Women shd also serve NS. Do u agree? share ur views.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
NS is a lot bigger then just the military... I do not see why it should be that THEY must bear arms and fight.
For example, there are plenty of other possible vocations such as nursing and the like.
whcih is my ;point. i do feel that women should be train to be able to take up such respinsibility in times of war. they are usually gentler than men.. -
from a political point of view, women going through NS is very unpopular. Girls will not like it and parents will not like it as well. Even a lot of guys do not like it. The only reason is to make it sounds fair to some guys which in the end still cost them votes. Furthermore girls, if they go through modified NS, r not very useful strategically speaking... Other countries except Isreal implement tis.
-
Originally posted by SBS7484P:
whcih is my ;point. i do feel that women should be train to be able to take up such respinsibility in times of war. they are usually gentler than men..
No matter how much you would like to think, how much you would like to imagine....there'll be quite a few problems.You gotta experience it to know why.
Mantaining the current status quo is a better idea.
-
Originally posted by sirAdrian:
Yup, u r rite. They r jealous tat they hav to go throu this and the woman dun.
Well girl should not go NS and no need to do some social-welfare-related vocation for 2 years(For wat?) like some 1 above said. They can sign on or do it willing not forcing them.
Dun understand y TS want to compare himself 2 girls, U run slower than girls is it?Finsh ur NS and ur question is answered
There are WAY many girls who perform much better physically than the average guy.
And there are a hell lot of guys weaker than the average girl.
Are you saying that any male who performs worse physically is not fit to be one? I wonder if you think a female who doesn't give birth, say, is any less a woman for it.
Let's just impose a physical test on ALL Singaporeans upon 18. All who pass go to NS, all who fail go do public service/exempted. Can even save a bundle on training and conditioning.
-
Originally posted by sirAdrian:
Yup, u r rite. They r jealous tat they hav to go throu this and the woman dun.
Well girl should not go NS and no need to do some social-welfare-related vocation for 2 years(For wat?) like some 1 above said. They can sign on or do it willing not forcing them.
Dun understand y TS want to compare himself 2 girls, U run slower than girls is it?Finsh ur NS and ur question is answered
What I meant is if NS is made a liability to the female as well. The problem with many is that, they think female must do military service if NS is made liable to them, which I don't necessary agree.
How can the whole nation knows how to fight only? There are many other elements and sectors to be considered.
Anyway it's impossible to have female NS to happen, as it is an unpopular view. But anyway if it were to happen, everyone will still suck thumb what. Haha.
-
Originally posted by bloodsucker:
I feel that the current system is pretty much sufficient for the country. We are not in constant war, like Israel, so we do not need to conscript everyone. However, if we ever get into a war with god knows who, then yea I think that everyone should serve NS.
I think that some combat vocations are suitable for some women, since there really are women here that are extremely tough and adventurous. However, on the general basis, if women do get conscripted, I think that they will be put into the non-combat vocs so that more men can go outfield. Just my thoughts.
Well I think mostly what we are arguing for is based on principles, not so much on actual practical needs. It's just unfair that because we're guys we have to do something that no one really wants to. Just because we're guys.There will be those who say, oh, you're guys, it's your job to do this, be a man, but again the measure of a man is not necessarily equal to his willingness to be in the army. There are so many army principles that are unnecessary and dumb, and NS has lost it's focus on training our men to protect our country.
I'll highlight another example that I've heard of recently, and this has not yet been posted in the thread beautiful linked because I don't want to revive a dead thread. (I think at the end of it I managed to convince all parties to at least a certain degree that the system is unfair, even though we didn't agree on all the points.)
