Is the Husband being discriminated against... Family Court?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Kilfer and Ahbeo boi bois...and whoever is interested in family court dramas...
Don't say I bully small children.
There are plenty of example cases online, click the following link in blue.
Read.
May i know what do u make of the cases you mentioned in the above mentioned URL
Don't hearsay some disgruntled man on the street or forum complaining with their one sided stories.
Remember, you don't have to be a lawyer to read and understand some law issues.
Since when did i state that men are innocent? My stand have always been that both sides can be at fault and the charter tilts the odds to much in the girl's favour.Not only legally, but psychologically, and socially.
The lawyers are not demi-gods.. they are merely legal consultants to help guide you through legal problems. Hiring one does not means you must be totally ignorant about the laws.
Have a great day. Ok ? Good.
Lawyers are demi-gods. They are not merely consultants. Unless you believe that representing yourself in court is a good idea. Lawyers might go on to become judges. LKY is a trained lawyer. A good lawyer can make or break you. And the effects can be long-term.
Add : Foo Boh Heng v Leo Teng Choy - an interesting read.
Originally posted by angel7030:
Funny how you compare me with my sista jojo, that is the problem with guys, like to compare and want to be on top of gals, this aint ancient india or some weird low caste countries, the women's charter as i stated, was passed thru male judges and policy makers, so if you guys are saying is not fair, go knock those male judges head ya.The link below suggest that around that time, the movement for women went into full swing. The current situation is very different.
http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage#Timeline_of_international_women.27s_suffrage
And the funniest part is that some of you want to hv a men's charter too, OMG, i laugh until my saliva dripping...please lah. U think the female judges is going to agree to that stupid bill.
And you are right that most men dun think before they make decision, because sometime, instead of using the brain, they used their brother's 2 balls to think, that is where it goes wrong. Sotong man.
And what might be your reasons for saying so?
Originally posted by angel7030:Threatened??? by a hole? OMG, Uncle, dun bluf XMM lah. As a man, if you dun make a move, no one can force you lah, even if i like a man or wanted to chop a guy hard hard, if he dun take the bait, I also lan lan...oops sorry me no lan, should be I also cannot do anything. So, dun give me the shit that he is threatened, i think because of his flirting habits the family members ignored him and let to his lost of family live and love, many sg Uncles have worked hard during their young times to bring up a family, unfortuntely, when they get old, they feel lost and search for some holes, and right infront is some foreign women who they think can bring them back to their youth life again, and in the end, they lost their own family love. Their grandchildrens and childrens cannot live to see a sex maniac grandfather.
Similarly, if a guy cheats a girl, if she doesnt take the bait he also lan lan right? It is not right to simply think the worst of him. Such lax prejudice.
Originally posted by angel7030:
of course, just up skirt abit only, all the male judges knocked their head in agreement liao. So what you expect, dun be bad ya, afterall, you also come from a hole ya.standard charter
Doesnt this sound manly to you?
Originally posted by angel7030:
hello, the right word to use is not destruction, we hv no intention of male species destruction, we also dun wan to use plastic stuff ya, we do need men too, it needs 2 hands to clap ok.Control is the right word. Control of male species
This basically sums up the feminist movement that is going on around us. And from angel's posts, also seems to represents her views.
-
Originally posted by ahbeo:
Ai yai yai... a lawyer wannabe.
Good for ya dude.
But I have to tell ya, before you become too illusioned about that profession .
Lawyers are just like any employees a company hires. If they are good.. the company benefits.. if they are bad.. they get fired. No arguments about that.
They are paid big money because of the long working hours and efforts required of em. Go talk to a good lawyer.. and ye shall know.
And sorry.. they are not demi-gods... only ignorant people believes that. A lucrative profession no doubt.
Privileged yes, God like NO.
"This basically sums up the feminist movement that is going on around us. And from angel's posts, also seems to represents her views."
And are ya sayin, that men has not been controlling women for thy past hundreds of generations ?
-
Old grandma an arm-chair critics...are U a mother,someone's wife or went thru divorce...if not don't teach all grandpas here to suck eggs lah...what u offer is just one sided bias view ,aim is to win only
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Ai yai yai... a lawyer wannabe.
Good for ya dude.
But I have to tell ya, before you become too illusioned about that profession .
Lawyers are just like any employees a company hires. If they are good.. the company benefits.. if they are bad.. they get fired. No arguments about that.
They are paid big money because of the long working hours and efforts required of em. Go talk to a good lawyer.. and ye shall know.
