Originally posted by MrSean:
Again, I can very easily disprove your first point because I already am an example of a man who does not believe that we are obliged to serve women. I believe in such things being done out of personal will and not lawful obligation. You say that we have to do this because society believes we have to do it, isn't this just blindly following the rules without seeing the true moral reasons BEHIND it? Is it still relevant to our society TODAY? We need to be geared to the times. Right now our society places value on personal beliefs; This is my personal belief, and I will not conform to the beliefs of mainstream society and I therefore urge the government that our laws should not restrict me to! Why is it that I should blindly follow without understanding? Therein lies the great weakness in your arguement: You tell us to do it just because everyone else is doing it, without understanding or reason. You do not see the value behind reason; you say, just get on with it. Without understanding we will not put our best into it because we will have doubts if we are doing the right thing, if things could have been different, if things could have been better.Monetary problems... Pathetic? If you didn't need money, then you wouldn't be on a computer typing replies to my post right now because according to your logic you therefore could sell your computer and throw the money away, because money is worthless and your computer, being worth a certain amount of money, is correspondingly equally worthless. Face it: Money may not be everything, but it's still something. People tend to forget that.
Also, just because not every man on the street has had his pockets emptied by a woman doesn't mean the rights of the minority don't deserve to be protected.
And maybe you're right, I don't see at all how my efforts to secure equal rights for men will place the women in jeopardy. Care to tell me? I'm not even arguing against our women, I am arguing against the laws of our country which put women in a position above men. Maybe it isn't their fault that the system is like this, I don't really know. I just want the system to be corrected.
I genuinely don't think I'm being selfish here. I'm arguing for the rights of half our damned country, I might add, and I don't think that makes me a selfish person. I am demanding what we have a right to, nothing more. That doesn't make me a selfish person.
I'm not arguing that women should not be protected, conversely I am saying that men should receive equal protection. Therefore your arguement about a "law that says otherwise" doesn't stand because you are unable to comprehend my position on the topic in the first place.
I'm going out right now so I won't be able to reply for a while. I might check back tonight if I'm not too busy.
Have a good day everyone~
Mr Sean... I am baffled about why you think the law dictates that men serve women .....which part of the law say so ?
Are you in a relationship yet ? Do you know what is a relationship ?
I reckon you havn't serve NS yet.. so you shouldn't be more than 18 ?
Throughout your postings.. your emphasis is on monetary protection. Do you really think money is the sole factor that makes your relationship work ?????
Are you a very rich guy ? Do you have so much money and you are constantly afraid that some girl is going to steal it all away ????
Or are you angry because you realized you cannot get into your rich gf's deep pocket ?
When you go into a relationship, do you tell the girl outfront that she is to pay for everything herself ? When you go out, you split the bill right down the middle ?
When you split up.. do you demand from her what you have invested in this relationship ? Do you take back from her all the gifts you've given her during the course of the relationship ??? And demand from her to pay for what she cannot return ?
The current law is already very fair and just..when the court take into consideration contributions invested from each party ...... how much more fair and just do you want ?
To be honest.. I think you simply don't understand the purpose of Women's charter and how the family court works.. that's why you are so paranoid.
And I also suspect you are an only child. And I'm pretty sure you've never been a care giver to a child before.
Do you really think raising a child is very easy ? That as long as you have money.. you will be a suitable care giver ? Wrong.
Money doesn't make you a good parent.. mind you.. children are not like a plant.. you don't just water them and leave them alone to grow....
You need to have patience.. you need to be very sensitive to their needs.. .. you need all your senses tuned in to your child.. you need some motherly instinct .... you need to be very adaptable.. and flexible. You need to know what their special needs are .. You need to be able to know how to handle their temperament ....sometimes you need to be able to read their mind. They need a lot of attention from you.. they will take up a lot of your time.. You need to be able to sacrifice your own social/personal life ... so that they can thrive.....
Can you handle their tantrum ? No you don't just give him/her a dollar to shut up.
Do you really have what it takes to handle a child?
When was the last time you took care of a young child ? Not just play with him/her.. but actually spend a full day with the child.
Change his/her diaper.. fix their boo boo.. bathe them.. coax them to sleep, console the child when they cry .....
It's not easy ok ? Yes it will sap the energy out of you faster than you can say Pampers.
Now you know why it's not about the money ?
Women are born with the inate ability to care for one that's why they are choosen to bear the baby.
If you still insist that I am stereotyping.. then I can safely say you don't know nuts about relationship and family dynamics , AT ALL.
