, i think the kids are better off living with their father.
i would rather have new family with the 3 kids living in the bungalow, with the mother living in a 3 rm flat on her own. it is a more logical option.
since you are paying ur ex-wife money to look after the kids, why not do it directly urself? the man is also one of the parent to his children, and too should have parenting rights.
Divorce with children is never truly a divorce.
Ok, so you want to live in the bungalow with your kids, then who is going to take care of the children when you go to work ?
Yes, man or woman is free to start a new family after a divorce. But it also does not mean you are no longer responsible for your first family.
Sorry dude, you think you can throw away your responsibility as a father once you get remarried ? Dream on. It will only get more complicated after you start a new family.
If you honestly think your new wife will not put her own children before her step children, you are also dreaming. A woman will tell you anything you want to hear before she marries you.
I have seen so many cases when the step mom neglect the step children after she has her own child. And often pretend to be very loving to the step children only infront of the father.
A friend of mine got booted out of her home after her father died and her stepmom inherited all his assets.
Her stepmom wouldn't even pay for her school fees. Now my friend is working part time waitress trying to pay her rents and get through school.
to paraphrase this thread
Singapore government does not support sex
rookie: What you are speaking of is chivalry. Chivalry is a trait considered by most European societies to be honourable. Part of it entails being a gentleman, i.e. treating ladies with respect etc. Yet that does not necessarily mean that men should be bound by law to serve women. Men can display chivalry without any of these issues. Again, I believe that there should not be a need for our laws to conform to stereotypical views society may have. Just because it is regarded as a show of character does not mean our men have to be bound by law to do certain things. Yes, it would be good for our government to apply what they can learn from other countries, but Singapore is not and cannot be run in exactly the same way as any other country. Ultimately Singapore has to make a decision for itself.
Jojobeach:
It is inevitable that in some small way women are drawn in and used as comparison. The context of the situation makes it is almost impossible not to. Of course we, being gentlemen, can attempt to limit how far women are drawn in, but you cannot say that men and women are equal without comparing their statuses in the first place. I do not see how we are drawing in the women into the arguement in any other way.
As for men having stereotypical views and preferring women to be stay-at-home-moms, this cannot and should not be a reason for the law to be unfair towards men. This, in my opinion, is not a valid reason for men to be underprotected by the law.
Regarding deathmaster's example: While indeed, and I'm sure many would agree with you, the children should always be put first (this is the norm in courts), it does not mean that a father should not get to enjoy an equal amount of comfort as his children. Yes, he does his best to provide for the children. Does that mean he should neglect himself? No, he should be given the chance to move on.
Often the courts tend to give custody of the children to the mother, because they believe that the women are more capable of taking care of the children. Yet another stereotypical view. I personally have a friend whose parents are divorced and lives with his mom. He tells me that he would prefer to be with his dad because his dad provides greater emotional support for him. I do agree with deathmaster that men bear an equal role when it comes to parenting and men should get an equal chance at fighting for custody. Their wives shouldn't have to be a drug addict for him to get custody of the children.
You also said that no one would be there to take care of the children when the father is at work. What if the mother had custody of the children? Surely, she too, would have to work? The same rules apply EITHER WAY. As such, the law, too, should apply both ways.
Originally posted by MrSean:rookie: What you are speaking of is chivalry. Chivalry is a trait considered by most European societies to be honourable. Part of it entails being a gentleman, i.e. treating ladies with respect etc. Yet that does not necessarily mean that men should be bound by law to serve women. Men can display chivalry without any of these issues. Again, I believe that there should not be a need for our laws to conform to stereotypical views society may have. Just because it is regarded as a show of character does not mean our men have to be bound by law to do certain things. Yes, it would be good for our government to apply what they can learn from other countries, but Singapore is not and cannot be run in exactly the same way as any other country. Ultimately Singapore has to make a decision for itself.
Jojobeach:
It is inevitable that in some small way women are drawn in and used as comparison. The context of the situation makes it is almost impossible not to. Of course we, being gentlemen, can attempt to limit how far women are drawn in, but you cannot say that men and women are equal without comparing their statuses in the first place. I do not see how we are drawing in the women into the arguement in any other way.As for men having stereotypical views and preferring women to be stay-at-home-moms, this cannot and should not be a reason for the law to be unfair towards men. This, in my opinion, is not a valid reason for men to be underprotected by the law.