And sorry.. they are not demi-gods... only ignorant people believes that. A lucrative profession no doubt.
Privileged yes, God like NO.
"This basically sums up the feminist movement that is going on around us. And from angel's posts, also seems to represents her views."
And are ya sayin, that men has not been controlling women for thy past hundreds of generations ?
Again, you are sidestepping our questions. Would you like to answer ahbeo's question which is "May i know what do u make of the cases you mentioned in the above mentioned URL"?In addition, how does the information in that URL add value to our discussion? If it is used to clarify certain positions, please specify the exact post. Seriously, I can't be bothered to read thru the URL, unless you explain the rationale why I should read it. You've wasted too much of our time by making broad statements and deliberately skipping specifics.
As for "a lawyer wannabe", may I know are you referring to yourself? I note that you dig out the Family Court Judgement URL in your post dated 14 Apr 09, 1.06pm. In your post dated 14 Apr 09, 5.04am, you said "The family court is NOT a criminal court. A family court cannot send a person to jail. Please educate yourself about the different types of court houses." You sound very much like you're trying to be a lawyer.
-
Originally posted by 787180:
Old grandma an arm-chair critics…are U a mother,someone’s wife or went thru divorce…if not don’t teach all grandpas here to suck eggs lah…what u offer is just one sided bias view ,aim is to win only
Dude , why arn't you in bed snuggling with your wife ? Got tired of her alredy ah ?
So you got nothing else to do .. come here and scold people ah ?.. Tsk tsk.. pity you.
I give you good advise ok ?
By the time you are old and wrinkly, you don't wanna wake up to a whore beside you.
So, go back to that bed.. and give your wife a good lovin.
Stop thinking about divorce, because that's just a fantasy you'll be paying dearly for in your old age.
-
jojobeach, you have also skipped a lot of ahbeo's questions in his post dated 13 Apr 09, 9.56pm and probably a lot more.
Please also refer to my questions in my posts on page 11. I shall not bother to debate with you further, if you persist in making broad sweeping statements that twist the story. I note that I had asked you repeatedly to support your statements by citing specific posts as supporting evidence, but you had deliberately failed to do so.
Everyone, look here!
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/354184?page=11
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Ai yai yai... a lawyer wannabe.
Good for ya dude.
I do not aspire to be a lawyer.
But I have to tell ya, before you become too illusioned about that profession .
Lawyers are just like any employees a company hires. If they are good.. the company benefits.. if they are bad.. they get fired. No arguments about that.
They are paid big money because of the long working hours and efforts required of em. Go talk to a good lawyer.. and ye shall know.
And sorry.. they are not demi-gods... only ignorant people believes that. A lucrative profession no doubt.
I am not talking about the big bucks they make. Its the impact that they can make in people's lives. Lawyers belong to a very select class of people. I am not saying they they are able to throw lightning bolts at the people. Only politicans can do that (well i guess lawyers do help in making laws).
Privileged yes, God like NO.
"This basically sums up the feminist movement that is going on around us. And from angel's posts, also seems to represents her views."
And are ya sayin, that men has not been controlling women for thy past hundreds of generations ?
Are you saying that we are living in one of the previous generations?
-
Originally posted by kilfer:
jojobeach, you have also skipped a lot of ahbeo's questions in his post dated 13 Apr 09, 9.56pm and probably a lot more.
Please also refer to my questions in my posts on page 11. I shall not bother to debate with you further, if you persist in making broad sweeping statements that twist the story. I note that I had asked you repeatedly to support your statements by citing specific posts as supporting evidence, but you had deliberately failed to do so.
Everyone, look here!
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/354184?page=11
Dude, can you be like.. not so emo about the whole thang ?
You ask me stupid questions.. so why do I need to waste my time explaining everything to you ? I'm not your teacher you know ?
If you are so lazy about reading the complete thread.. then why should I need to spoon feed you all the details ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Dude, can you be like.. not so emo about the whole thang ?
You ask me stupid questions.. so why do I need to waste my time explaining everything to you ? I'm not your teacher you know ?
If you are so lazy about reading the complete thread.. then why should I need to spoon feed you all the details ?
I should be the one saying what you said...
Let me rephrase that... if you are so lazy to answer our questions, why do we even bother with you further. Good riddance and good nite.
-
Originally posted by ahbeo:
Abheo, Lawyers are lawyers, because they have specialised knowledge. Much like the accountants, the doctors, the scientists....but they are just people.
It's their job to help you through the legal cases.