Originally posted by purpledragon84:so am i right to sum up that when u and ur other half face a robbery, u wil not protect her?
and u noe as well as i do that u cant measure money with the computer that im using now.. because i cant play solitaire and pinball with money.. so please don't use that funny analogy..
and monetary issues by itself is of course of a substantial issue.. but if u are to compare money with physical abuse, which one comes in more impt? mind you your answer might just make u a millionaire in the SM community..
of coz, i can see ur point, that minority of the men are being stripped of their wealth, but, how can u ever satisfy everyone? how can u ever solve an issue where EVERYONE wins?
u must come to understand this fact.. that EVERY single law in the world cannot satisfy everybody.. that in our world, not only singapore, minority is always sacrificed.. seriously name me a law that can..
by ur standards, i can also say that the govt does not support racial equality, why issit that mrt announcements are always English, Chinese, Malay then Tamil? why issit that in a shopping centre it's so hard to find halal food?
and a law which does not fit the majority of the ppl will only result in more problems.. i dont practise law, but surely, the women's charter is to protect the women that are abused by men, not to help women rip men off, and yes there are the bad apples that u claim there are, but if a men's charter is set up, to equal the playing field, what will now happen to the women that are targets of abuse or divorce due to husbands? their husbands will easily use such a men's charter to defend himself..
of coz, i will not go to the extent to say not protect the men who are targets themselves, but if ur thinking is that the women's charter is a tool for women to rip men off and thus u are challenging it, ur thinking is very selfish.. sometimes women needs to be placed above men by lawful obligations because the men themselves tried to climb above..
so am i right to sum up that when u and ur other half face a robbery, u wil not protect her?
if you are able to protect yourself, you would be directly protecting her. vice versa. the credit goes to anyone who can do the job well.
if she's the weaker party, and if you (as a guy), is not any much better, there's no point in rushing to "protect" her, just to be stabbed and killed, before she gets killed too, as a unwanted side effect of ur resistance.
and u noe as well as i do that u cant measure money with the computer that im using now.. because i cant play solitaire and pinball with money.. so please don't use that funny analogy..
and monetary issues by itself is of course of a substantial issue.. but if u are to compare money with physical abuse, which one comes in more impt? mind you your answer might just make u a millionaire in the SM community..
of coz, i can see ur point, that minority of the men are being stripped of their wealth, but, how can u ever satisfy everyone? how can u ever solve an issue where EVERYONE wins?
u must come to understand this fact.. that EVERY single law in the world cannot satisfy everybody.. that in our world, not only singapore, minority is always sacrificed.. seriously name me a law that can..
yes, you do sacrifice the minority, but not at the expense of the innocence. place urself in the shoes of a henpecked husband. after tolerating ur abusive wife for many yrs, you finally decided that you can't take it anymore, and file for divorce.
when you managed to file for divorce, ur wife, ur abusive wife, in revenge, want to suck you dry of ur assets, just to spite you. how do you feel? what would you do? stand aside and meekly see your savings part ways from you?
and there are in reality many of such cases around. the wife always felt justified in their claims. but in actual, are they deserving to claim for "compensation", when are they in fact, the abusive party, who is the ultimate reason for the divorce?
also, spare some thought for the husband. assuming that the couple was married for over 20 yrs , (for the sake of his kids, he tolerate the marriage until they are independent). under the law, the wife would be entitled to claim at least 50% of his assets or more. but is she really deserving of that?
bear in mind that the man, who by the divorce, would be in his 40s or 50s, an age which make him prone to retrenchment. if you have any retrenched relatives in their 40s, you would know how hard it is for them to find a new job similar to that of their old job. do you expect an admin officer of 20 yrs experience to downgrade himself into a cab driver, a truck driver, or worst still, a plate collector at the hawker center?
at this age, he would be an age where he will find it harder and harder to earn and save. if he is to be cleanse of 50% of his assets, will he have enough time to re-earn enough to last thru his retirement? please also consider a person detioration of health as one ages, and this would further reduce his income earning capability.
isn't it cruel to make the man suffer further to bail out of his torment?
by ur standards, i can also say that the govt does not support racial equality, why issit that mrt announcements are always English, Chinese, Malay then Tamil? why issit that in a shopping centre it's so hard to find halal food?
in case you do notice, they list it according to the racial percentage. english is the main language medium, so it is announced first in eng, followed by chinese, malay and tamil.
rgding halal food, i dunoe what's the link to the issue. whether or not there's halal food depends on whether there are muslim tenants in the food court. as far as i know, there's at least 1 muslim stall in every food court, kopitiam, canteen, etc. some stalls ie. western food are also halal.
it also depends on the practicality of having more halal food. so far, i don't see any reason to have more halal food stalls. there isn't really much variety in muslim food.
