I believe girls should not be educated
-
Originally posted by XxYaNxX:
Is that so ?
Not true. But let him just believe it is true and be happy about it. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Self praise is international disgrace. So you very sure you don't want parn to be your gf? May be she comes here to look for bf.i didn't say i am gentleman, but nice try in interpretation there.
-
OK, you two enjoy yourself. Good nite.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
i didn't say i am gentleman, but nice try in interpretation there.
You are so much like parn, no wonder you hold a torch for her. REally, you two make a nice couple. I give you two my blessing. Congrats. You work hard to get that 30k diamond ring for her. -
Goodnight
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
You are so much like parn, no wonder you hold a torch for her. REally, you two make a nice couple. I give you two my blessing. Congrats. You work hard to get that 30k diamond ring for her.her style is to offend people, while mine is to not offend people, so i can't really see the similarity
i would debate with you more, but i wouldn't want to offend you by critisizing your interpretation skills.
-
crap.
-
wah this thread move faster than fi crapbox. wait she buay song and lock it
-
Geezz...Did i make a comment tat make Sky the target?? Sorry if i do, Sky.
Originally posted by freedom4ever:lol. from someone that tell me it is right to join the enemy during wartime instead of fighting against them.
I dun take sides nor do i go with majority. I only state wat comes to my mind.
& I will not feel apologetic if my statements is against the majority. I think Parn is still standin firm despite havin so many hated posts against her & I kindda admire her for tat. Tho' sometimes she's too hardcore liaoz..
-
Woah! It's no easy feat to read from Page 1 all the way through to Page 38, but I've finally finished. So I'm going to post my very own summary of the posts that I like (not necessarily concurring with them though) by quoting (and highlighting especially) the parts I like or find worth exploring further. For easy reference, I'm also going to quote the page the quotes come from. I will also comment on a few of those many admirable quotes. So here goes!
Page 1
Originally posted by youyayu:selfish thinking.. but in another way at looking at this.. emm i kinda agree.. cause they just wanted more $$ rather then baby
Singapore is not an easy place to survive without money, therefore, money issue is almost NOT an option. However, with the introduction of contraceptives, having babies now becomes an option to the ladies, since they would also need to go through that 10 months of pregnancy (not easy) and stakes are high.
Originally posted by Rednano:Sexism is a belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other and can also refer to a hatred or distrust towards either sex as a whole (see also misogyny and misandry), or creating stereotypes of masculinity for men or femininity for women.[1] It is also called male and female chauvinism.
Sexism can refer also to any and all systemic differentiations based on the gender of a person, not based on their individual merits. In some circumstances this type of sexism may constitute sex discrimination, which in some forms is illegal in some countries.
Sexism against womenThe term 'sexism' is most commonly applied to sexism against women, and expressed by either men or women is called male chauvinism. Related terms are misogyny, which implies a disrespect of women, and gynophobia, which refer to the hatred and fear of women or femininity.
The idea that men benefit from certain rights and privileges not available to women is referred to as Male privilege.
Historically, in many patriarchal societies, women have been and are viewed as the "weaker sex". Women's lower status can be seen in cases in which women were not even recognized as persons under the law of the land. The feminist movement promotes women's rights to end sexism against women by addressing issues such as equality under the law, political representation of women, access to education and employment, women victims of domestic violence, self-ownership of a woman's body,
Originally posted by Danielhuang88:Well there are some benefits with less educated women around. Looking at singapore, we have an ancient heritage which involves men being the ones bringing the bread home.
We never had a low-bith rate problem till now. The cause of the reason being women unwillingly to raise children and being more inclined to go out to the workplace.
With less educated women
-> Possibly more children being born
->Less umemployment figures (men take over womens jobs)
->Less people like parn (is that a benefit? no offence meant =p)
Well theres much more so keep thinking.
Page 4Originally posted by uponAStaR:take my parents for eg. my father only completed sec sch n he's now a director of a company. my mother didn even complete sec sch but she is a great tailor.. many of my friends envy me hving such a mother.. she is not really educated is she? she long forget all that she learnt in sch...
so as long as one has the skill.. she can still be very career driven... then would birth rate increase?
-
Page 5
Originally posted by Danielhuang88:By not educating women, you force upon them a limit of the jobs they can take up. More often than not this jobs will be menial which our "foreign imported labour" will take up at a lower pay than our own singaporean women.
Therefore, women will be inclined to stay home as housewives and will have more time for other things such as raising children. This is in contrast with an educated lady who will have no time for such issues.
Originally posted by youyayu:no money = no marriage = no baby
If we don't allow women to study here i ensure u.. Mrs LHL will bring one bunches of women marching down Orchard RoadOriginally posted by skythewood:According to my geography back in secondary schools, education is related to birth rate, as results from america, japan and other countries shows.