A good lawyer cannot be a good lawyer, if the client does not help themselves by providing sufficient informations and supporting documents to help the lawyer fight a good case.
I don't understand what your facination with lawyers, but they are just people who are more familiar with the legal system.
And trust me.. lawyers also needs to hire accountants.. and go see a doctor when they get sick. They are not experts in EVERY field.
"Are you saying that we are living in one of the previous generations"
No, females wants to move along, we want to make progress, that's why the charter was formed. We all know men are resistance to change, because the past has always been advantageous to them. This is something we recognise and had to deal with.
-
Originally posted by kilfer:
I should be the one saying what you said...Let me rephrase that... if you are so lazy to answer our questions, why do we even bother with you further. Good riddance and good nite.
Oh geesh... small boi boi's attitude.. ok. You win. I lose.. OK ? Good.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
Abheo, Lawyers are lawyers, because they have specialised knowledge. Much like the accountants, the doctors, the scientists....but they are just people.
It's their job to help you through the legal cases.
A good lawyer cannot be a good lawyer, if the client does not help themselves by providing sufficient informations and supporting documents to help the lawyer fight a good case.
I don't understand what your facination with lawyers, but they are just people who are more familiar with the legal system.
And trust me.. lawyers also needs to hire accountants.. and go see a doctor when they get sick. They are not experts in EVERY field.
I did not say they are experts in every field. They have the ability to directly affect the lives of people like doctors. Accountants and scientists are more indirect.
"Are you saying that we are living in one of the previous generations"
No, females wants to move along, we want to make progress, that's why the charter was formed. We all know men are resistance to change, because the past has always been advantageous to them. This is something we recognise and had to deal with.
I shall say again. I believe the charter should exist. But it favours the girls too much. Look around you. There is more and more chauvanism on the other side now. Men and women are both resistant to change. Thats why despite all the claims of equality and whatnots, males are still expected to bring home the bread etc. The roles have changed dramatically. Children are now sent to childcare centres. Traditional roles have changed. Some females might say that because men nowadays are useless (monetary terms). But now that women(many countries have more women than men) have entered the workforce, the supply of labour have increased which might have caused wages to fall (in real terms).
Originally posted by jojobeach:Oh geesh... small boi boi's attitude.. ok. You win. I lose.. OK ? Good.
Actually i was hoping for you to share your insights into the URL you posted. Since you suggested that we have infantile knowledge on such affairs. It just doesnt seem right to bash us and throw a URL without explaining your insights to the URL.
-
Originally posted by ahbeo:
While our society has changed.. it has not reached equilibrium yet.
Especially in Singapore, there are still wide spread gender discriminations, age discriminations in our culture and work place. Untill all these dissapear, then do we look into changing the charter.
First thing first, start with equal opportunity laws. That protect against age discrimination ( a huge problem in SG) , race, religion, gender, health conditions, etc.
When women no longer fears abandonment by their own spouse, then will they be more willing to let loose some of their safety nets that protect their rights.
Something's gotta give.
The URLs contains several cases, which one are you talking about ? I guess you havn't read any yet, have you ?
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
While our society has changed.. it has not reached equilibrium yet.
Especially in Singapore, there are still wide spread gender discriminations, age discriminations in our culture and work place. Untill all these dissapear, then do we look into changing the charter.
First thing first, start with equal opportunity laws. That protect against age discrimination ( a huge problem in SG) , race, religion, gender, health conditions, etc.
These are real issues, but the topic i believe is on gender discrimination. No wonder you said the argument is going everywhere.
When women no longer fears abandonment by their own spouse, then will they be more willing to let loose some of their safety nets that protect their rights.
Something's gotta give.
Women will always fear abandonment by their own spouse. So do men. The argument was not on whether they need protection, that is a given. The thing argument is on whether their protection came at the expense of another. An example would be Part VIsection 52) of the charter.
The URLs contains several cases, which one are you talking about ? I guess you havn't read any yet, have you ?
I am not talking about individual cases, i am talking about the point you are trying to get across by mentioning that website and what thinkings and ideas did you get from there.
-
Originally posted by ahbeo:
No, when I say guys arguments are not in sync because of what they deem is fair.
While a guy insist that since the man who brings home more of the family income should be entitled to a bigger share of the accumulated wealth. And because he contributes a bigger monetary share .. he is more deserving of the rights to children custody.
And another guy, insists that the woman does not deserve more, because she is the bigger earner..and since she is already a big earner..she does not need to help herself to more wealth from the family, and infact should contribute more to the welbeing of the child, leaving the care to the one earning less.