i don't think you can replace ur ba chor mee with beef or mutton either. for beef: most singaporeans are still budhists, who don't eat beef.
mutton: not many singaporeans adore mutton either, as oppose to pork.
if you can come up with more interesting, delicious muslim food, like roast kebabs, turkish crusine, i don't see why we should not have more halal food. however, the problem now is that there's no one willing to sell those crusine at the food court, hawker center etc.
and a law which does not fit the majority of the ppl will only result in more problems.. i dont practise law, but surely, the women's charter is to protect the women that are abused by men, not to help women rip men off, and yes there are the bad apples that u claim there are, but if a men's charter is set up, to equal the playing field, what will now happen to the women that are targets of abuse or divorce due to husbands? their husbands will easily use such a men's charter to defend himself..
it is a common stereotype that singapore women are the main target of marital abuse. in fact, as i had pointed out earlier, 60% of victims of marital abuse are men, as oppose to women, who make up 40%.
the difference of 20% clearly indicates that singapore women are over protected by law, where it make it hard for men (who are in real need), to get out of an abusive marriage.
whereas for women, due to WC, if they are abuse, they have more ease than abused men in getting out of an abusive marriage.
i think that there should be a PO for men too. it certainly shouldn't be restricted only to women.
of coz, i will not go to the extent to say not protect the men who are targets themselves, but if ur thinking is that the women's charter is a tool for women to rip men off and thus u are challenging it, ur thinking is very selfish.. sometimes women needs to be placed above men by lawful obligations because the men themselves tried to climb above..
what makes you think that there are very few women who try to climb over? there are also as many out there, you know.
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Women are born with the inate ability to care for one that's why they are choosen to bear the baby.
If you still insist that I am stereotyping.. then I can safely say you don't know nuts about relationship and family dynamics , AT ALL.
that is a fallacy, a common stereotype.
if you go consult a biologist, he will tell you the effects of the difference in a woman's XX and a man's XY chromosomal makeup.
in the womb, everyone, man and woman, started out as a female. it is only during the later stages of pregnancy that the Y chromesome comes into play, as the penis development factor. (i'm serious, i'm not kidding here)
so that's said, that men are essentially half-women. without the Y chromosome, even if they have only one X chromosome, they will still be born as females.
so it is wrong to say that men are not born with the innate ability to nurture. they do. studies have shown that children raised by dads or mums do not differ in their chance of success in life. the effect dads and mums have on the child is only the molding of their child's personality.
you are raised by ur mother, and that's why you have a personality as it is now. you may grow up differently if you are raised by your dad.
since you were only raised by one parent, it is not fair for you to condemn the parenting of the other parent. (note, i am not reprimanding you or smth. just pointing out that it is not fair to condemn something you haven't experience before.)
elaboration: if you are raised by a dad, obviously that your father would have more influence over your life than ur mum. likewise, if you were raised by your mum, she would have more influence over ur life than ur dad.
if ur were raised by both, ( as in a normal family), they would have almost equal influence on ur upbringing.
as such, since everyone can only have 1 type of the above experience, it is not fair to condemn the other options.
ok i cant do the rebutt bit by bit part thing coz it's way past my bedtime lol.. so i'll just post a few questions..
if a men's charter is implemented, do u think it will be worse off than currently? no doubt it will help the men that are abused, but will it lead to a new round of abusing, this time towards women?
2ndly, if the women's charter is removed, will it now oso help the men that are "victims" of this WC, and also, will it lead to an increase in the number of women being abused?
if ur change is not going to be able to improve the current situation, then i say stick to the lesser of the two evils..
oh ya.. i manage to grab one point.. about the stereotypical thingy(i din quote any figures leh, u think too much.. k now i quote ur figures).. u have 60% men abused and 40% women abused.. but what kind of abuse are we talking about here? what abuse do the 60% men get? and what abuse do the 40% women get? physical? mental?
k slp time..
Originally posted by deathmaster:
that is a fallacy, a common stereotype.if you go consult a biologist, he will tell you the effects of the difference in a woman's XX and a man's XY chromosomal makeup.
in the womb, everyone, man and woman, started out as a female. it is only during the later stages of pregnancy that the Y chromesome comes into play, as the penis development factor. (i'm serious, i'm not kidding here)
so that's said, that men are essentially half-women. without the Y chromosome, even if they have only one X chromosome, they will still be born as females.
so it is wrong to say that men are not born with the innate ability to nurture. they do. studies have shown that children raised by dads or mums do not differ in their chance of success in life. the effect dads and mums have on the child is only the molding of their child's personality.
you are raised by ur mother, and that's why you have a personality as it is now. you may grow up differently if you are raised by your dad.
since you were only raised by one parent, it is not fair for you to condemn the parenting of the other parent. (note, i am not reprimanding you or smth. just pointing out that it is not fair to condemn something you haven't experience before.)
elaboration: if you are raised by a dad, obviously that your father would have more influence over your life than ur mum. likewise, if you were raised by your mum, she would have more influence over ur life than ur dad.
if ur were raised by both, ( as in a normal family), they would have almost equal influence on ur upbringing.
as such, since everyone can only have 1 type of the above experience, it is not fair to condemn the other options.