Regarding deathmaster's example: While indeed, and I'm sure many would agree with you, the children should always be put first (this is the norm in courts), it does not mean that a father should not get to enjoy an equal amount of comfort as his children. Yes, he does his best to provide for the children. Does that mean he should neglect himself? No, he should be given the chance to move on.
Often the courts tend to give custody of the children to the mother, because they believe that the women are more capable of taking care of the children. Yet another stereotypical view. I personally have a friend whose parents are divorced and lives with his mom. He tells me that he would prefer to be with his dad because his dad provides greater emotional support for him. I do agree with deathmaster that men bear an equal role when it comes to parenting and men should get an equal chance at fighting for custody. Their wives shouldn't have to be a drug addict for him to get custody of the children.
You also said that no one would be there to take care of the children when the father is at work. What if the mother had custody of the children? Surely, she too, would have to work? The same rules apply EITHER WAY. As such, the law, too, should apply both ways.
I agree, that a man's role is equally important as a woman's. But each plays a complimentary role as a parent, there is no way a father can take the place of a mother, and vice versa.
I myself , comes from a broken family, my parents have SHARED custody of me and my sibling. When it comes to taking care of children, my dad sucks ok ? Yah my mother is very strict, many times I wish I go stay with my father because he more lenient.. but had to eat junk food when go live with him. When it comes to actual welfare, my mother is the one who really know how to take care of us.
So you go figure lah.
I'm not saying that a father should not have the rights to custody. In fact, they should share custody. Father and mother love, BOTH very important.
What I'm saying is... whoever earns more.. stay in the work force lah ! Wah liew....simple logic you cannot understand meh ?
If all the while, your wife is a stay at home mom, then during a divorce, the man deprive the wife of sufficient living expense, thus forcing her to go work, in this case, who is suffering ? The man, woman or children ??? Ofcors the children lah !
If you want to be selfish, and deprive your own children of parental care, you go ahead, no bardie will stop you. OK ? Good.
Want to fight for male right, do it with some brains can ?
You talk like you know shyt about raising children, are you married, are you parents divorced ? Got children anot ? If don't have, then keep quiet until you know what it's like to be a parent, then you come here and kao peh that men can raise a child as well as a woman !
Best thing for guys.. open your eyes big big before you marry her lah !
You think marriage and divorce so simple ah ? Not pang sai ok !
Just don't fight custody because you want to punish your wife or husband. Don't use divorce and child custody as a weapon to get at each other.
THINK about what is best for your children first !!!
The man wants to move on.. you think the woman don't want to move on meh ? Why so one sided ? Like this want to fight for fairness ? Hypocrite.
Want to move on, then also want to fight for child custody. A man with children how to move on ? What the heck . Men really don't have any idea what they really want do they ?
Anyway, this is my last reply to this nonsensical thread of yours. The impracticality of your argument is nauseating.
Originally posted by jojobeach:A friend of mine got booted out of her home after her father died and her stepmom inherited all his assets.
......
You talk like you know shyt about raising children, are you married, are you parents divorced ? Got children anot ? If don't have, then keep quiet until you know what it's like to be a parent, then you come here and kao peh that men can raise a child as well as a woman !
Best thing for guys.. open your eyes big big before you marry her lah !
You think marriage and divorce so simple ah ? Not pang sai ok !
Just don't fight custody because you want to punish your wife or husband. Don't use divorce and child custody as a weapon to get at each other.
THINK about what is best for your children first !!!
The man wants to move on.. you think the woman don't want to move on meh ? Why so one sided ? Like this want to fight for fairness ? Hypocrite.
Want to move on, then also want to fight for child custody. A man with children how to move on ? What the heck . Men really don't have any idea what they really want do they ?
