The house 100% pay by men is not 100% own by men
-
That's why I'm looking for either a woman who loves me so much till she cant live without me or a filthy rich one ...
That is a wrong concept. In a marriage that fails, it is both the reponsibility of the men and women. If it ends in divorce, men shouldn't be treated unfairly.
But at the end of the day, when the woman runs, the man can only blame himself for making the wrong choice by registering at the Registry of Misery ...
As wat kaoshiugans says, maybe we need a law to protect the interest of men as well. -
the sure-fire way to avoid all these is not to get married
honestly there are some points that i feel are unfair..dont bother reply to this part though.
alot of times i see the money earned by women are being spent on their own stuffs. yet half the hse goes to them in most cases. and including maritiamonial assets.
the social stigma is that men must go out and earn but when they do it, some accuse them of being workholic. who doesnt want their family to live better? when it happens, either the wife gets so pissed at the lack of family time frm the guy and claims father not there most of the time for the kids(if any), some divorce and then 50% to her plus kids and limited access to kids
dun work. seen as lazy...divorce..
Note, in women's charter, kids custody mostly goes to mum. sad case is, some mums are totally incapable of doing so. the evidence if improper upbringing isnt shown by the death,abuse of the kids or crimes committed by the kid. but lacking in the innate self of the child's mind.
there are too much mixing of traditional roles,modern day stigma,old laws in new society and conflict between traditional and modern day mindset that is causing so much trouble and i believe, to a certain extent, the heated exchange some might had here.
my 2 cents worth -
i guess man here feel very unappreciated:
we serve hard labour NS for 2 half yrs but no girl even say a small thank you:
they think we man are their servants: we do we give we give in....etc...
-
yea..i got laff once by a ger for serving NS..well..her bf was exempted from NS..Originally posted by mayham321:i guess man here feel very unappreciated:
we serve hard labour NS for 2 half yrs but no girl even say a small thank you:
they think we man are their servants: we do we give we give in....etc...
n it didnt bother me once...at least i know im tougher then her bf..
n my better fitness make me a better man on bed..yea its true..its true..
-
How great is it to be exempted from NS? I don't think it's anything worth boasting about. NS is a great experience/process for boys. @__@
-
How great is it to be exempted from NS? I don't think it's anything worth boasting about. NS is a great experience/process for boys. @__@
Why don't you volunteer and join the army ? It can be a great experience for girls too.
Please note that Men DO NOT have a choice on whether they need to serve NS or not. Further more you should realise the pain we have to endure and the time we have wasted. 2.5 years. This period of time can be used to do a lot of things.
The girls I knew, most often than not are not appreciative of Men doing NS. They are not involved in it, that is why they tend to feel there is nothing to it, which is wrong. They thought it is all fun and games etc, which cannot be further from the truth. -
My health isn't up to standard. The army accepts girls, but do you think they would accept someone who couldn't run finish a lap around a schoolfield to save her life? And I'm not lying to cover my ass or to give excuses.
NS isn't necessarily a bad thing. I can't tell you how happy my brother is after entering the camp. Before that he has about the same views too, and didn't quite like it. Now he's changed his mind.
Sure training is very hard. I've never experienced it before but I know that. My brother has been telling me things too. But it's not an all-disadvantage experience either.
-
Now we have change the topic to whether serving 2 and the half year NS is waste of time or worth doing! Ha.....
-
My health isn't up to standard. The army accepts girls, but do you think they would accept someone who couldn't run finish a lap around a schoolfield to save her life? And I'm not lying to cover my ass or to give excuses.
For men, if their health is not up to standard, it just means they need more training. It is not an excuse to exempt from NS. They can weigh as heavy as Moses Lim, couldn't even run 5 metres without sweating and still have to go through NS. In fact they have to go through more months of training.
NS isn't necessarily a bad thing. I can't tell you how happy my brother is after entering the camp. Before that he has about the same views too, and didn't quite like it. Now he's changed his mind.