Death,
May I know if you have handled children before ?
I talk from experience. I helped my brother with his 4 children.
X and Y chromosome ? LOL ... dude.. you still refuse to accept the fact that our BRAIN is wired differently eh ? So what we started the same.. we still end up very different.
You don't believe women are betta, you go try it yourself lor.
Argue until the cow comes home also useless lah. Because talk is easy lah.
And dude, you don't know what is Shared custody ???
It means I get to stay 2 weeks at my mom. and 2 weeks at my dad's.
And yes, my father sucks at caring for me that's why I rather just stay with my mom.
You guys.. don't know nuts.. want to argue so much for what ?
and to jojo,
if she has a condition which requires her to go for frequent blood transfusion and chelation therapy(removal of iron from blood), i will not compare it to something milder like diabetes
rather, it would be comparable to kidney failure. characterize by frequent blood dialysis. sounds familiar?
yes, you would say that dialysis led a normal life. yes, they can work, exercise and so on. but is that a normal quality of life? not really. yes, they can engaging in child-rearing, their condition is not as severe to the extent that they are bedridden. but, tell me truthfully, are they ideal caregivers? i doubt so.
as quoted from the link you place in ur post:
"A chronic illness always causes some limitation of life, especially when it requires frequent and complex treatment, as Thalassemia does."
and from what i recall, her spleen was removed, presenting an additional medical risk.
from wikipedia:
"Because splenectomy causes an increased risk of overwhelming sepsis due to encapsulated organisms (such as S. pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae) the patient should be immunized, if possible, prior to removal of the spleen; see asplenia. An increase in blood leukocytes can occur following a splenectomy.[2][3] Failure to do so later puts the patient at risk of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI), a potentially rapidly fatal septicaemia. These bacteria often cause a sore throat under normal circumstances but after splenectomy, when infecting bacteria cannot be adequately opsonized, the infection becomes more severe.
Following splenectomy, the platelet count may rise to high levels in blood leading to an increased risk of clot formation and death.
Complete removal of the spleen may increase the risk of developing diabetes "
and so ur SIL stay in the marriage for money? somemore need assurance that she will get 50-50 in a divorce? if she's the one earning the lower income prior to the marriage, she would again if she's getting 50% of the matrimonial assets.
and if she's going to get only 25% (in a divorce), she would, like u mentioned, go work etc.
wow, do you call that confidence in a marriage? ironic for someone with a stand that marriage should not be for money.
in the end, for singapore women, it too, still boils down to money, it seems.
so, in essence, singapore women are not any much better than the singaporean men you are so against.
Originally posted by deathmaster:and to jojo,
if she has a condition which requires her to go for frequent blood transfusion and chelation therapy(removal of iron from blood), i will not compare it to something milder like diabetes
rather, it would be comparable to kidney failure. characterize by frequent blood dialysis. sounds familiar?
yes, you would say that dialysis led a normal life. yes, they can work, exercise and so on. but is that a normal quality of life? not really. yes, they can engaging in child-rearing, their condition is not as severe to the extent that they are bedridden. but, tell me truthfully, are they ideal caregivers? i doubt so.
as quoted from the link you place in ur post:
"A chronic illness always causes some limitation of life, especially when it requires frequent and complex treatment, as Thalassemia does."
and from what i recall, her spleen was removed, presenting an additional medical risk.
from wikipedia:
"Because splenectomy causes an increased risk of overwhelming sepsis due to encapsulated organisms (such as S. pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae) the patient should be immunized, if possible, prior to removal of the spleen; see asplenia. An increase in blood leukocytes can occur following a splenectomy.[2][3] Failure to do so later puts the patient at risk of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI), a potentially rapidly fatal septicaemia. These bacteria often cause a sore throat under normal circumstances but after splenectomy, when infecting bacteria cannot be adequately opsonized, the infection becomes more severe.
Following splenectomy, the platelet count may rise to high levels in blood leading to an increased risk of clot formation and death.