So which is which ? Shouldn't the later also applies to the argument before ? Or vice versa ?
Or apply according to which is more advantageous to men ?
ADD: So what is the definition of a big earner ? Does it apply only to men ? If that is so.. isn;t that gender discrimination already ?
If ye wants to argue fairness and equality.. the men needs to agree among themselves first.
Protection comes at the expense of another ? I disagree. Just because you gave a woman a chopper, does not mean she will win the fight. But if you pit a bare handed woman against a man.. she is more likely to lose.
I am not a legal expert, but regards to the property as feme sole. It merely states that a woman has the same rights to her property she acquired prior to marriage, and a man cannot deprive her of that right to enjoy the property the way she did as a single woman. So , how is this unfair ?
Add: if you are refering to a woman's assets becoming a shared/matrimonial assets.. I don't see any thing that prevents it from becoming so as long as he can prove that he had indeed contributed substantially to it.
The judge takes into consideration the contributions.. give em some credit ya ?
The links are merely to show you guys.. that you do get a fair trial. So it's really not a one sided affair. Ok ? Good
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
No, when I say guys arguments are not in sync because of what they deem is fair.
While a guy insist that since the man who brings home and earn more of the family income should be entitled to a bigger share of the accumulated wealth because he contributes a bigger monetary share and since he is earning more.. he is more deserving of the rights to children custody.
This case is fight for child. While i do not think it should be seen in a purely monetary term, money is stll an important aspect.
And another guy, insists that the woman does not deserve more, because she is the bigger earner..and since she is already a big earner..she does not need to help herself to more wealth from the family, and infact should contribute more to the welbeing of the child, leaving the care to the one earning less.
This case is about fighting for money. Who should contribute more is a private matter of the couple. But if you look at the need for the resources, the balance between need and contribution in a divorce case is pretty complex and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Earning more does not neccessarily equate to contributing more.
So which is which ? Shouldn't the later also applies to the argument before ? Or vice versa ?
Or apply according to which is more advantageous to men ?
If ye wants to argue fairness and equality.. the men needs to agree among themselves first.
Actually they are fighting for different things LOL. The first is more money = get child. 2nd is earn more take less from the divorce (assuming equal contribution).
Protection comes at the expense of another ? I disagree. Just because you gave a woman a chopper, does not mean she will win the fight. But if you pit a bare handed woman against a man.. she is more likely to lose.
Eh. This argument doesnt apply here. How can u fight in a courtroom? Is the charter supposed to be a chopper? its supposed to be a shield. And if u charge at a bare-handed person with a shield....
I am not a legal expert, but regards to the property as feme sole. It merely states that a woman has the same rights to her property she acquired prior to marriage, and a man cannot deprive her of that right to enjoy the property the way she did as a single woman. So , how is this unfair ?
Add: if you are refering to a woman's assets becoming a shared/matrimonial assets.. I don't see any thing that prevents it from becoming so as long as he can prove that he had indeed contributed substantially to it.
The judge takes into consideration the contributions.. give em some credit ya ?
Looking at this:
(c) after 15th September 1961 is acquired by or devolves upon a married woman,
shall belong to her in all respects as if she were a feme sole and may be disposed of accordingly
Does this apply to the man? No wonder people say "what is mine is mine, what is yours is also mine"The links are merely to show you guys.. that you do get a fair trail. So it's really not a one sided affair. OK ? Good.
I cant say the courts are unfair(later police treat me drink coffee). They must follow the written laws and regulations. I browsed through afew of the cases and i see alot of women claiming maintenance which is her right as per the charter. I have no idea in which piece of legistration is it written that men have this right.
-
Originally posted by ahbeo:
LOL.. this is too funny. Well.. if you choose to exercise selective reading ..and you simply cannot see the bigger picture.. that's just too bad.
I don't blame you for taking the men's side.. what can I expect really ?
A guy will fight for their rights , a gal will fight for hers.
The contention regarding the two cases is simply this. The privilege attached to the "bigger earner".
Notice how the priviledge flip flopped between the two cases ?.. oh the husband but not the wife deserves the priviledge . .. gender discrimination already. DUH ~
"I cant say the courts are unfair(later police treat me drink coffee). They must follow the written laws and regulations. I browsed through afew of the cases and i see alot of women claiming maintenance which is her right as per the charter. I have no idea in which piece of legistration is it written that men have this right. "
I suppose you don't truly understand the purpose of the document.
Women charters are similar to OB markers. You know what OB markers are ?
Like I repeated many many times... the wife can claim.. but it is still the judge who will decide who gets what.
