Singapore government does not support sexual equality
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
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.Death.. Somehow after this posting .. I'm starting to pity you.
Since you are so afraid of being ripped off by your wife.
You can try co-habiting with the woman you love.
That way, there's no contractual bondage on your asset.
What is her's is hers , what is yours is yours to keep.
The only community asset is what both of you agrees to purchase together with co-ownership.
This will be as good as a pre-nuptial.. without the marriage part.
By bear in mind for this to happen... you need to ensure her income capacity is equal to yours. If not.. the lifestyle gap will make it very difficult for a relationship to work out.
And given Singapore's perception of children out of wedlock , chances are.. both of you will not have a child together. Unless you are rich enough to go beyond the assistance of govmen regulations.
You will need to be able to afford private housing. I don know about schools.. but I think they don;t discriminate children out of wedlock.
Happy stay together.. not happy each goes each other's way.
There is no obligation.. no divorce.
Perhaps with such arrangement.. it may be the best for everyone.
-
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..
Of course if my spouse and I were in mortal danger and if I truly loved her, I would sacrifice my life if it meant she could live. However see this difference here: in this hypothetical situation I actually love the woman. It should not my my lawful obligation to protect just any woman and sacrifice what I have for just any woman. I should WANT to do it and not be doing it out of lawful obligation.Between protection of physical abuse and being robbed in broad daylight, obviously abuse comes first, but I do not see why we cannot protect against both. It makes no sense not to do our best to protect the rights of people in both situations just because one is more important than the other.
Yes, maybe there will be holes in our system, but does that mean we should just leave them there? Should we not do our best and work towards closing them up? Even if our system is still partially flawed we would have advanced, progressed and benefited from whatever we've learned. It's like being a good person. You know you'll never be jesus, but you try your best anyway. You don't say, hey, just because I'm not jesus, I'm gonna kill everyone in my flat. No, you still do your best to live a life where you've done good things.
As for what you said about racial equality: the fact that all the languages are broadcast shows that they are making an effort for the best. The order of languages the announcements are broadcast in is almost totally irrelevant; you know as I do that it is a trivial matter. The fact that it is broadcast in all languages is enough. As for it being hard to find halal food in a shopping centre... I don't think it's hard to, I see a foodcourt with a halal stall in almost every shopping centre. Even if this is true, it's not like they banned halal food or restrict the number of halal stalls in a shopping centre. It's free will. It's up to the people if they want to set up a halal stall or not. What we're talking about is different, it's actually down in the laws that I am bound to do XXX while women are not.
Purpledragon, women are not as underprivileged as you make them out to be. I am not challenging the women's charter, I am saying that men should have equal protection. Giving them equal protection does not mean that the women are not protected. It doesn't make them any more vulnerable. Protecting men will not increase the vulnerability of women, I think you may have a misconception here.
-
Jojobeach:
For one, the laws regarding NS mean men go through hell to protect our country. Seeing as women don't participate in NS, I would, to a certain degree, feel that this is a men-serving-women relationship. Of course, not all of the issues I have brought up entail men serving women, but all of them involve men being put a step below women.
No, I may not have served NS yet, no, I may not be over eighteen, no, I may not legally be an adult. Yet I feel that does not mean I am not entitled to an opinion, or the respect given to an adult's opinion. Isn't it also possible that while I may not be physically matured as you are, that my thinking may be equal to an adult's in terms of maturity?
Regarding monetary protection: I have been discussing this because it is the issue you chose to discuss. You can discuss any of the other issues that I've brought up if you wish.
No, I am not an only child. What does that matter anyway? I do agree that children are difficult to take care of, and perhaps biologically women are more suited to take care of our young, but I believe that men are not incapable of doing so, and in several cases they surpass women in terms of understanding their child's needs. It's not fair that just because statistically women may tend to be better at taking care of children, that men should not get an equal chance to because these are just statistics and men are not all less capable than their spouses of taking care of children.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Of course if my spouse and I were in mortal danger and if I truly loved her, I would sacrifice my life if it meant she could live. However see this difference here: in this hypothetical situation I actually love the woman. It should not my my lawful obligation to protect just any woman and sacrifice what I have for just any woman. I should WANT to do it and not be doing it out of lawful obligation.Between protection of physical abuse and being robbed in broad daylight, obviously abuse comes first, but I do not see why we cannot protect against both. It makes no sense not to do our best to protect the rights of people in both situations just because one is more important than the other.