My mom heard from her friend (this friend's son is in NS) that in NS now, the new favourite phrase is no longer "wake up your ideas", but it's "stupid or stubborn!?!?". Apparently, in order to avoid excessive punishment, you are to answer that you are stupid rather than stubborn because being stupid means you can still be changed while being stubborn means you can't. Isn't this totally unnecessary and derogatory? I mean, I know it's not a big deal, calling yourself stupid, but surely it is unnecessary? To a certain level it can even potentially be harmful to vulnerable individuals with certain mental disorder, to individuals already suffering from low-self esteem.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
from a political point of view, women going through NS is very unpopular. Girls will not like it and parents will not like it as well. Even a lot of guys do not like it. The only reason is to make it sounds fair to some guys which in the end still cost them votes. Furthermore girls, if they go through modified NS, r not very useful strategically speaking... Other countries except Isreal implement tis.
There was rioting when NS was first introduced, even just for guys, everyone in secondary school right now learns this as part of MOE's history syllabus. Did that deter our government from establishing it? No. Should they let it deter them from ensuring there is justice and equality, as they so claim there is? -
Originally posted by pwnz0r:
in future, if you have a daughter, do you want them to serve NS?
No more than I would want my son to serve NS, but no less. -
Originally posted by sirAdrian:
Yup, u r rite. They r jealous tat they hav to go throu this and the woman dun.
Well girl should not go NS and no need to do some social-welfare-related vocation for 2 years(For wat?) like some 1 above said. They can sign on or do it willing not forcing them.
Dun understand y TS want to compare himself 2 girls, U run slower than girls is it?Finsh ur NS and ur question is answered
If women don't have to be forced to do anything, then why do men have to be forced to do something?Why is the reply always "NNSENT" (No NS Experience No Talk)? Are you guys unable to express yourselves in words? Think with reason, not just with what you were told to believe. Till now, I have not yet heard a satisfactory response as to why women should not be forced into something when men should be. The answer is always NNSENT or men should be men, and manly, and trash like that, all without any logical basis or foundation.
It's like until you're of age and gone through NS your views and opinions are completely worthless. Come on, pre-NS kids are coming up with answers that have greater logical basis than you guys. Surely our arguments are worth more than yours.
-
Do we really need the women to do NS? Are they to be drafted to do the job that we can't find enough men to do or we just want equality between man and women?
I don't support the idea that women should serve NS as a contribution to the nation, and then we have all the women drafted in to serve as cooks and cleaners. We don't need so many nurses.
Unless and until such time when we really need them, don't waste taxpayers' money and the time and youth of our ladies.
-
There was rioting when NS was first introduced, even just for guys, everyone in secondary school right now learns this as part of MOE's history syllabus. Did that deter our government from establishing it? No. Should they let it deter them from ensuring there is justice and equality, as they so claim there is?
Because in singapore, men taking NS is necessary, especially during tat time. (And rioting is common at tat time) If u wanna conquer singapore, u have to kill all the men. During tat time, we have hostile neighbours who even send commandoes over.
-
Equality does not mean being treated exactly the same.
Even if there is female military conscription, there is no way they can be treated in the same way, even Isreal is unable to do so:
Israel has female conscription, but about a third of female conscripts (more than double the figure for men) are exempted, mainly for religious and nuptial reasons.
Following their active service, women, like men, are in theory required to serve up to one month annually in reserve duty. However, in practice only some women in combat roles get called for active reserve duty, and only for a few years following their active service, with many exit points (e.g., pregnancy).
Apart from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, when manpower shortages saw many of them taking active part in battles on the ground, women were historically barred from battle in the IDF, serving in a variety of technical and administrative support roles. During this period the IDF utilized female instructors for training male soldiers in certain roles, particularly tank crews. After a landmark 1994 High Court appeal by Alice Miller, a Jewish immigrant from South Africa, the Air Force was instructed to open its pilots course to women (several served as transport pilots during the first Arab-Israeli War in 1948 and "Operation Kadesh" in 1956, but the Air Force later closed its ranks to women fliers). Miller failed the entrance exams, but since her initiative, many additional combat roles were opened. As of 2005, women are allowed to serve in 83% of all positions in the military, including Shipboard Navy Service (except submarines), and Artillery. Combat roles are voluntary for women.
As of 2002, 33% of lower rank officers are women, 21% of Captains and Majors, and 3% of the most senior ranks.