Complete removal of the spleen may increase the risk of developing diabetes "
and so ur SIL stay in the marriage for money? somemore need assurance that she will get 50-50 in a divorce? if she's the one earning the lower income prior to the marriage, she would again if she's getting 50% of the matrimonial assets.
and if she's going to get only 25% (in a divorce), she would, like u mentioned, go work etc.
wow, do you call that confidence in a marriage? ironic for someone with a stand that marriage should not be for money.
in the end, for singapore women, it too, still boils down to money, it seems.
so, in essence, singapore women are not any much better than the singaporean men you are so against.
Wah.. you really want to nick pick ?
Dude.. I have a classmate who had his spleen removed when he was 7 years old. He is as normal as any of you blokes. Infact, he is a father of 2 already and he leads a very good life. So what cock and bull you talking ? Pls lah.
So you want women to always be disadvantage issit ?
Ok lor.. if that is where your sense of security comes from.. who is stopping you ?
If the only way you can be a man is to ensure your wife is worst off than you .. than what can I say ???
But unfortunately for you lah.. Women are not stupid lah.. We are very flexible one.
You want one leg up.. we give you one leg up.. then we rip the balls from under you.
So yah lah.. yah lah.. everything is about money lah.
You got money anot ? No money no talk . ok ? Good.
Originally posted by deathmaster:and to jojo,
if she has a condition which requires her to go for frequent blood transfusion and chelation therapy(removal of iron from blood), i will not compare it to something milder like diabetes
rather, it would be comparable to kidney failure. characterize by frequent blood dialysis. sounds familiar?
yes, you would say that dialysis led a normal life. yes, they can work, exercise and so on. but is that a normal quality of life? not really. yes, they can engaging in child-rearing, their condition is not as severe to the extent that they are bedridden. but, tell me truthfully, are they ideal caregivers? i doubt so.
as quoted from the link you place in ur post:
"A chronic illness always causes some limitation of life, especially when it requires frequent and complex treatment, as Thalassemia does."
and from what i recall, her spleen was removed, presenting an additional medical risk.
from wikipedia:
"Because splenectomy causes an increased risk of overwhelming sepsis due to encapsulated organisms (such as S. pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae) the patient should be immunized, if possible, prior to removal of the spleen; see asplenia. An increase in blood leukocytes can occur following a splenectomy.[2][3] Failure to do so later puts the patient at risk of overwhelming post-splenectomy infection (OPSI), a potentially rapidly fatal septicaemia. These bacteria often cause a sore throat under normal circumstances but after splenectomy, when infecting bacteria cannot be adequately opsonized, the infection becomes more severe.
Following splenectomy, the platelet count may rise to high levels in blood leading to an increased risk of clot formation and death.
Complete removal of the spleen may increase the risk of developing diabetes "
and so ur SIL stay in the marriage for money? somemore need assurance that she will get 50-50 in a divorce? if she's the one earning the lower income prior to the marriage, she would again if she's getting 50% of the matrimonial assets.
and if she's going to get only 25% (in a divorce), she would, like u mentioned, go work etc.
wow, do you call that confidence in a marriage? ironic for someone with a stand that marriage should not be for money.
in the end, for singapore women, it too, still boils down to money, it seems.
so, in essence, singapore women are not any much better than the singaporean men you are so against.
And please do not insult my SIL.
Confidence in marriage ? LOL.. you go ask yourself lor. You wouldn't be kao pehing about the 25% if you have so much confidence in marriage yourself mah.
So what the crap lor. You want to insult others. you are actually insulting yourself, no ?
You want one leg up.. we give you one leg up.. then we rip the balls from under you.
What one leg up?
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:What one leg up?
deathmaster's hairy leg lor.
Originally posted by purpledragon84:oh ya.. i manage to grab one point.. about the stereotypical thingy(i din quote any figures leh, u think too much.. k now i quote ur figures).. u have 60% men abused and 40% women abused.. but what kind of abuse are we talking about here? what abuse do the 60% men get? and what abuse do the 40% women get? physical? mental?
verbal. don't look down on verbal abuse. it is precisely this sort of long term abuse which drives people mad.
and to answer jojo,
May I know if you have handled children before ?
yes.
I talk from experience. I helped my brother with his 4 children.
i have handled more kids than you then. i have taken up holiday jobs at a full-time childcare center before (for toddlers), and also had work part time as assistant in afterschool childcare center (for primary school kids, from p1 to p6), where i also give tuition to classes of children, numbering from 2-16 people.
is that experience enough for you? try handling that whole bunch of kids, before you talk about experience. and even if u have experience helping look after 4 children, how long was each "experience"?
those jobs i had is 6 days a week, starting from 8am to 6pm.
