GE 2011: Gender Equality Balance: Draft Girls to NS? Be Fair
-
Excellent post SGT-rex! But just to counter couple of points that I personally disagree with.
Firstly whether you or anyone enjoys NS (or not) is also irrelevant to this subject.The point is that us males don't have a choice. It has everything to do with gender-equality IMHO. Why should we, in this day and age, still be expected to play the protector role just because we are born as males; while female-people are not expected to stay at home to "serve their men", be allowed to only wear skirts, and all that primitive BS any more? Why is it that it is ok for males to experience violence, and even extreme cruelty and terror of war, while its considered a lot less unacceptable for female-people to even get hurt in our society? i.e. "its ok to beat up a man, but not a woman" attitude. The term "take it like a man", or "toughen-up and be a real man" is intrinsically sexist as it imposes upon every single male person to conform to the silly thick-hairy-smelly machismo attitude regardless of their individuality. But I digress.
I'm not disillutioned by the reality of things and the possibility that our neighbour might go ape-shite on us if a crazy extremist government took over for instance. If that time comes, I'll certainly do whatever I can..By using all my resources to get my friends and family out of SG in an instant (just like what I believe our overly paid ministers and foreign-talents and non-serving migrants would too).
RE your last point:
The latest so-called payouts of NSmen are another slap in the face, especially when those who had served get the short end of it.
was what precisely had got me pissed enough to start this thread to rant. Males nowadays who are reaping most of the benefits (though still "peanuts" in comparison to the time and freedom we have already sacrificed, during and after NS), while those who had already served had to serve from 2.5 or even 3 years! And we even had to abide by the military rule every year when we go back (including the rule to cut our hair short and ugly, and having to dye it black, etc encroaching and impiging upon our civilian freedom).
-
getting humans to do soldiering job isnt good.sporeans shouldnt rely oin females to carry backpacks n other heavy ordinance. what they should do is design n build more robots to kill like machines with precision acccuracy.
-
Originally posted by Phorum Noob:
Excellent post SGT-rex! But just to counter couple of points that I personally disagree with.
Firstly whether you or anyone enjoys NS (or not) is also irrelevant to this subject.The point is that us males don't have a choice. It has everything to do with gender-equality IMHO. Why should we, in this day and age, still be expected to play the protector role just because we are born as males; while female-people are not expected to stay at home to "serve their men", be allowed to only wear skirts, and all that primitive BS any more? Why is it that it is ok for males to experience violence, and even extreme cruelty and terror of war, while its considered a lot less unacceptable for female-people to even get hurt in our society? i.e. "its ok to beat up a man, but not a woman" attitude. The term "take it like a man", or "toughen-up and be a real man" is intrinsically sexist as it imposes upon every single male person to conform to the silly thick-hairy-smelly machismo attitude regardless of their individuality. But I digress.
I'm not disillutioned by the reality of things and the possibility that our neighbour might go ape-shite on us if a crazy extremist government took over for instance. If that time comes, I'll certainly do whatever I can..By using all my resources to get my friends and family out of SG in an instant (just like what I believe our overly paid ministers and foreign-talents and non-serving migrants would too).
RE your last point:
The latest so-called payouts of NSmen are another slap in the face, especially when those who had served get the short end of it.
was what precisely had got me pissed enough to start this thread to rant. Males nowadays who are reaping most of the benefits (though still "peanuts" in comparison to the time and freedom we have already sacrificed, during and after NS), while those who had already served had to serve from 2.5 or even 3 years! And we even had to abide by the military rule every year when we go back (including the rule to cut our hair short and ugly, and having to dye it black, etc encroaching and impiging upon our civilian freedom).
Nobody said war is right, but just because you do not live by the sword does not mean that you will not die by it.
Is the role of the protector a gender role? To me it's the role of whoever chooses to pick it up. When the wolf comes to knock on the door you can choose to be the sheep or the sheepdog.
I will approach this from the perspective of an antropologist.
If you want to know the practical reasons why guys are suited for combat roles and end up as such in most cultures is quite simple- the human species exibits sexual dimorphism in the fact that the males of the species are biologically suited towards the role of combat. Men on average have better spatial awareness, and a significantly increased amount of muscle and bone mass compared to women. The reasons are simple, playing the role of the protector and warrior for men has been one that has proven to be sucessful by natural selection and hence it is indeed our biological, natural role. Women excel at other tasks.