If one wants to do this just for the sake of being "equal", that is, treated the same, you will always find something to nitpick over.
I do think that NS or not, feminism or not, it is still the duty of a man to protect that which matters to him. I do not think that being equality means sticking a rifle into the hands of a woman and asking her to fight just like the rest of the guys any more then having a male/female quota in nursing would make sense. Truth is the genders are different, and to treat them the same will cause much unhappiness on both sides.
But yes, I agree that more ought to be done to recognize the sacrifices that guys make in NS, as well as the time they have to give up. And yes very importantly that the ladies should not be helpless in times of war- that is they need to have skills that are relevant to the survival of their friends, family and nation.
It is true that there is a lopsideness and unfairness in the contributions that guys and girls in Singapore have to make to soceity. But correcting that by asking girls to be soldiers or give up 2 years just for the sake of it is, to me, is a simplistic and misguided solution.
-
I think for the male's issue on NS, it's not even about the 2 years (my time 2 years 4 months) that is taken up but by the followup on reservist, IPPT, etc, a lot of these little things going on that interrupts life. So it's actually more than two years.
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Do we really need the women to do NS? Are they to be drafted to do the job that we can't find enough men to do or we just want equality between man and women?
I don't support the idea that women should serve NS as a contribution to the nation, and then we have all the women drafted in to serve as cooks and cleaners. We don't need so many nurses.
Unless and until such time when we really need them, don't waste taxpayers' money and the time and youth of our ladies.
So... Are you therefore suggesting that the time and youth of our ladies is worth far more than that of our men? Oh no, men don't want freedom, we all want to be slaves, yup, not worth anything compared to women, our goddesses. -
Frankly, i don't really support military service for females. The first reason is that they're simply not built for fighting, 2nd is a more practical reason from a race perspective 90% of the male population can get wiped out and the race will still continue but vice versa....
HOWever, i believe there is a need to train them to contribute during wartime or in a crisis (Which is far more likely). Having our females experienced in basic triage and simple first aid skills would be indispensible in times of war especially when trained medical personnel would be very tied up.
I certainly don't see a harm in letting them have an idea on what to do during a crisis and how to contribute. Having them know how to handle the elderly, sick and young would be invaluable. (I'm not a feminist, i don't think anyone will argue the fact that females are more caring compared to males)
I do not know how true it is but i have participated in discussions with my female cousins and they express the view that Singaporean girls seemed to have problems cooperating with each other and they believed some regimented discipline would still be great for character development. ( I don't think anyone that's been through NS would argue this point)
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
So... Are you therefore suggesting that the time and youth of our ladies is worth far more than that of our men? Oh no, men don't want freedom, we all want to be slaves, yup, not worth anything compared to women, our goddesses.cool down kid. good to know you want logic. can you accept that men and women are different?
Singapore is a small country and it is very costly to maintain a large size regular force. So we had national service, logical?
and we began with calling only the man. By calling just the men, we now can call up a trained combined armed forces of 300,000, a force we believe is a good deterrence to any likely aggressor. If we called up also the women then, we would have 600,000 (assuming equal no of women were called up for NS), and that would be too many. So the present requirement to call up only men for NS is appropriate, logical?
There was no need to call up the women then. Is there a need now? I guess the answer is still NO. Is it logical to call up the women, just because some think they would have more freedom by not serving NS? The logical answer is NO. agree?
I believe the government need to do many things to convince the people before they can call the women up for NS. The issues involved would include delaying the female workforce from entering the workplace by two years, the expenditure involved, the additional places needed, such as camps, and the modification of all facilities and training to accommodate the women, because they are different. Logical? can you accept that?
I would much prefer the money to be spent on the women to do NS be given to the NSmen now to reward the men for protecting the women. Are you man enough?
-
I support women serving NS.
National Service (NS) doesn't have to mean joining the Army. Women can serve the nation in many ways. Although women are not build for combat, they can join the service side, like cook, clerk, storeman, etc.