TS thinks if woman is uneducated, the birth rate will go up, not down.
Imho, we cannot just deduce that education is the only reason for low birth rates based on statistics.
I am more likely to interpret the statistics this way:
Education = helps economic progression = focus (when without measures to take care of areas other than --->) on economic growth = therefore low birth rate.
I think this doesn't mean curtailing education for women is the definite right way to encourage birth rate. In fact I think education is necessary, but we need a more appropriate education on top of our normal school stream education, and that is to educate the importance of romance, family and love to both genders.
Originally posted by Fantagf:I come across uneducated without any child. It all boils down to how one thinks about giving birth, their personal preference, their commitment.
According to a research done on Singaporeans I've read somewhere (I cannot remember the source), the lower educated ACTUALLY tend to have less children because of finance reasons. Therefore, it doesn’t mean if women are less educated, they are going to have more children.Originally posted by skythewood:there are always exceptions.
but the relationship between education and birth rates can be shown by comparing the data of education and birth rates from different era and from different countries.
this is an observed and accepted fact,
This may be a phenomenon, but the intricacies involved should be explored further in details so that we may take the appropriate measures for the phenomenon instead of blaming the phenomenon. It is much like how in the case of absence of electricity, you wouldn’t be able to use your electric kettle. But know that there are other source of heating up water like using an ordinary kettle and cooking water over gas. So it may be that people are DEPENDING too much on electricity that they neglect to see other viables, which may affect the outcome of no boiled water. What we want is to achieve the same effect, so we must be open to alternatives.Originally posted by skythewood:imagine caveman.
after hard day work, go back to the cave. no tv, no internet.
do what for entertainment? make babies lo. if you try enough times, you will definitely succeed.
so the answer to birth rates is... no internet, tv.
This gives me an inspiration.Perhaps instead of targeting education as the cause of low birth rate, target the idea of creating love and support needed for couples to make babies? We could be focusing on the wrong place.
Page 6
Originally posted by uponAStaR:Parn jie jie!! where r u??
come come... let mii educate something call the male pregnancy..
http://www.malepregnancy.com/ read on wor...
see how advance the sci tech now is? babies doesn hv to come from mothers...
Originally posted by uponAStaR:haha... it does? beer belly got so big?
but it's interesting isnt it??
some of my friends find it disturbing... mainly the guys... heehee
Using male pregnancy may be exaggerating, but just as it’s not very easy for guys to accept being impregnated, how do you think it would be like for the girls, after being exposed to higher education for so long, to suddenly stay home, have children and rear baby girls only to see them being denied of education? -
Page 8
Originally posted by crimsontactics:I dunno about the monthly thing, but i'm sure that there are painless alternatives to motherhood.
The hardship part i think is more about emotions and finance, of which they rely heavily on men for support.
So if women stay home, what are the measures to safe-guard their interest if “The hardship part i think is more about emotions and finance, of which they rely heavily on men for support”? Do the past measures work? If not, what exactly spark off feminism? Do consider please. So does less education really solve the problem? In my opinion, it doesn’t.Originally posted by crimsontactics:of course. Nine month at home can rest, bo liao can go shopping with friends, if not go drink high tea, why not? This is basically the life of pregnant women.
Its not that I want to complain about it. It is the rightful duty of a man to take care of his wife. Its just that i can't stand girls nagging on how useless guys are when they aren't even half as useful.
Many women, especially in Singapore, aren’t ACTUALLY so lucky to have the luxury of the life you have just described. And perhaps the whiny girls you said who nags are the ones you happen to come across. But I like it when you said it is the duty of a man to take care of his wife. The fact however, remains that majority of pregnant women are still out there working, gets only three months maternity leave and comes home to fetch from care taker a wailing baby. Many couples do not have the luxury of depending on only the husband to bring the bread dough, what's more, with prevalent threads advocating girls earning their own keeps too and to pay for dates as well (isn’t it contradicting then to advocate ladies staying at home when one didn’t encourage the women to be financially dependent on man in the first place?) Alright, not to go off topic, what I’m trying to say is: No education = no job = no money = no means for baby.Page 9
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:I'd like to present my view on modern social dynamics related to gender issues, slightly deviating from the thread topic. If you have the time, do read through the post.
----
I honestly think, biologically speaking, that the modern conception of gender equality is an anomaly. I'm not saying that girls are inferior, because i do have female friends who are much more capable than i am. But i somehow think that nature has a role in place for each gender, and the modern conception of 'gender equality' is a retardation of nature.
Have you realised, that in every country where gender equality is prominent, birthrates fall dramatically such that populations cannot even sustain themselves ? How can this be evolutionarily proper, that a populus, without outside interference, is wiping itself out?
Sure, there are those who will say that falling birthrates are due to economic development, leading to stress, leading to social changes. But, the root cause of these problems is the upsetting of traditional gender roles.