Yes, maybe there will be holes in our system, but does that mean we should just leave them there? Should we not do our best and work towards closing them up? Even if our system is still partially flawed we would have advanced, progressed and benefited from whatever we've learned. It's like being a good person. You know you'll never be jesus, but you try your best anyway. You don't say, hey, just because I'm not jesus, I'm gonna kill everyone in my flat. No, you still do your best to live a life where you've done good things.
As for what you said about racial equality: the fact that all the languages are broadcast shows that they are making an effort for the best. The order of languages the announcements are broadcast in is almost totally irrelevant; you know as I do that it is a trivial matter. The fact that it is broadcast in all languages is enough. As for it being hard to find halal food in a shopping centre... I don't think it's hard to, I see a foodcourt with a halal stall in almost every shopping centre. Even if this is true, it's not like they banned halal food or restrict the number of halal stalls in a shopping centre. It's free will. It's up to the people if they want to set up a halal stall or not. What we're talking about is different, it's actually down in the laws that I am bound to do XXX while women are not.
Purpledragon, women are not as underprivileged as you make them out to be. I am not challenging the women's charter, I am saying that men should have equal protection. Giving them equal protection does not mean that the women are not protected. It doesn't make them any more vulnerable. Protecting men will not increase the vulnerability of women, I think you may have a misconception here.
Dude.. if you are just a poor bloke with nothing to lose, you wouldn't be so worried about women taking advantage of your wealth.
Men can only be subjected to "unfair/Unjust" marriage laws.. WHEN he gets married.
So if you don't get married.. you got nothing to worry about , yes ?
That is why.. for guys like you. Just go find a girl who is willing to live with you without marrying you.
Then fight for rights of children borned out of wed lock. So that they will not be discriminated.
That will solve much of your problems with marriage. NO ?
Without the bondage of a marriage certificate.. men will be free to go when the wife abuse them. And free to stay when he is happy with the marriage.
There will be no dispute of assets division.
Isn't this a viable solution ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Dude.. if you are just a poor bloke with nothing to lose, you wouldn't be so worried about women taking advantage of your wealth.
Men can only be subjected to "unfair/Unjust" marriage laws.. WHEN he gets married.
So if you don't get married.. you got nothing to worry about , yes ?
That is why.. for guys like you. Just go find a girl who is willing to live with you without marrying you.
Then fight for rights of children borned out of wed lock. So that they will not be discriminated.
That will solve much of your problems with marriage. NO ?
Without the bondage of a marriage certificate.. men will be free to go when the wife abuse them. And free to stay when he is happy with the marriage.
There will be no dispute of assets division.
Isn't this a viable solution ?
Like I said, I'm under eighteen. Legally, I am neither rich nor poor because nothing is mine. What you said is essentially true to a certain extent. Right now, the only solution that involves financial security on the man's part is for him not to get married. So why are we being restricted like this for a law that can easily be changed and wouldn't hurt anyone in the process?I'm arguing because this is a matter of principles. Just because it isn't my problem (yet) doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected. Also you have to agree that the financial security in a marriage is not the only issue there is to discuss.
@Deathmaster: You gave a link for something about caning but I think your link is faulty.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Like I said, I'm under eighteen. Legally, I am neither rich nor poor because nothing is mine. What you said is essentially true to a certain extent. Right now, the only solution that involves financial security on the man's part is for him not to get married. So why are we being restricted like this for a law that can easily be changed and wouldn't hurt anyone in the process?I'm arguing because this is a matter of principles. Just because it isn't my problem (yet) doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected. Also you have to agree that the financial security in a marriage is not the only issue there is to discuss.
@Deathmaster: You gave a link for something about caning but I think your link is faulty.
OK, So how are you going to do that without hurting the majority who needs the protection >
If you think it is so easy to be rectified... what solution is good to serve all the purpose you so believe needs to be addressed ?
Are you going to tell me you have no tangible solution again ? And that somebardie else should be the one coming up with the solution ?
So all you really want to do is complain ?
Like the little boy who stamps his feet and cry " NO Fair !!" ?? LOL...
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
OK, So how are you going to do that without hurting the majority who needs the protection >
If you think it is so easy to be rectified... what solution is good to serve all the purpose you so believe needs to be addressed ?
Are you going to tell me you have no tangible solution again ? And that somebardie else should be the one coming up with the solution ?
So all you really want to do is complain ?
Like the little boy who stamps his feet and cry " NO Fair !!" ?? LOL...
Well you tell me then, how would such a simple solution hurt anyone!? For example, possible solutions for caning.
a. Remove caning entirely, but extend the jail terms for offences
b. Give women extra years in replacement for caning, while men retain their caning sentences. (e.g. for the same offence a man and woman commits, the man may get a year of jail and four strokes of the cane, while the woman gets 1 year and 4 months of jail. Hypothetically, of course the exact conversion of strokes to jail time will have to be discussed)
c. Allow women to be caned too.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Well you tell me then, how would such a simple solution hurt anyone!?