For example, the cook vocation was removed and outsourced to Singapore Food Industries (SFI). And I think many other non-combat vocation going to be outsourced too (probably due to less male Singaporeans). But what going to happen in time of war? Can SFI continue to support the soldiers then?
And if you go to Singapore General Hospital (SGH), most of the nurses are foreigners. So if war come and all the FT run back to their countries, who going to treat the wounded (both soldiers and civilians)?
Therefore, unlike male, the female can learn non-combat stuff like cook (many girls can't even cook!), nursing so when war comes and the foreigners go way, they are able to replace them.
By the way, I have served NS long long long ago.
-
Nobody is insisting that men and women have to be treated in the same way. People do realise that there is differences in gender roles. That's why most of those who agree that women should be conscripted too did not insist that they should serve combatant roles, but could contribute towards support and services.
One of the reason given as to why NS is neccessary is that it can strengthen social cohesiveness. However, this logic is obsolete as long as women is not involved in NS.
I personally believe that NS is also useful in strengthening one's mental and physical strength and tolerance, speeding up the process at which one matures into a young adult as they learn about responsibilities and office politics. There's no reason why women needs no such training. I just hate it when girls go crying and whining over very lame things such as break-ups with boyfriend or whatever...there are bigger things out there in this world. Go serve NS and you'll see it.
I cannot find a single valid reason as to why women do not need to serve NS. Go refer to other threads in the SAF forum and look at the reasons given as to why man should serve NS. Why can't the same reasons be applied to women?
Everyone has a duty of protecting their country and family, not just the guys.
On a lighter note, even if women are not conscripted to the army, the very least they can do is to go and find out what the guys are going through in the army right? I've got female friends who asked me why am I using (lousy and non-stylish) non-camera phones, who don't even know what 'guard duty' is, or worst...don't even know how long does NS last.
At least I know pregnancy last for 9 months...
-
Originally posted by MrSean:
So... Are you therefore suggesting that the time and youth of our ladies is worth far more than that of our men? Oh no, men don't want freedom, we all want to be slaves, yup, not worth anything compared to women, our goddesses.Slaves ? Is that wat you think of NS ? Tsk Tsk.
Are you in secondary school yet ? Which ECA are you in ? The pole dancing club ?
Your school got no NCC or NPCC ? Are those pre salvery activities ?
Can you stop being such a big sissy ?
Why do you have to keep comparing yourself with the women ?
Why don't you go compare yourself with other men ?
Grow up already will ya?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Slaves ? Is that wat you think of NS ? Tsk Tsk.
Are you in secondary school yet ? Which ECA are you in ? The pole dancing club ?
Your school got no NCC or NPCC ? Are those pre salvery activities ?
Can you stop being such a big sissy ?
Why do you have to keep comparing yourself with the women ?
Why don't you go compare yourself with other men ?
Grow up already will ya?
Perhaps MrSean used the wrong word in describing soldiers as 'slaves' here. But his other points hold true. NS is a meaningful and much needed experience, there's no reason why women should be excused from it. They are no more sacred than us men...if we have a duty to protect the nation then they too have similar duty.
Conscripting women into the army is not so much about whether or not we 'need' women or not. It's like debating whether or not we 'need' NS or not...some may think NS is obselete because S'pore is too small to be defended, but nevertheless NS brings about other benefits that more than justify it's needs.
Whether we 'need' so much women in non-combatant roles doesn't matter, what matter is whether or not our women are fufiling their roles as citizens of the land they are living in, whether or not they learn and understand the values of what it means by being Singaporean.
I don't understand how is it wrong to compare men to women. Comparison is everywhere, and Singaporeans are best at making comparison. As long as the reasons are valid there's no need for rejection of ideas.
-
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
Perhaps MrSean used the wrong word in describing soldiers as 'slaves' here. But his other points hold true. NS is a meaningful and much needed experience, there's no reason why women should be excused from it. They are no more sacred than us men...if we have a duty to protect the nation then they too have similar duty.