Sure training is very hard. I've never experienced it before but I know that. My brother has been telling me things too. But it's not an all-disadvantage experience either.
I don't know about your brother, but I can guess he is not a commando or anything similar. One thing I have to say. Please do not treat the things said by men as the whole experiences in NS. There are moments where Men feel pain, undergo suffering and being abuse verbally and mentally. However they will not tell people much of these feelings. Why ? because it will portray them as weak and useless. Either that or the army system has been changed into something that is too soft to potential soldiers.
It is certainly not an all disadvantage experience, however it is clearly a big disadvantage compared with people who do not have to serve it. The idea that it is compulsory means it is already a disadvantage. -
As what zenden had said, we seems to have deviate from the point of having unfair laws that take advantage of men. What is the womens' view on them ?
-
That's where you've gone wrong. My brother IS a commando. He's told me both the bad and good things but I can tell that he's enjoyed most of his moments inside than not enjoying it.Originally posted by socrates:For men, if their health is not up to standard, it just means they need more training. It is not an excuse to exempt from NS. They can weigh as heavy as Moses Lim, couldn't even run 5 metres without sweating and still have to go through NS. In fact they have to go through more months of training.
I don't know about your brother, but I can guess he is not a commando or anything similar. One thing I have to say. Please do not treat the things said by men as the whole experiences in NS. There are moments where Men feel pain, undergo suffering and being abuse verbally and mentally. However they will not tell people much of these feelings. Why ? because it will portray them as weak and useless. Either that or the army system has been changed into something that is too soft to potential soldiers.
It is certainly not an all disadvantage experience, however it is clearly a big disadvantage compared with people who do not have to serve it. The idea that it is compulsory means it is already a disadvantage.
And the health issue. Yes, it just means they need more training if they are not up to standard (whenever did I say they should get exempted just because of being weak in health?) unless they have something like a bad asthma or whatever. -
My health isn't up to standard. The army accepts girls, but do you think they would accept someone who couldn't run finish a lap around a schoolfield to save her life? And I'm not lying to cover my ass or to give excuses.
I am talking about you. If you feel that serving in the army is such an interesting experience experience, why do you not join in the army ? Is having a bad stamina an excuse for not joining in ? -
Why didn't you say so earlier then? I was confused why you were suddenly addressing this issue about boys instead of girls.Originally posted by socrates:I am talking about you. If you feel that serving in the army is such an interesting experience experience, why do you not join in the army ? Is having a bad stamina an excuse for not joining in ?For men, if their health is not up to standard, it just means they need more training. It is not an excuse to exempt from NS. They can weigh as heavy as Moses Lim, couldn't even run 5 metres without sweating and still have to go through NS. In fact they have to go through more months of training.
And no, bad stamina isn't a very good reason or excuse (if you like to put it in that way) at all. But I hardly think I'm a suitable army candidate. Besides, I don't want, and have no intention of joining the army at all. Just because I think (sorry it's think, not feel as you put it) it's an interesting experience, doesn't mean I have to go through it personally.
For now, it's still a common social idea that girls shouldn't join NS because it is the duty of men to protect their country (ever wonder why feminism never did cover these parts at all? @__@). I think that's your main problem about this whole issue. But since a few countries are already amending the laws about this, why not Singapore? Our government might decide to do the same in years to come. -
I understand, in a situation where no children are involved, there is the option of a lumpsum settlement of maintenance payments which essentially "breaks all ties" between parties concerned both parties?Originally posted by Kaohsiungans:But cver here, if you seperate/divorce your wife, she can seek monthly maintenance order at family court, even if she has more income than you and both of you do not have a child.
I've seen too much uncareful guys being petition by their disgruntled wife for maintenance and easily agrees to the amount being asked for. Wife maintenance is long term unless she dies or marries someone else who can take care of her financially.