If women had stayed out of the economy as a whole, leaving the men at work (which has been the case seen the start of humanity), economic growth would be slower, competitiveness will be lower, costs of living would also be lower. This would mean that men can cope as the sole breadwinner, and women can play the traditional role of looking after the family. With this, birthrates will go back to normal levels unlike the current situation where both parents usually have to work.
And I'd like to ask, what is wrong with the traditional female role? Why do females look down on their own noble role as caretakers of the family? Its something that men can hardly cope with, and is a role biologically suited to the female (given that women are more sensitive to emotion and are the natural nurturers of children). In this way, there is also gender equality, albeit different from the modern retarded notion of it. In the ideal concept, each gender plays its suited part. Men, who are physically stronger, go out to support the family, and Women, who are more adapt emotionally, take care of the family.
Therefore, the point i'd like to bring across, is that the modern notion of gender equality, appears to be a retardation of natural process. It could be an undesired manifestation of the 20th century's feminist movements. But whatever it is, there seems to be a long term problem associated.
Originally posted by Danielhuang88:I have concluded that at the present stage, it would be impossible to strip women of their rights to education. Judging from the responses of the ladies, the mere notion of connecting them with "not allowed to be educated" has triggered off a scene that would be rightfully associated with the phrase "hell hath no fury like a woman's scorn".
However, we must consider the outcome of having women not being educated. I fully agree with hyperion's earlier post. The traditional gender roles of women have been upsetted and this is mostly due to rising education rates among the female populace.I also agree fully with him/her stating that there is NOTHING wrong with the female gender role of being a homemaker. Is bringing home a million dollars more satisfying than knowing you have raised and bred three wonderful and productive members of society who love and adore you? Even parn would think twice before abusing this statement.
Now let us fully review the pros and cons of this situation:
Pros
-An increase in childbirth rates
It is a fact that due to women going out to work, married couples have less children as they simply have no time to look after children. With recent government incentives, the notion of having "no money" is a poor excuse for having no children.
-Better bred children
Ever heard of the phrase "your mother never teach you properly isit". Yes, with the watchful eyes of a motherly figure, our society will have less mats,chao ah bengs, pai kias and ah lians. Less people going to ITE too. And less chances of pregnant men, urgh.There might be more benefits to this however i've been unable to think of anymore. However I would like to remind everyone that because of low child birth rates, "foreign talent" has been allowed to do the damage it has done to our society. Other ugly consequences have also been arising, I do not wish to make any mention of them.
-Cons
-A smaller skilled workforce
The most obvious of the problems that will surface, women make up a substancial portion of singapore's workforce, by taking them away we face a possible collapse of our economy.-The rise of femenism
Just look at parn, we don't need more of them around bitching about not being allowed education. "you useless men just don't like capable women like us outperforming you, pussies, pussies PUSSIES!" well you get the idea. We don't need more general rioting in singapore. Dr chee soon juan is entertaining enough.-More human rights abuse.
Possibly the UN is going to have another thing to add in singapore's human rights abuses, pushing our ranking as a facist country even higher up the charts.I regret that as a man there is a grain of chauvinism in my blood, and that involves wanting women to be more passive than men. I believe every men in the world has that small grain of chavinism, the question is wheather we choose to show it or not. Education has disrupted the intricate tradition of women and their roles, that I believe was a mistake. nevertheless the situation is as such, we cannot seek to change this new environment, for us men, the days of the nice girl who would listen to our every command and do our bidding is long past.More women WILL be educated and there is nothing we can do about it like it or not. Time to police up your D***s and adapt boys!
Trivial fact: The Y chromosone is going to die out in 20,000 years time! What does that mean? The end of sexual reproduction! Thus, we can all see this topic will be very pointless in 20,000 years time!
"I have concluded that at the present stage, it would be impossible to strip women of their rights to education."
I agree.
-
Originally posted by newcomer:
wah this thread move faster than fi crapbox. wait she buay song and lock it
I will be more than happy if fireice locks this thread.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
her style is to offend people, while mine is to not offend people, so i can't really see the similarity
i would debate with you more, but i wouldn't want to offend you by critisizing your interpretation skills.
Let you win. YOu can't be responsible for your words, so there is nothing to talk about, it is not the issue of me misinterpreting you. You and parn make a good couple.
-
Page 10
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:the biggest argument here for the point that women should not be educated has nothing to do with inherent capabilities of either gender.
The point to be made is:
If women were not educated, society would stand to benefit as a whole, not because women dont deserve it, but because women have a natural role of being a caretaker (which they excel at).
With education, women have tried to imitate and even replace the role of men, as the supporter of the family unit, and this has upset social dynamics, evident in plummeting birthrates.
-----
The fundamental problem here, is that women look down on their natural role as caregivers, and see the male paradigm of education and occupational mobility as superior. Which is what has led to this problem in the first place.