A simple solution MAY hurt plenty if it is ill thought out.
So you tell me. What is your simple solution that will solve all the ills of the family laws ??
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
A simple solution MAY hurt plenty if it is ill thought out.
So you tell me. What is your simple solution that will solve all the ills of the family laws ??
Well duh, have the laws protecting women also changed to protect men in exactly the same way. (Providing enough space for the judge to use his/ her discretion on a case-by-case basis of course.)And also maybe a campaign to change the perception that men are completely unable and incapable of caring for their children. That their hands are tied, that they are totally handicapped when it comes to childcare. Perhaps this can be woven into the laws too somehow.
The reason I am reluctant to provide a solution is because, as you said, a simple solution could hurt of it isn't well thought out. Again, that's what we're paying LHL 3 million dollars a year to do. He should be the one getting a minister to work things out. Singapore doesn't pay them 3 million dollars a year for us to tell them what they have to do.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Well duh, have the laws protecting women also changed to protect men in exactly the same way. (Providing enough space for the judge to use his/ her discretion on a case-by-case basis of course.)And also maybe a campaign to change the perception that men are completely unable and incapable of caring for their children. That their hands are tied, that they are totally handicapped when it comes to childcare. Perhaps this can be woven into the laws too somehow.
The reason I am reluctant to provide a solution is because, as you said, a simple solution could hurt of it isn't well thought out. Again, that's what we're paying LHL 3 million dollars a year to do. He should be the one getting a minister to work things out. Singapore doesn't pay them 3 million dollars a year for us to tell them what they have to do.
well then.. I suppose this should conclude the discussion yes ?
Trust me, in 10 years time. You will look back at this thread of yours.
And you will realize how naive your thinking had been. And how much your perceptions of things had changed during the years.
Good luck. And God bless.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
well then.. I suppose this should conclude the discussion yes ?
Trust me, in 10 years time. You will look back at this thread of yours.
And you will realize how naive your thinking had been. And how much your perceptions of things had changed during the years.
Good luck. And God bless.
Perhaps. I honestly don't think it will, but perhaps... -
Originally posted by MrSean:
@Deathmaster: You gave a link for something about caning but I think your link is faulty.
ok, here's the link:http://www.topix.com/forum/world/singapore/TI4P234TIAJ7G27GL
-
read the link liao lagi more dulan.. i really pray that u are not a future leader, if u advocate equal treatment to men and women when it comes to caning..
-
Deathmaster, thank you for the link. It was very insightful. The comments put forward by richard in that discussion, I feel, were very valid.
Purple dragon, how would you argue that caning is valid for men but not for women? (Please read specifically the comments by richard in the link, I think it really sums up a lot of what I have to say.)
-
i don't advocate equal treatment to men and women when it comes to caning.. i didn't say caning should be valid for men and not for women.. there is a difference..
EDITED: the person wif the nick Seattle POV is a $&$^$^#@&^#)..
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
read the link liao lagi more dulan.. i really pray that u are not a future leader, if u advocate equal treatment to men and women when it comes to caning..
the comments given are really insightful, first coming from people from western countries, countries which officially do not advocate caning.
there are men and women both for and against caning, some wishing to impose caning in their own country, and some not wanting caning to be imposed in their country.
and reqarding equal treatment of criminals in the issue of caning, why not?
first, you understand that caning is not mete out to any sort of criminals. they are usually awarded to those who commited heinous crimes, ie. rape, murder, manslaughter, and other immoral offenses.
those relatively innocent will not be caned.
so why shouldn't you cane murderers, even if they are female? if they can be so vicious in commiting an act of killing, why bother with gender courtesy with them, since they do not deserve this respect?
if you don't want to be caned, then don't commit the crime in the first place.
and regarding female criminals today. females are not as meek and obediance as was in the past. obediance as in following rules and laws. in schools, you do often see female students being suspended for shoplifting, but they are never caned, be it in private or in public. in the end, many of these students go out and commit the same crime again and again, until they are sent to girls home, never learning the lesson at all.
so i think we should be harsher on our girls.
to the guai guai girls out there, nothing will happen to them as long as they don't break any rules. very simple right?