Originally posted by deathmaster:verbal. don't look down on verbal abuse. it is precisely this sort of long term abuse which drives people mad.
and to answer jojo,
May I know if you have handled children before ?
yes.
I talk from experience. I helped my brother with his 4 children.
i have handled more kids than you then. i have taken up holiday jobs at a full-time childcare center before (for toddlers), and also had work part time as assistant in afterschool childcare center (for primary school kids, from p1 to p6), where i also give tuition to classes of children, numbering from 2-16 people.
is that experience enough for you? try handling that whole bunch of kids, before you talk about experience. and even if u have experience helping look after 4 children, how long was each "experience"?
those jobs i had is 6 days a week, starting from 8am to 6pm.
So holiday jobs and assistant. What is your job scope like ?
Tuition is not care giving lah.
Mine is from birth , the oldest one is already 6 years old. I live with them.
Originally posted by jojobeach:And please do not insult my SIL.
Confidence in marriage ? LOL.. you go ask yourself lor. You wouldn't be kao pehing about the 25% if you have so much confidence in marriage yourself mah.
So what the crap lor. You want to insult others. you are actually insulting yourself, no ?
first, to reply to ur pt abt ur friend being fine and all. being fine now does not mean that he'd be fine always. and did u read the quotes carefully. it is saying that there is added risk, of removing spleen.
likewise, a hole in the heart doesn't mean that you will die of heart failure immediately. you just has an increased probability of heart attack than others.
Thalassemia requires blood transfusion to replenish RBCs. if there's too much RBCs in the body, the spleen steps in to remove excess RBC. a spleen is there for a reason, duh.
and rgding ur pt about confidence in marriage, pls rmb that it is you who have confidence in marriage. i have been since the start, been talking about the lack of security on the male part, in a marriage. get that.
you are insulting yourself, by not reading the issues discussed properly.
Originally posted by jojobeach:So holiday jobs and assistant. What is your job scope like ?
Tuition is not care giving lah.
Mine is from birth , the oldest one is already 6 years old. I live with them.
first, i shall start with the child care job.
i will be at the childcare center for the whole day, looking/supervising kids from 2.5 yr old to 6. (its meant for pre-schoolers).
serve them breakfast, lunch and tea. drawings, coloring, bring them to toilet etc.
for female toddlers, the other female assistants at the center will handle, if they need to pee etc.
basically everything you will expect at a childcare center.
its still manageable when you have only 2 to 3 crying(usually happens when their parents drop them off at the center before work) . any more than 2-3 will give you a headache.
and my tuition kind is not those 100% academic tuition. its those kind of tuition you have at after-care centers, for primary sch kids after they are released from school. you have to look after them while at the same time provide tuition guidance to students who have homework to do.
and btw, in reference to the issue on caning mentioned on page 1,
here's an interesting link to another similar forum.
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/singapore/TI4P234TIAJ7G27GL
Originally posted by deathmaster:
first, to reply to ur pt abt ur friend being fine and all. being fine now does not mean that he'd be fine always. and did u read the quotes carefully. it is saying that there is added risk, of removing spleen.likewise, a hole in the heart doesn't mean that you will die of heart failure immediately. you just has an increased probability of heart attack than others.
Thalassemia requires blood transfusion to replenish RBCs. if there's too much RBCs in the body, the spleen steps in to remove excess RBC. a spleen is there for a reason, duh.
and rgding ur pt about confidence in marriage, pls rmb that it is you who have confidence in marriage. i have been since the start, been talking about the lack of security on the male part, in a marriage. get that.
you are insulting yourself, by not reading the issues discussed properly.
Yah lah.. all mothers who are dying can go to hell lah, take her child from her since she is dying lah. Why waste time right ?
Your heart made of steel issit ?
In Adrian's case.. you forget Adrian is the one who abandon his family har. Wah lao.
If your wife got Thalassemia what will you do ? Are you going to abandon her ?
You are the one that twist my words around.
I say my SIL will plan her life differently , I never say she will leave the marriage. What's wrong with you ?
You want to win.. I let you win .. happy ? Kaoz !
oh ya.. i manage to grab one point.. about the stereotypical thingy(i din quote any figures leh, u think too much.. k now i quote ur figures).. u have 60% men abused and 40% women abused.. but what kind of abuse are we talking about here? what abuse do the 60% men get? and what abuse do the 40% women get? physical? mental?
A bit off topic, but abuse is just abuse, it's never correct.
As it turns out the old feminist theory of violence in soceity as a way to repress women and keep soceity male dominated turned out to be a tad simplistic... as it turns out abuse and violence is just as common even in lesbian relationships.
And of course, violence is not just physical, there are other forums of violence such as emotional and mental violence that are extremely harmful as well... as it turns out women are just as capable as men as using abuse in any relationship.