Anyway, this is my last reply to this nonsensical thread of yours. The impracticality of your argument is nauseating.
the first point u raise. well, that's "fair" inheritance law for you. the undeserving gets everything, while the deserving gets none.
and i don't see what's wrong with whoever earning more to gain custody of the child. yes, care from both parents are equally important, but custody doesn't mean that the child will never see his or she other parent again. its more about who they end up staying with. obviously, the parent with better financial background will end up paying the bulk of the cost sustained in child rearing. so that parent may as well look after the child directly.
i believed that u agreed that there should be a time period impose on alimony payment. alimony is meant for the wife, and it should be clearly distinguished between money to the wife, and money for the children. in other words, the wife would still have to work to support herself eventually, and so, linking to Mr Sean's point, the wife would also have no time to look after her children, even if she was awarded custody.
i don't see why should a divorcee stay at home, when there are so many working couples with kids out there. those working mothers out there, despite working, still care for their kids. if they can go out and earn a decent living, why couldn't a divorcee?
and for ur sake, the custody of my step brother was not awarded to my mum. despite that, he is still able to get on with life, making it to uni and so on. i don't see any difference. in fact, he is more well off than i am. Do you say that he led a lower quality of life as compared to me? no.
if you award custody,
to mum: u will deprive kids of fatherly love
to dad: u will deprive kids of motherly love.
either way, it adds up. the mother is not the only one who will lose something you noe. it also affects fathers too.
you are very insistant on custodies are best awarded to mothers, but why not fathers? they too have different brand of parenting. you may think that parenting offered by mother is better for a child, as compared to the father's. but whether this hold true, is still not scientifically proven. either parents can still nurture a successful kid. whether or not a kid is successful in life, depends on the kid himself/herself, and also on the opportunities given to the child.
thus, the parent earning a higher income is better equipped to be a parent, as the parent is able to provide more opportunities to the child. better financial status determine whether the child will study in NUS or in Cambridge, $6k /yr local education vs $90k /yr overseas education.
and i would like to ask what's the matter between moving on and child custody? is starting a new family, and at the same time looking after ur kids from the previous marriage wrong? so you are saying that those who have custody of their children must not re-marry again? that is what i call impractical.
Originally posted by 787180:Mr Sean,rokkie,deathmaster..jojobeach is a stubborn,arrogant old maid who will only support or go all the way to support the women’s side of story by hook or by crook-typical staunch,feminist movement and staunch supporter of Women’s Charter,no matter what logic you’ll suggest ,she will come up with seemingly good reasons to support het stand,so what;s the point of discussion if the debate is not going to be objective and skewed towards her point of view only.
Previously I was engaged in a contoversial argument over the disgusting venegance wreaked by my neighbour’s ex wife on her husband.This was joined in by another venegeful women under the nick Vicious Kitty who had contracted the terminal cervical cancer probably because of her revengeful and arrogant attitude and periodic outburst…these are sic and childish old maid out to provoke and not offer constructive views but acting like armchair critics,thinking they are sage..hahaha
Oh right.. you mean this thread you started ?
http://sgforums.com/forums/12/topics/298324
You sure deserve lots of credit for fighting male rights.
Why, aren't u the disgusting 40year old bachelor who is suppose to be a teacher and yet use vulgarities in forums because you're a sore loser.
Yes yes, you are the hero these three male rights fighter dudes should worship , no ?
Good lord, what have become of our SG men ?????!!!!
Originally posted by jojobeach:Oh right.. you mean this thread you started ?
http://sgforums.com/forums/12/topics/298324
You sure deserve lots of credit for fighting male rights.
Why, aren't u the disgusting 40year old bachelor who is suppose to be a teacher and yet use vulgarities in forums because you're a sore loser.
Yes yes, you are the hero these three male rights fighter dudes should worship , no ?
Good lord, what have become of our SG men ?????!!!!
don't singapore men singapore men la.. they kaobei not my daiji.. they cant even understand the simple logic that if nature made men and women unequal, it will be retarded for the society to try to make them equal..
they do not understand that for everything in this world, there are rotten apples everywhere.. if today the law makes it equal, guess what, men will start abusing the law and cause women to suffer again.. it's so simple yet they cannot see it so pls jojobeach, u want to call them names, go ahead, stop saying singapore men..
wah, feminista @ work here.
i think this is very subjective; there are good mums as well as good dads. the opposite holds true.
if a family breaks up, everybody loses.