As for the 50%-50% division of, for instance, matrimonial property, does judgement always go strictly by the book? Are some of the guys here just targeting the Women's Charter for the heck of it? From what I've been told, a woman can give up her job to take care of the entire household (no office working hours apply, nor does performance bonuses, sick leave, etc) and this physical contribution still pales significantly in comparison to a man's sole monetary contribution to the upkeep of the property, ie no 50%-50% division.
There was another thread I read that I found confusing. The post said a woman could promptly quite her high-salaried job, get that fat monthly alimony payment judgment and then hop right out to zap up another high-salaried position. But wouldn't the woman have to show the court why she quit her job in the first place? And ... in the event she does do that zapping thing, the man can just as easily make a beeline back to court to have the maintenance varied, right?
So what's the real picture here?
-
As for the 50%-50% division of, for instance, matrimonial property, does judgement always go strictly by the book? Are some of the guys here just targeting the Women's Charter for the heck of it? From what I've been told, a woman can give up her job to take care of the entire household (no office working hours apply, nor does performance bonuses, sick leave, etc) and this physical contribution still pales significantly in comparison to a man's sole monetary contribution to the upkeep of the property, ie no 50%-50% division.
Why must it be included in the "book" in the first place. Just reading it literally, it just implied "I do not care what work the women had done, wat work the men has performed or why they were divorced, the men had to give 1/2 of his possession to the women". Why state such an unfair law ? Whether will it be followed closely depends on the judge himself. Some of them may follow strictly while other just close an eye. Why expose men in such an unfavourable situation ?
If you are talking about women being house wives, there are also woman who refuse to work to contribute to the household income. When they divorce, she claims to be a housewife and thus get her 50% for doing nothing. Working life is harsh while working at house is so much easier. Strictly speaking housewife work is no different for being a maid (no office working hours apply, nor does performance bonuses, sick leave, etc) . Why need to give executive pay for the job of a maid ? In fact she should get 1/2 pay for being a maid since she is also taking care of herself and his husband family. Why must they receive 1/2 of men property, who may have work OT, faced much work related stress, slog through work to finally able to afford the properties they have.
I am not asking for this law to be off, I am asking that both male and female get equal protection from this law. What if it is the man who quits his job to look after the household ? Shouldn't he get to keep 50% of the properties owned by the women in this case ? The reasons are as stated the same as for the case of women. Why only make the law lopsided ? -
OK, I believe you mis-understood my reply. Plainly put, what I said was the maid of a wife can work herself to the bone and she still WON'T get 50% of the poor guy's hard earned assets. Yes, IN REALITY, the executive's hard cold cash gets him more than 50%. Now, if we could read and interpret these legal clauses and whatnots, who would need lawyers? One clause states this, you read alittle further on, another clause says it has to be read in conjunction with yet some other clause in dunno what Act. Little wonder how the common man/woman on the street gets confused and misinformed, huh? I probably got all that wrong tooOriginally posted by socrates:Why must it be included in the "book" in the first place. Just reading it literally, it just implied "I do not care what work the women had done, wat work the men has performed or why they were divorced, the men had to give 1/2 of his possession to the women". Why state such an unfair law ? Whether will it be followed closely depends on the judge himself. Some of them may follow strictly while other just close an eye. Why expose men in such an unfavourable situation ?
Alamak, please don't give the gals here the wrong idea when they literally read what you guys are saying here. Don't want them all rushing off to their lawyers only to get a rude awakening to reality 
Lawyer: "Err ... Aunty, sorry. You sit at home all day? No 50% for you. Better you go get the exec job and keep your man at home. Then you get COMPLETE control!"
Aunty : "But ... but ... the sgforums boy-boys all say I can!"
I'm sorry. I couldn't resist that -
Now, if we could read and interpret these legal clauses and whatnots, who would need lawyers? One clause states this, you read alittle further on, another clause says it has to be read in conjunction with yet some other clause in dunno what Act.