-
Jojo FYI I'm 40 married with a duaghter and a son but I guess U're still the lonely man hater or just staunch supporter of women's rights movements.I am actually Adrian's neighbour and just can't stand his abusive ex-wife poisonous Ivy from taking advantage of the Law to squeeze him dry and cried wolf so many times,falsely accusing him of physically hitting her and landed in a 6 hr locked up in poice station,Subsequently when truth is out,Ivy had to apologised to him and his family in Court.Besides ivy raided his house on 2 consecutive Sundays just to collect trivial things like a AA size battery and an unused pack of condoms-motive were to humilitate Adrian by calling all the police to escort her to Adrian's house,bearing in mind that Adrian had expedited protection from the courts.All this commotion were calculated to hopefully embarrass Adrian Supervied visits at Family Service Centre was proposed by adrian and accepted by the court for fear that Ivy and her mum may abuse the law which again happened there.ask yourself why Ivy balantly disregard Court order 5 times to not to bring Adrian's daughter to the centre for bonding?Ivy gave ridiculous excuses like taxi fares from her house to center cost $24 for just 1 way trip and that her daughter is allergic to water where there is not even any exposure to water play at all.what about Ivy's claim of $3700 monthly ailmony verses Adrian's pay of ab $1500 at that time and 70% of Adrian's CPF,the latter accrued to him even before hey were married.Besides,it was evil indeed for ivy to get her own mum to inflict injuries on herself and pushed the blame to Adrian.Again the wise judge was able to see thru this and again an apology was tended by Ivy.Ivy also sent .200 sms cursing adrian and his family.Look at Ivy's character ..need to gst or change a total of 5 lawyers from divorce to child custody.Adrian gave up his right to bond with his daughter but continued to pay ab $400 monthly to his daughter against his monthly income of ab $1500. Ivy did not give up to seek or wreak havoc or venegenace knowing that the Law is skewed in the women's favour.Ivy again made false report to Ang Mo Kio police that adrain lured him during divorce to rape and videotaped the process.This was investigated by the police and Ivy was supposed to be charged for making false report but the police relented and gave her a severe warning instead.Ask yourself all my learned friends where is the justice as applied to men and women.If above scenario applied to Adrian,he'll definitely be charged for making false police report. Thalasimmia is not a deadly disease and Jojo don;t harp on this to draw sympathy to IVY or claim adrian is attacking his dying ex-wife,in fact it is the other way round,I as adrian's neighbour has to encourage adrian to be strong and not bullied by this evil and scheming Ivy who tried to harm adrian in so many ways-reporting to IRD that Adrian made tons of $,reporting to HDB that Adrian was conducting illegal lessons at his home ,reporting to MOE that Adrian was breeding mosquitoes at home,cutting off his water and power supplies just to inconvenience him,etc,,,Ivy here was indeed the woman who was scorned and out to make the divorce a painful one as sent in one of her >200 sms. Why adrian did not change the matrimonial flat to his parents is because they both already have their own HDB flat,so for goodness sake don't comment based on your own wild assumptions I'm not against you personally Jojobeach but just find you and the cervical cancer Vicious Kitty not flexible or outrightly stubborn just sticking to your feminist view without sparing a thought to hear and take in the man's side of the story.Probably your single family status and yr strong dislike for yr dad make your views biased against men as deep inside you is a hatred for all things that men do in any divorced or separation cases.Cheer up I am not here to bury you but to knock some senses so that the discussion here will not just see you adamantly sticking to your own feminist views and oblivious to other constructive suggestions or logical proposals
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
i don't advocate equal treatment to men and women when it comes to caning.. i didn't say caning should be valid for men and not for women.. there is a difference..
EDITED: the person wif the nick Seattle POV is a $&$^$^#@&^#)..
Seattle POV is just arguing for human rights, I feel that what he said was irrelevant to the main issue but still it did have some truth in it.Also, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say, you don't advocate equal treatment for men and women regarding caning, but you don't think caning should be valid for men and not women? I don't see the difference here, perhaps you should clarify. Your two statements seem contradictory to a certain extent...
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Seattle POV is just arguing for human rights, I feel that what he said was irrelevant to the main issue but still it did have some truth in it.Also, I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say, you don't advocate equal treatment for men and women regarding caning, but you don't think caning should be valid for men and not women? I don't see the difference here, perhaps you should clarify. Your two statements seem contradictory to a certain extent...
my point is simple..
u don't see it because maybe u forgot that even though both men and women may commit the same crime, but by nature, their physique is different.. men and women are eventually different when it comes to their body weight and stuff..
so, if caning is really implemented, it should be of a different cane den the one used on men now.. if the cane used is the same one, it will be wrong..
an income tax must be implemented to everyone.. but u wun be taxing everybody the same amount, but rather the same percentage, so, if u are going to cane, ur measure of caning is going to be at least reasonable.. because even now, caning is not just grab and whack.. they will have to send the criminal for checks first, to make sure he is physically able to take the rotan..