It all depends on the person... while men are more capable of inflicting physical violence, anybody who has been on the recieving end of a bad lady can tell you that the emotional, and mental aspects of abuse are very real, even if they don't show up as a black eye. And of course, we can't deny that soceity is not geared much towards adressing the issue of female violence as much as male violence.
My take on this? Unfortuntely for the feminist assumption, the world will not be more peaceful or even anywhere near utopia if it's ruled by women. It would still be as violent and painful as the world we live in now.
I am not really surprised by that really, I believe that we humans are all fallen creatures, and am less inclined that changing this or that status quo will change anything, it just passes the buck about. If we want to deal with the root issue of violence and abuse, we need to move beyond the simplistic feminist theory of it.
Originally posted by deathmaster:and btw, in reference to the issue on caning mentioned on page 1,
here's an interesting link to another similar forum.
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/singapore/TI4P234TIAJ7G27GL
Aiyah.. same lah.. the discussion also same conclusion lah..
Boh liao.
Originally posted by deathmaster:first, i shall start with the child care job.
i will be at the childcare center for the whole day, looking/supervising kids from 2.5 yr old to 6. (its meant for pre-schoolers).serve them breakfast, lunch and tea. drawings, coloring, bring them to toilet etc.
for female toddlers, the other female assistants at the center will handle, if they need to pee etc.
basically everything you will expect at a childcare center.
its still manageable when you have only 2 to 3 crying(usually happens when their parents drop them off at the center before work) . any more than 2-3 will give you a headache.
and my tuition kind is not those 100% academic tuition. its those kind of tuition you have at after-care centers, for primary sch kids after they are released from school. you have to look after them while at the same time provide tuition guidance to students who have homework to do.
Chey.. like that you think you can replace a mother ah ? Ples lah.
You go become a father first lah. Then you decide if a mother's role is suitable for you anot lor.
The baby come out from your vagina issit ?
It is a piece of flesh from the mother's womb.. you want to rip the flesh from her just to satisfy your selfish cause ? Ingrates.
In the end..
You guys just want to throw her out on the street with no money and take her child away from her .
What kind of people are you ? Digusting.
If you want to be so selfish.. then don't get married.. Simple as that.
In view of the selfish nature of men, why should any women give a hoot about their men's needs ?
Men like you should just rot in hell.
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:A bit off topic, but abuse is just abuse, it's never correct.
As it turns out the old feminist theory of violence in soceity as a way to repress women and keep soceity male dominated turned out to be a tad simplistic... as it turns out abuse and violence is just as common even in lesbian relationships.
And of course, violence is not just physical, there are other forums of violence such as emotional and mental violence that are extremely harmful as well... as it turns out women are just as capable as men as using abuse in any relationship.
It all depends on the person... while men are more capable of inflicting physical violence, anybody who has been on the recieving end of a bad lady can tell you that the emotional, and mental aspects of abuse are very real, even if they don't show up as a black eye. And of course, we can't deny that soceity is not geared much towards adressing the issue of female violence as much as male violence.
My take on this? Unfortuntely for the feminist assumption, the world will not be more peaceful or even anywhere near utopia if it's ruled by women. It would still be as violent and painful as the world we live in now.
I am not really surprised by that really, I believe that we humans are all fallen creatures, and am less inclined that changing this or that status quo will change anything, it just passes the buck about. If we want to deal with the root issue of violence and abuse, we need to move beyond the simplistic feminist theory of it.
good, thx for pointing out that too, SingaporeTyrannosaur.
they just don't seem to realise that men too have rights to prevent themselves from being abused. that's why i keep saying that men too should have a men's charter.
and to jojo, are you sure its adrian who abandon her? i think its more that he was force to divorce her, and even the divorce is made difficult for him, spanning 3 yrs.
gender aside, if you are the one being abused, be it physically, mentally or verbally, wouldn't you seek an end to this torment? do you call that abandonment?
even if ur abusive spouse is handicapped, sick,or whatsoever, i would still leave her, since she does not know how to treasure someone who loved her. since she reciprocate goodwill with abuse, it is best to leave before you are abused into the realm of insanity.
and did i twist ur words around? if there isn't even a tinge of doubt in ur words, no amount of nit-picking, word-twisting would be effective in getting a 2nd meaning out of a sentence.
ask urself, why would ur sil need to plan differently if she's noe that she's legally entitled to 25%?
if the marriage sustain, she would remain well cared for by your brother, and hence, no need for her to have any change of plans.
and if she married a good man, as i assume ur brother is, although the legal entitlement is 25%, she would still receive much more than that. 50% or more, depending on the generosity of ur brother.
so, unless she has a tinge of doubt in her marriage, why would she even need to "plan differently"?