Conscripting women into the army is not so much about whether or not we 'need' women or not. It's like debating whether or not we 'need' NS or not...some may think NS is obselete because S'pore is too small to be defended, but nevertheless NS brings about other benefits that more than justify it's needs.
Whether we 'need' so much women in non-combatant roles doesn't matter, what matter is whether or not our women are fufiling their roles as citizens of the land they are living in, whether or not they learn and understand the values of what it means by being Singaporean.
I don't understand how is it wrong to compare men to women. Comparison is everywhere, and Singaporeans are best at making comparison. As long as the reasons are valid there's no need for rejection of ideas.
Yah lah. You say there's nothing wrong comparing woman and men.
Then when we women want to compare give birth and our womanly duties .. you guys say cannot , like this how can?
His argument is that many women choose not to have children. But at the age of 18-35, are we suppose to decide there and then if we want to be mothers or not ? Ridiculous right?
Then how ? All women who can no longer give birth after menopause or hysterectomy then go NS ah ? Silly right ???
So are we suppose to assume ALL women will not give birth ? Or are we suppose to assume ALL women WILL eventually do ?
So women go NS.. no problem.. we take up non-combatant position.. no problem.
So those women who went for NS AND give birth.. are you guys going to pay her extra for the EXTRA duty she has contributed compare to men?
Now is unfair.. then when is fair ? When women had to give more than men.. then you guys can consider is fair , ISSIT ????
That's why I say.. you guys don't keep comparing yourself to girls..
Do what you must to bring better welfare to your fellow guys.
Compare with char boh.. buay pai seh meh ???
-
The only reason why men should not compare themselves with women is when women are seen as weaker than men. I'll definitely fell pai seh if I compare myself with a weaker group.
But women are no longer seen as a weaker race, are they?
Women serving the nation is not about fair or not fair. Life is unfair. Some women don't give birth. Some men don't need to serve NS too.
I never said women who go for NS and give birth at the same time are not admirable. I've seen female soldiers who are married with children. Nobody said they are not to be given welfare. Nobody said they are not to be given extra credit.
If you want to mention about fairness and unfairness then I can also mention the fact that more men have to serve NS than women who do not give birth.
It's true that men can never give birth. But you can't ignore the fact that more fathers are taking up more responsibility in rearing their children and doing the housework at home, sometime even at the expense of their career. There are times when guys give more than women.
We guys are now doing our job. We are bringing better welfare to our fellow people. In times of war we give up everything we have to fight for the ones with love. In time of peace we give up our freedom to learn how to defend our nation in times of war.
The role of a soldier is no less than that of a mother. On mother's day, we show gratitude for the love and care that a mother showed to her child. But to all soldiers, the SAF day is just a reminder of their duty. How many truly celebrate SAF day, or even know that such day exist?
I'm truly dissappointed at how different level of expectations are asked from men and women...we men are always expected to be stronger in every areas than women, but yet cries of 'gender inequality' is heard when we performed better.
Just go and take a look at the 'SAF Forum'. See how those guys who asked how to 'chao keng' or question the need for NS are being flamed, being called 'gu niang'. When we fufill our duties as a soldier nobody remember us because that is what we are supposed to do anyway. And yet when we request for more citizens to fufill this sacred duty we are being flamed again.
-
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
The only reason why men should not compare themselves with women is when women are seen as weaker than men. I'll definitely fell pai seh if I compare myself with a weaker group.
But women are no longer seen as a weaker race, are they?
Women serving the nation is not about fair or not fair. Life is unfair. Some women don't give birth. Some men don't need to serve NS too.
I never said women who go for NS and give birth at the same time are not admirable. I've seen female soldiers who are married with children. Nobody said they are not to be given welfare. Nobody said they are not to be given extra credit.
If you want to mention about fairness and unfairness then I can also mention the fact that more men have to serve NS than women who do not give birth.
It's true that men can never give birth. But you can't ignore the fact that more fathers are taking up more responsibility in rearing their children and doing the housework at home, sometime even at the expense of their career. There are times when guys give more than women.