But then again, are you a lawyer yourself ? How do I know what you had said is correct ? From what I have heard from friends outside and from the accounts of male victims, although female may not get 50%, they get something close to it. They get to have alimony from the guys while women will never need to provide that. Is that seems as being equal ?
What I suggest again, is to alter the clause so that BOTH men and women are protected. If it has to be read WITH another clause, then alter men share to be read with another clause too. From what I see now, there isn't any that protects men's right as well. I do not see the problem of alimony given to men. Why not ? -
So, yah, that¡¯s what I mean. In reality, the woman doesn't get 50% just like that. Perhaps somewhere closer to one-third? Which is why I don't understand the whole insanity that's going on with the woman doing nothing and getting 50%. What makes the guys here think it's such a heaven made win-win situation for women? I can give you very real examples ¡¦ but dowan. If some fellas here haven¡¯t already done it, I¡¯ll just be giving you very naughty ideas, right?Originally posted by socrates:But then again, are you a lawyer yourself ? How do I know what you had said is correct ? From what I have heard from friends outside and from the accounts of male victims, although female may not get 50%, they get something close to it. They get to have alimony from the guys while women will never need to provide that. Is that seems as being equal ?
Divorce is always a sad thing. I've seen it from both sides - the man's and the woman's. There are good men whom I believe do suffer when they marry the wrong woman, although I find it hard to visualise a woman actually doing ZILCH at home unless she's been handcuffed to the bed But there are really bad men too. There are men who get their women to quit their jobs all for the sake of their own misplaced pride, then turn and cry foul when things go bad in a marriage. There are men who threaten their women emotionally (see, Ma, no physical evidence of manhandling so I avoid the ¡°wife-beating baddie¡± label). Who knows what really goes on behind closed doors? Laws are supposed to be set down to protect the majority, not the minority. Courts can only do this much
As for equality, sadly, I don't believe our society has changed enough for us to honestly say that men and women are on equal footing. You get some benefits here, you get some benefits there. You can't have the upper hand in everything
And, yes, I ain't no lawyer. Just have a good number of pals who've gone through or are going through divorces -
TLK, I take my hat off to you. You can still be bothered to argue. I laughed till I couldn't type for 5 minutes! It's MCP world we've been dragged into here. A world where prostitutes are respected more than wives. They don't care if you've been split into TWO giving birth to their children - children who will take their surnames (even if you wanted your surname included you could only have it attached to a hypen). You could be serving him hand and foot and you'll still be deemed as having been provided with FREE food, FREE lodging, FREE this and FREE that!Originally posted by TLK:Eeeeep. Please post all at once. o.O;
So what about that? We work and contribute to the family too. Women are no longer vases at home.
Taking care of babies? It's not that great. It's part of a father's job to do so. Besides, all the more you men should help in taking care of your own babies because we women have already settled the nasty business of giving birth. 
-
So, yah, that’s what I mean. In reality, the woman doesn't get 50% just like that. Perhaps somewhere closer to one-third? Which is why I don't understand the whole insanity that's going on with the woman doing nothing and getting 50%. What makes the guys here think it's such a heaven made win-win situation for women? I can give you very real examples ¡ but dowan. If some fellas here haven’t already done it, I’ll just be giving you very naughty ideas, right?
From wat I had seemed, the percentage is 70%. I know a lot of real life examples too and they lose out more than 50% to the wife. So why do women get 70% while the guy had to lose this 70%? I can give out real life examples too but I don't want.