The man also has the right to claim.. it is still the judge to decide who gets what.
Like I said before... the part about claiming is redundant to educated singaporean wifes.. since nowadays we all know each party is entitled to claim. In modern context.. it's serves as only a "reminder" for women. BUT we also have foreign brides who are unfamiliar about what they are entitled to and this portion of the "reminder" serves a good purpose.
In other words, it's just to let the woman know that.. just because you didn't " EARN" the assets with your labour hours.. does not mean you are not entitled to it.
Just because it is not in a WOMAN's charter about the right of men to claim.. does not means the man don't have a right to claim.
"Looking at this: (c) after 15th September 1961 is acquired by or devolves upon a married woman,"
Umm ok.. so what is the issue here ? It just means that the ownership does not automtically transfers to her husband mah...and the dates just states when it comes into effect what. So it's another OB marker mah.
You know ah.. the wife also cannot have a piece of your pre-marital assets if she never shows there's substantial contribution to the value of the asset leh. So what else you guys are afraid of ?
I have a stewardess friend who married a very rich guy.. but after 2 years.. no kids.. they divorce..she also don't get anything mah... So hor.. the judge is fair what. Don't you agree ?
Don't let the Woman's Charter initmidate you lah. That is just the OB marker. You should be fearful of the judge who hears your case ok ? Good.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
LOL.. this is too funny. Well.. if you choose to exercise selective reading ..and you simply cannot see the bigger picture.. that's just too bad.
I don't blame you for taking the men's side.. what can I expect really ?
A guy will fight for their rights , a gal will fight for hers.
The contention regarding the two cases is simply this. The privilege attached to the "bigger earner".
Notice how the priviledge flip flopped between the two cases ?.. oh the husband but not the wife deserves the priviledge . .. gender discrimination already. DUH ~
Indeed. Case 1: bigger earner = rights to kid/wealth; Case 2 : Bigger earner should contribute more. There is no discrimination here. Because you are comparing different things. Case 1 did not say the bigger earner should not contribute more, nor does case 2 say that she does not have the right to the kid/wealth. How can discrimination occur when you are comparing different things.
"I cant say the courts are unfair(later police treat me drink coffee). They must follow the written laws and regulations. I browsed through afew of the cases and i see alot of women claiming maintenance which is her right as per the charter. I have no idea in which piece of legistration is it written that men have this right. "
I suppose you don't truly understand the purpose of the document.
Women charters are similar to OB markers. You know what OB markers are ?
Like I repeated many many times... the wife can claim.. but it is still the judge who will decide who gets what.
The man also has the right to claim.. it is still the judge to decide who gets what.
Like I said before... the part about claiming is redundant to educated singaporean wifes.. since nowadays we all know each party is entitled to claim. In modern context.. it's serves as only a "reminder" for women. BUT we also have foreign brides who are unfamiliar about what they are entitled to and this portion of the "reminder" serves a good purpose.
In other words, it's just to let the woman know that.. just because you didn't " EARN" the assets with your labour hours.. does not mean you are not entitled to it.
Just because it is not in a WOMAN's charter about the right of men to claim.. does not means the man don't have a right to claim.
I know what an OB marker is. And the charter should exist. Just not on one side. Men can claim. Written in which piece of legistration? Claim on assets is obvious everyone can claim. But maintenance? Redundant? No its not. Its not even redundant when you dont use it (in a court of law). It does not only affect us during a divorce. It also has sociological and psychological implications.
"Looking at this: (c) after 15th September 1961 is acquired by or devolves upon a married woman,"
Umm ok.. so what is the issue here ? It just means that the ownership does not automtically transfers to her husband mah...and the dates just states when it comes into effect what. So it's another OB marker mah.
You know ah.. the wife also cannot have a piece of your pre-marital assets if she never shows there's substantial contribution to the value of the asset leh. So what else you guys are afraid of ?
I have a stewardess friend who married a very rich guy.. but after 2 years.. no kids.. they divorce..she also don't get anything mah... So hor.. the judge is fair what. Don't you agree ?
Don't let the Woman's Charter initmidate you lah. That is just the OB marker. You should be fearful of the judge who hears your case ok ? Good.
My understanding of it is that it means what the female owns before the marriage is hers. What she gains after the marriage is also hers. OB barrier? barrier to what? Divorce? How about what the man owns before. What he earns after? The law charts the paths that the judge can take. And the charter is a part of legistation.
-
-
Originally posted by ahbeo:
Geesh dude.. are you really that blind ?