Originally posted by deathmaster:good, thx for pointing out that too, SingaporeTyrannosaur.
they just don't seem to realise that men too have rights to prevent themselves from being abused. that's why i keep saying that men too should have a men's charter.
and to jojo, are you sure its adrian who abandon her? i think its more that he was force to divorce her, and even the divorce is made difficult for him, spanning 3 yrs.
gender aside, if you are the one being abused, be it physically, mentally or verbally, wouldn't you seek an end to this torment? do you call that abandonment?
even if ur abusive spouse is handicapped, sick,or whatsoever, i would still leave her, since she does not know how to treasure someone who loved her. since she reciprocate goodwill with abuse, it is best to leave before you are abused into the realm of insanity.
and did i twist ur words around? if there isn't even a tinge of doubt in ur words, no amount of nit-picking, word-twisting would be effective in getting a 2nd meaning out of a sentence.
ask urself, why would ur sil need to plan differently if she's noe that she's legally entitled to 25%?
if the marriage sustain, she would remain well cared for by your brother, and hence, no need for her to have any change of plans.
and if she married a good man, as i assume ur brother is, although the legal entitlement is 25%, she would still receive much more than that. 50% or more, depending on the generosity of ur brother.
so, unless she has a tinge of doubt in her marriage, why would she even need to "plan differently"?
Then why do you need to fight for 25% ? Would it make a difference if your marriage is no doubt going to last your lifetime. So what if the current law dictates 150% ? It ain't going to affect you, no?
LOL.....
Why are you so paranoid your wife is going to rip you off during a divorce then ????? If a divorce is never going to happen , right ???
Here.. let me help you stick your feet into your mouth.
If your wife had been torturing you since you got married.
Would you still get her pregnant ?
Within a short span of 1 year 9 months.. He decides he don't want the marriage.
Wouldn't it be more prudent to NOT have a baby in such a torturous marriage ??
Wouldn't it be more logical to have a baby with SOMEONE ELSE.. instead of the wife who tortures you ???
Are men really so stupid ?? I'm starting to wonder.
OKOK.
You know what ??.. LOL... I support changing the Women's Charter.
I support that the Women's Charter should be amended to protect stupid men.
Stupid men should not be subjected to the same kind of procedure normal men goes through.
Since they are too stupid to think for themselves.. women should be kind to them. We should discriminate stupid men from normal men.
Happy ? Good.
Good thing stupid men are only a minority !!!
Originally posted by jojobeach:Then why do you need to fight for 25% ? Would it make a difference if your marriage is no doubt going to last your lifetime. So what if the current law dictates 150% ? It ain't going to affect you, no?
LOL.....
Why are you so paranoid your wife is going to rip you off during a divorce then ????? If a divorce is never going to happen , right ???
Here.. let me help you stick your feet into your mouth.
If your wife had been torturing you since you got married.
Would you still get her pregnant ?
Within a short span of 1 year 9 months.. He decides he don't want the marriage.
Wouldn't it be more prudent to NOT have a baby in such a torturous marriage ??
Wouldn't it be more logical to have a baby with SOMEONE ELSE.. instead of the wife who tortures you ???
Are men really so stupid ?? I'm starting to wonder.
again, i remind you that you are the one who expresses confidence in a marriage, not me. instead, i am the opposite of what you advocate.
i believe that there is a high possibility of being suck dry in a divorce, which is also highly likely.
in case u r asking why marry if you believe that your marriage will end up in a divorce,
take note, i am not saying that all marriage will end up in a divorce, but an alarming high percentage do.
in a marriage, you can only hope that you "met the right one", but there's also a fair chance that you don't, and that's when divorce steps in.
answering ur 2nd qsn.
sometimes, the nastiness of ur partner may not really show until after sometime. go ask the wives of alcohol addicts. i bet many of them do not know that their husbands will turn out like this after they get married. and as the saying goes, men and women change after marriage. there's no foolproof way to know whether ur belove will still remain so caring, so loving after a marriage, and this applies to both genders.
u may only found that that ur present partner is incompatible with you, when its "too late", ie, pregnancy.
would you abort an innocent child then?
for me, its still ok if pregnancy is within 4 weeks. but anything more than that, i'm against. by the 4th weeks, i believe that the child is somewhat formed, no longer a bundle of palpy cells. this then concerns the matter of parental responsibility.
rgding ur 3nd qsn,
there are so many henpecked men out there with kids. you can try asking them why they would want to have kids with such domineering wives. maybe you will find the answer to ur qsn.