The question is NOT about the percentage but why does guys always lose out in the first place. The women could be working fine and earning money as well and yet she can still get her share ? It is a win win situation for them ! Even if the wife is earning 1 millions per day, the most she need to pay for her husbands is still 0 ! What do they lose out ?Divorce is always a sad thing. I've seen it from both sides - the man's and the woman's. There are good men whom I believe do suffer when they marry the wrong woman, although I find it hard to visualise a woman actually doing ZILCH at home unless she's been handcuffed to the bed
So what are you trying to say ? Do you mean just because they do little work like mopping the floor once per week, or washing laundry, then they deserves the full 50% of what men had earned ? Speaking from the views after working, do yout hink this is fair ?But there are really bad men too. There are men who get their women to quit their jobs all for the sake of their own misplaced pride, then turn and cry foul when things go bad in a marriage. There are men who threaten their women emotionally (see, Ma, no physical evidence of manhandling so I avoid the “wife-beating baddie” label). Who knows what really goes on behind closed doors? Laws are supposed to be set down to protect the majority, not the minority. Courts can only do this much
I knew cases of bad women too. They do not trust the husband and insist they have an affair when they didn't. I knew of some women who never do any housework, never work and end up abusing their maids. In the end they cannot employ any maids. What happened then ? The Men have to work and do household chores ! When he divorce, he have to give 50% of all his properties to her ! Has the law protect these people ? This is equal you see, there are always cases of "bad" men and "bad" women. Why just protect the women and not the men ?As for equality, sadly, I don't believe our society has changed enough for us to honestly say that men and women are on equal footing. You get some benefits here, you get some benefits there. You can't have the upper hand in everything
What benefits do we have ? From what I see, women just keep asking for more and more rights untill a stage where it is already better to be born as a girl than a guy. When men start to ask back rights to make the society fairer, the girl just give this excuse "Sorry man, the society is stuck at giving women rights and men are born to be givers."And, yes, I ain't no lawyer. Just have a good number of pals who've gone through or are going through divorces
I am no lawyer myself. I just have a good number of buddies who have gone through or are going through divorces. -
I realized. It's not MCP too, but sexist as well. I just wanted to make my point clear. ^^()Originally posted by WinterBlue:TLK, I take my hat off to you. You can still be bothered to argue. I laughed till I couldn't type for 5 minutes! It's MCP world we've been dragged into here. A world where prostitutes are respected more than wives. They don't care if you've been split into TWO giving birth to their children - children who will take their surnames (even if you wanted your surname included you could only have it attached to a hypen). You could be serving him hand and foot and you'll still be deemed as having been provided with FREE food, FREE lodging, FREE this and FREE that! -
Got me there This has got to be a class assignment, right? Anyway, I will just give my last words.
Strictly speaking housewife work is no different for being a maid (no office working hours apply, nor does performance bonuses, sick leave, etc) . Why need to give executive pay for the job of a maid ? In fact she should get 1/2 pay for being a maid since she is also taking care of herself and his husband family. Why must they receive 1/2 of men property, who may have work OT, faced much work related stress, slog through work to finally able to afford the properties they have.
Sigh ... when you make statements like this ... Sigh. Broaden your horizons, kid. When women come across boys like you, all they can say to them is : Sorry man, the society is stuck at giving women rights and men are born to be givers. So stated by Socrates of Sgforums.
You might want to consider this. An executive is a broadly used term these days. Helping you along, some examples are: Admin executive possibly glorified name for clerk ; sales executive possibly pretty name for salesperson . No insults intended.
OT? What are the acceptable office hours for wives and maids before OT applies to them? It's ok, we'll generous here. We won't need to take into consideration the fact that there are executives in offices who take coffee break, lunch break, smoke break and tea break. We'll close a blind eye, too, to executives who aren't quite efficient enough to complete their work within designated work hours.From what I have heard from friends outside and from the accounts of male victims, although female may not get 50%, they get something close to it.
In a separate Socrates of Sgforums response:From wat I had seemed, the percentage is 70%. I know a lot of real life examples too and they lose out more than 50% to the wife. So why do women get 70% while the guy had to lose this 70%? I can give out real life examples too but I don't want.
Err ... can make up your mind or not, so what is it? Less than 50%? 50%? More than 70%? 100%? Cannot expect to be scoring As with comments like this.So what are you trying to say ? Do you mean just because they do little work like mopping the floor once per week, or washing laundry, then they deserves the full 50% of what men had earned ? Speaking from the views after working, do yout hink this is fair ?