CASE 1.
"While a guy insist that since the man who brings home more of the family income should be entitled to a bigger share of the accumulated wealth. And because he contributes a bigger monetary share .. he is more deserving of the rights to children custody."
what the heck....
Let me make it really really simple for you.
If a man earns more money. Should he take a bigger share of accumulated wealth. If a woman earns more money.. can she then also be entitled to take a bigger share of the accumlated wealth ?
And why is maintenance redundant ? Affect men ? How does it affect them ?
Part of the legislature only what. You so scared for what ?
You scared she take away your money ah. The most is she take half only what. You scared you cannot earn back ah. Please lorrrr......
-
Let's just ignore this jojobeach. She's not here to discuss with a rationale mind.
Apparently, she's not happy with men (for some "reason", hehehe...
), and taking this opportunity to vent her frustrations. If we ignore her, she'll probably self-destruct on her pent-up frustrations alone. But if any of you guys still want to play with her for your own entertainment, please go ahead. For me, I'll just stay sidelined, and spend the time saved on the finer things in life!
-
Originally posted by kilfer:
Let's just ignore this jojobeach. She's not here to discuss with a rationale mind.
Apparently, she's not happy with men (for some "reason", hehehe...
), and taking this opportunity to vent her
frustrations. If we ignore her, she'll probably self-destruct on
her pent-up frustrations alone. But if any of you guys still want to play with her for your own entertainment, please go ahead. For me, I'll just stay sidelined, and spend the time saved on the finer things in life!
No lah.. where got unhappy with men.. but cowards are not men correct ?
I love men.. I love to sayang men... but not the whiny type lor. can or not ?
You jealous I don't baby talk with you ah ?
Donch worry.. your time will come.
So yah.. I like my man big and strong. OK ? Good.
So ah Kilfer.. don't get so emo lah. Don't you realize by now, me and Ahbeo, we just playin da fool... have a mug of cold cold beer yah ?
-
Originally posted by ahbeo:
Similarly, if a guy cheats a girl, if she doesnt take the bait he also lan lan right? It is not right to simply think the worst of him. Such lax prejudice.
This basically sums up the feminist movement that is going on around us. And from angel's posts, also seems to represents her views.
Yo, guy dun cheats a gal, he courts the gal, and usually, the primary objective is to get body while love is secondary. If he wants to court us, he has his rights, it is not the gal dun take his bait, to gal, it is usually looking for love one, and if he dun fit the bill, the gal will reject his courting, not to say that she dun take his bait. Unlike a gal courting an old man, by the look only, you and me should know what is the primary objective, maybe even the old man himself also acknowledge it, but to him is like what the hell, life is short, play hard, i take the body and she can take my money.
By nature, guy court gal, if a gal go court a guy, the motive is different other than Love.
As said earlier, men love to flirt around and as my aunty said, unlike women, men still look good in their middle age. As for female, once the body and looks is gone, god bless us, that is where the women's charter come into the picture. The women's charter is create more or less to tell our opposite gender to hold responsible for what they courted, promised and vowed, and not to simply discard female and his childrens like rubbish, use and throw.
It is ok if you want a divorce so that you can go for your next young darling, but please hold your responsibility and pay your bills and stop victimising us. Men bad habit is they like to throw and beat wife once they cannot find the words to argue their wrongdoing.
This is not only my views, I believes your house womenfolks would had agreed with me too. Go n hv a chat with your mom and sisters or even maids or yr gf or wife. In the meantime, let me look at females seeking personal protection from their male partners. Wha, so much.
-
Originally posted by jojobeach:
No lah.. where got unhappy with men.. but cowards are not men correct ?
I love men.. I love to sayang men... but not the whiny type lor. can or not ?
You jealous I don't baby talk with you ah ?
Donch worry.. your time will come.
So yah.. I like my man big and strong. OK ? Good.
So ah Kilfer.. don't get so emo lah. Don't you realize by now, me and Ahbeo, we just playin da fool... have a mug of cold cold beer yah ?
All humans, whether male or female, have their own insercurities. Discussing certain problems with a false persona helps them make a better judgement on such topics,though some may state this is whining. jojobeach, kindly please allow men to be humans too.Thank you.
-
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
All humans, whether male or female, have their own insercurities. Discussing certain problems with a false persona helps them make a better judgement on such topics,though some may state this is whining. jojobeach, kindly please allow men to be humans too.Thank you.
Hahahaha...so in the very first place,...men are not humans at all,...need women to allow them to be humans. So lame.