We guys are now doing our job. We are bringing better welfare to our fellow people. In times of war we give up everything we have to fight for the ones with love. In time of peace we give up our freedom to learn how to defend our nation in times of war.
The role of a soldier is no less than that of a mother. On mother's day, we show gratitude for the love and care that a mother showed to her child. But to all soldiers, the SAF day is just a reminder of their duty. How many truly celebrate SAF day, or even know that such day exist?
I'm truly dissappointed at how different level of expectations are asked from men and women...we men are always expected to be stronger in every areas than women, but yet cries of 'gender inequality' is heard when we performed better.
Just go and take a look at the 'SAF Forum'. See how those guys who asked how to 'chao keng' or question the need for NS are being flamed, being called 'gu niang'. When we fufill our duties as a soldier nobody remember us because that is what we are supposed to do anyway. And yet when we request for more citizens to fufill this sacred duty we are being flamed again.
Women are no longer weaker when you compare work performance in the WORKFORCE that only requires administrative or leadership capabilities. Men can type.. women also can type. Men can write a report.. women also can write a report. Men can lead a department.. women also can lead a department. In this aspect.. yes.. I agree.. women are not necessary the weaker gender.
But when it comes to jobs that requires more muscles and a rugged environment , ofcors women are weaker lah !!
FYI. I wasn't the one compraining fair or no fair OK ?.. Mr Sean is the one constantly kao pehing about how it is so unfair for men to serve NS because women don't.
Fathers taking up more responsibilities you want to claim credit ah ? Harlow.. now that BOTH parents are working and bringing in the dough.. IT IS only RIGHT that fathers step up and take on more household and child rearing responsibilities OK ??? You know what is TIAN JING DI YI ?
Then how you want to compare women go through 9 months for each pregnancy ? You know how hard it is on the women's body or not ? You think give birth is like pooping ah ?
U got heard of the 10th trimester anot ? Babies come out already.. you know how fragile they are anot ? You think what.. newborns starts running around like a fawn ??
I saw my sister in law went through 3 pregnancy... her body lost 10 years of her youth for every child she gave birth to ok ?
Now her body like a saggy bag of rice.. stomach muscle over stretched , her hips widen.. her skin no longer as smooth as before.. her tummy skin stretch until can make a Lois Vuiton handbag.. her neh neh become saggy from breastfeeding .....you tell me lah...want to compare men taking more responsibilities >> you ok anot ?
Yah lah mother's day.. like that is compensate for the extra duty ah ? Very funny ! Singapore got no father's day ah ?
I already say so many times already.. I am not a supporter of 2 year NS. I think it's ridiculous. But making women do something that you men are forced and hate to do, does not make the whole situation any betta.
This Mr Sean is a misogynist.. are you one too ?
"more fathers are taking up more responsibility in rearing their children and doing the housework at home, sometime even at the expense of their career. There are times when guys give more than women."
-Under what kind of circumstances this can happen ? Don't anyhow bong ok ?
So now the women are to do NS.. Work and bring in the dough.. AND have to be the baby carrier...you think women are super humans ah ?
So what some women don't give birth ? Are you going to penalize the women who do because some don't ????? How are you going to balance this part out ?
Why don't you equate most women who give birth vs most men serving NS... then like that will be fair liao mah ...give and take a little here and there.. you won't be so bitter about it lor.
-
What if OLD people who collected CPF needs to serve NS ? Would that solve most of our Unemployed Aged and no $$$ to pay back HDB problems?
-
Probably many modern women do not like to be treated as a weaker gender, but when asking them to do what men has got to go through, they will throw out a lot of reasons to justify.
The fact remains that the each gender has their differences and so to speak of there is not weaker gender to talk of in the first place. It's like men will never know how women's cramp would be.
And again, why NS has to be in service to the military? Or even a cook or logistic support in the military? There are other things to contribute in the society at large. Maybe they can learn sign language and become sign language interpreter? Pick up braile and help translating other text into braile so as to help our visually challenged friends? Many other services are needed in this state!