Sigh ... yes. In your instance, yes. Certainly the full 50% and more of what you earn (as you claim). In fact, 100% would be insufficient because here we must take into consideration the pain and suffering your girl will have to go through if you keep this up There are many households whose floors are mopped more than once a week. Washing laundry, the easiest part, comes with ironing (don't be picking up 100% linen wear if you aren't going to do the ironing). There are household environments that aren't as trouble-free or maintenance free as yours, which could very well be the hard work of another person or persons other than you, whose efforts have clearly gone unnoticed and unappreciated
PS. Good job with the tunnel vision. And ... I did say I've seen the issue from both sides. I did say that there were good men who might have married the wrong women. I also said laws should be to protect the majority, not the minority. Not everything can be measured in dollars and cents, especially so if you can't see things from a wide enough perspective. Gee ... you are cute -
Winterblue, I see no reason why we should go on talking to these... erm... 'shi gu bu hua' men. XD!
They obviously still thinks that the present day is like the ancient era where women are nothing (and should be nothing) and men should get all the privileges (while women should grovel and beg). And erm, I do not think they are going to change their views no matter how hard we try to explain. They keep on using degrading words to address women (to talk about us) without any forms of considerations shown.
Like that comment on wives' doing housework is no different from a maid's job, I can see no 'no offense' written at all. That should be done for manners and etiquette because the way it was being put seems to be quite offensive already (comparing wife to maid? marry the maid then!).
At least when you spoke about the executives matter, you bothered to add that 'no insults intended'.(comparing wife to maid? marry the maid then!).
Quoting my own words here, I said so because from reading those comments, I do think that those guys who are acting so self-righteous and MCP-ish here do not need love at all. They just need a woman who would do the housework for them (with the special packages called 'sex' and 'childbirth') FOR FREE, and when divorced, have no need to give the ladies back anything in return (that's the best result, if it's possible. BOO! to the women's charter).
And one last note. One of the biggest reasons why girls doesn't go into army is blatantly obvious but the guys doesn't care. They are selfish. They doesn't care if girls are weaker than them physically or not. They just want to throw us into the army camp so that we can understand their agony.
Fine. If you guys are able to give birth, feel it and understand that agony we have to go through, we ladies shall all be ready to go to camp. Not to mention the depressions we might go through due to giving birth and the kids whom we so painfully gave birth to doesn't even carry our surnames but the guys'! -
that is one of the stupidest reasons i've ever heard about women not wanting to do ns, ns is about the country, not about equal rights, what the F*CK is your brain made off?! who told you that anyone serving NS has to be thrown into army camps to "suffer" along with the guys!?!?Originally posted by TLK:And one last note. One of the biggest reasons why girls doesn't go into army is blatantly obvious but the guys doesn't care. They are selfish. They doesn't care if girls are weaker than them physically or not. They just want to throw us into the army camp so that we can understand their agony.
Fine. If you guys are able to give birth, feel it and understand that agony we have to go through, we ladies shall all be ready to go to camp. Not to mention the depressions we might go through due to giving birth and the kids whom we so painfully gave birth to doesn't even carry our surnames but the guys'! -
And that's the dumbest thing I've read because what I was saying that one of the reasons (NOTE THAT I DID NOT SAY it's the only or biggest reason!) why we ladies were given the 'privilege' of not going into NS because of that special ability we alone possess among humans. So what the F*CK is your brain made of?! Can't understand simple English?!Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:that is one of the stupidest reasons i've ever heard about women not wanting to do ns, ns is about the country, not about equal rights, what the F*CK is your brain made off?! who told you that anyone serving NS has to be thrown into army camps to "suffer" along with the guys!?!?
Scroll up and read the posts about NS! Guys are saying that we should join the camp so we know how hard it is etc! Missed all that? Get new spectacles or opt for cornea transplants please.