-
Well ok then so you mean that there should be a conversion of strokes for men to women?
Like number of strokes a man receives x 0.8 = number of strokes for a woman (rounded up to closest natural number?)
Is this what you are suggesting?
Yes the criminals are sent for medical checkups and certified by a doctor before the caning commences, obviously this would be implemented for women too.
Frankly though, because I am not a specialist, I'm not sure I agree with you. Are you sure that female butts are that much more tender? Do you have any scientific evidence to back this up? If women have been proven to have thinner skin or for any other reason scientifically proven that their strokes should be fewer, then by all means implement this system.
I didn't really see your point because your initial statement was not very clear. I suspected it had something to do with this but there was a problem the first time I posted and I was too lazy to include the point when I typed it out a second time.
-
no maybe not 0.8 x number of cane..
but a different type of cane, one that is not as hurting but still enuf to beat the crap outta them..
if u do not see my point, den think abt y guys do pull ups for napfa and girls do incline flex arm hang..
EDITED: and the various timings for 2.4km, and shuttle run, and anything physical, in SEA games, in world cups, in olympics.. if men and women are equal in physique, why not lump them together in competitions as well "to make it fair"?
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
no maybe not 0.8 x number of cane..
but a different type of cane, one that is not as hurting but still enuf to beat the crap outta them..
if u do not see my point, den think abt y guys do pull ups for napfa and girls do incline flex arm hang..
EDITED: and the various timings for 2.4km, and shuttle run, and anything physical, in SEA games, in world cups, in olympics.. if men and women are equal in physique, why not lump them together in competitions as well "to make it fair"?
Hmm yes I see your point, however it may not be valid... You see, women do have greater difficulty gaining muscle mass due to the production of certain hormones such as estrogen that limit their abilities to gain muscle mass.However that does not necessarily mean that their butts have thinner or more tender skin than a man's... So far I have yet to hear any scientific evidence to back this up or disprove it, because so far no one has thought to test this belief...
So how sure are you that women have weaker asses than men?
Btw, I also take it that you now agree, that to a certain extent our government has not been very supportive of equal treatment of the sexes? Seeing as you, too, agree that if caning is valid for men it's valid for women as well.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Hmm yes I see your point, however it may not be valid... You see, women do have greater difficulty gaining muscle mass due to the production of certain hormones such as estrogen that limit their abilities to gain muscle mass.However that does not necessarily mean that their butts have thinner or more tender skin than a man's... So far I have yet to hear any scientific evidence to back this up or disprove it, because so far no one has thought to test this belief...
So how sure are you that women have weaker asses than men?
Btw, I also take it that you now agree, that to a certain extent our government has not been very supportive of equal treatment of the sexes? Seeing as you, too, agree that if caning is valid for men it's valid for women as well.
Ofcors he very sure lah.
He got the chance to touch one before.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Ofcors he very sure lah.
He got the chance to touch one before.
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
Hmm yes I see your point, however it may not be valid... You see, women do have greater difficulty gaining muscle mass due to the production of certain hormones such as estrogen that limit their abilities to gain muscle mass.However that does not necessarily mean that their butts have thinner or more tender skin than a man's... So far I have yet to hear any scientific evidence to back this up or disprove it, because so far no one has thought to test this belief...
So how sure are you that women have weaker asses than men?
Btw, I also take it that you now agree, that to a certain extent our government has not been very supportive of equal treatment of the sexes? Seeing as you, too, agree that if caning is valid for men it's valid for women as well.
im sure the caning process goes beyond just skin repairing.. it goes to the flesh too..and how do u test the pain endurance of a female? I don't even know how to start saying this, but isn't it already known that women tend to KO more easily when dealt with pain? or is this another misconception of mine and the whole world's dat is disproved suddenly after thousands of years?
that a punch to a man and a punch to a woman will yield quite a different result? no?
and as i stated initially, men and women are unequal, by physique, and by society's views, thus the treatment will automatically be unequal.. of coz, then ur points are to argue abt the minority.. to which i said, every law cannot satisfy every individual, and the implementing of new laws, if not done carefully, will only serve to upset more people than the number of people it can pacify..
and if u read my posts earlier, u would have realised that i already said that the laws are unfair, to protect the victims.. just that the bad apples are abusing it.. and if u made it equal, abuses from the other side will come in.. so we have to limit the sufferings of the victims to as low as possible, because sadly, we cant remove it completely.. and i did say that if a new law that comes in can reduce the number of ppl who abuse the law to their advantage, all the better no?