Sex is biological but gender is social... in many ways the idea of the man as a warrior/protector may very much be a biological role as determined by our nature. One of the key reasons why our soceity is filled up with fustrated men often refered to as "wimps" (especally singapore) may be the very fact that modern living does not give men that natural space to grow into their biological roles. The man is, biologically, wild at heart. It has been bred into us by countless generations. Soceities organize and exploit these instincts, sometimes for better or worse.
So logically, I see no reason why women should be forced into combat roles just for the sake of "fairness", this is irrational. Say what the feminists may, but as a bread-and-butter infantryman you are going to find more guys that are more suited for the role.
There is certianly some level of injustice if you want to talk about NS for the both genders. I am AGAINST pushing women to combat because it is counter-productive to our national defence, what is however more productive (and I am surprised the government has never considered it), is equipping our ladies to have relevant skillsets in a time of crisis. If most of us guys have to serve our time as a soldier, why can't the girls serve NS in vocations that women excel at in at a time of crisis? Such as nursing, paramedics or crisis first responders?
NS does not have to be narrowly defined by soldiering. That way, our populace will not be helpless in a crisis.
As for the militant feminists who want to have their cake and eat it, let them be.
-
I wouldn't count on getting all our family out of Sg in a time of crisis. Firstly we are assuming there is even a place to run to first. If our neighbours (may we never go to war) close their borders and blockade our sea lanes we are in serious trouble. It is highly unlikely you will be able to fly your relatives out in a time of acute crisis.
Know that you will not be the only one having that idea, and if you're middle class or working class struggling to make ends meet, don't count on anybody entertaining your attempts to get out of the nation. You're pretty much stuck.
What will most likey happen is that you're going to end up like the civilians in Leningrad or Stalingrad. And at that point the people attacking you are not going to care if they are shelling civillians or citizens.
The solution? Don't let it happen in the first place. Carry a big stick that nobody will think of messing with you or make sure your military has the means to take the fight to the enemy instead of them taking the fight to you. Even having the capacity to force-project will make people think twice about messing around. We're never going to have that kind of force projection capability with all-regular force hence the draft.
As you said, you did the math.
If something is necessary for a soceity to survive then it unfortunately must be done. The sacifices the people make for that necessity ought to be treated with RESPECT, and not in a flippant way such as fining pianists who default $3000 and welcome them back with open arms or have some MP-hopeful claim his well-paid job of "saving children" is equal to what we do out of obligation.
-
And we even had to abide by the military rule every year when we go back (including the rule to cut our hair short and ugly, and having to dye it black, etc encroaching and impiging upon our civilian freedom).
Freedom isn't free. These are the sacrifices we make to make sure Singapore has a future and is not bullied around.
That's why I am against one-party dominance of goverment and a suppression of civillian voices in local politics. If we risk our lives and give up our rights for two years to defend a country, it ought to be our country with us having a say in it and not seeing our time in NS taken for granted to buy regional stability for some very-welcoming governmental policies to get mercenaries in and double-screw us over for our sacrifices and then being given money that we can't even spend on anything except to give it right back if we get it at all.
-
Fining pianist with 3k fine and welcoming him back.
That was quite a terrific slap in the face for all of us who had done our 2.5 years 2 years etc.
You can't have everything. You want to come back to a secure SG without securing it?
-
my vote is for sg men ....gender policy has to be changed in line with the times
-
I actually think that if they want to draft males, they should also draft females. This way army boys won't be so horny at tekong. Jokes aside, drafting males only is very sexist; while males can play the fighter role, the girls can do the admin job what... the more atheletic ones can also train a minor combat role. Like that army will be more fun, people also will want to go.
Besides, everybody knows that Singapore army is a waste of time. Deter what deter? 1 bomb s'pore the island sink already. Somemore, in terms of ground combat, if malaysia/indonesia/brunei want to attack us, we lose already. Their people all generally fitter than us, more used to a tougher life. We only good at office work nia. Army is just an excuse to generate more jobs for the lesser educated people la (no offense). They should either abolish NS, or draft females also. The only female officers we see nowadays are all those fat, old, or ugly ones doing admin job. Army should be just for employing people and letting pre-u/post-poly kids have fun. Who wants to attack Singaopre and face the wrath of the international community? Joke sia.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Fining pianist with 3k fine and welcoming him back.
That was quite a terrific slap in the face for all of us who had done our 2.5 years 2 years etc.
You can't have everything. You want to come back to a secure SG without securing it?
But what if he's a female instead? Just being a female he wouldn't have to go through this shit. And what about the many FTs who didn't even have to sacrifice a significant part of their YOUTH in NS and do reservice after (regardless of their sex)?
-
-
even girls in Malaysia have to serve army, why girls in Singapore no need?