I really dont understand why women despise their own roles so much. I dont see that problem with men. Most men want to provide for and support their families, and not encroach on traditional female responsibilities.
“I really dont understand why women despise their own roles so much. I dont see that problem with men. Most men want to provide for and support their families, and not encroach on traditional female responsibilities”Contrary to what you have stated, there IS a reason why women despise their own roles and this reason has also been perpetuated by some men themselves. I’ll give you some examples, mostly phenonmenon from the further past because that’s when women aren’t encouraged or even denied the access to pursue higher education and commonly stayed home as home-makers.
Common talks of women being: 黄脸婆�没�识 etc were rampant. And instead of encouraging and providing the means to help women dress up to look more attractive or carry a more intelligent conversation with hubbies, or try to romance women to help keep sparks alive in marriage, some of these men choose to go find other women, who ironically are more likely to be in the work force (抛头露�), have more �识 to carry on an intelligent conversation, as well as an affair with them.
Media also has a part in this, but I find that it actually point out why women shrink from role of caregivers with the telecast of certain dramas. If you've noticed, dramas keep playing out this typical dilemma. How much time and energy does a woman have for a romance if she is being tied up as a caregiver? Important note here, I’m not saying that a caregiver doesn’t and shouldn’t have time for romance. I’m just trying to say that the means of trying to incorporated romance into a caregiver’s schedule has not been widely explored. Caregiver or not, all women need romance to help keep that spark in a relationship. “Busy” or “mismatched schedule” therefore little or no freedom nor romance when a woman stay home to look after children are excuses unlikely to make women NOT “despise their ‘ own roles’”.
Page 11
Originally posted by skythewood:know how much woman contributes to the workforce if we educate them? that's how america won world war ii. the man enlist (compulsory) for war in europe, the woman stay behind runs the machines and contribute to economy.
work together for more efficiency! asking woman to stay home is like divide and conquer... everybody share the load of running the family is work together
-
Page 12
Originally posted by skythewood:dude, take stuff in context...
let's just compare US with woman running the economy during the world war compare to woman sitting at home and caring for the family during the world war.
which is better?
Originally posted by soleachip:Imho, female colleagues and staff are more attentive to detail and they are more meticulous. They can put these qualities to good use at work, especially if their jobs call for a good level of emotional sensitivity to their surroundings. For example, they tend to make better writers and photographers and sometimes teachers.
I don't understand.
Why is it so hard for some forumers to understand although we have our own place and roles to play, it's perfectly fine to alternate between different ones? We're living in the 21st millenium, it's so dynamic and ever changing. What is the point in drawing examples from WWII? That era is no longer valid.
Keep up with times leh.
Different eras require different measures. I do not think it is wise to regress to using the same methods in the past just because it has worked well in the past. We need to move forward.Page 13
Originally posted by soleachip:Erm not the ones in my immediate field of work. Generally speaking, males dominate the engineering, math and scientific fields, females gravitate towards the arts, education and social fields.
Sure males are better builders, they also tend to assess situations in a sterile, objective and almost clinical way, but too much male ego in a workplace is no good. Sometimes you need a good mix of females to soften the balance.
On the home front, you're overlooking the importance of a masculine/father figure for children as well.
Page 14Originally posted by soleachip:I don't know about you guys but we're living in neither 1946 nor 1992. Why dwell in the feminist era? Move on!
As for comments from bigots who think that gender directly determines the value/worth of a person's potential in the workforce, imho it screams lack of confidence in their masculinity and it shows they are incapable of negotiating beyond conventional ideas.
The more they post the more ironic it gets because it's showing zero potential for growth in their heads.
They lack the ability to evolve.
-
Page 20
Originally posted by Detached:I for one, is against gender bias.
The issue of gender equality has been resonating through society for decades now, no doubt this world that we live in has been shaped by historically by males. But we are past that era; this is the era of equal rights, opportunities and meritocracy.
If women should be deprived of their birthrights, just to increase birth rate. I must say that is the most inane and male chauvinistic solution I've ever heard. While something so obtuse might be able to increase birth rate, there're better options and governmental policies we've yet to explore.
Lets not forget the other ugly face of gender bias. In many other countries, women generally, suffer a higher mortality rate than men because of gender bias. Remember China's one child policy? Accounts of farmers burying alive their newborn daughters. And more notably, the more recent gang-raped victim from middle East whom went to jail? I do not think I need to expound further.
As for the old testament that bashes women's rights, oh give me a break already. BTW, to the MCPs whom based their attacks on women's rights on Bible, EPIC FAIL! You guys don't even read the bible right.
The modern woman whom is a working professional and also a mother, is lugging a double burden, juggling work and her family - That is respectable, 'nuff said.
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:"If women should be deprived of their birthrights, just to increase birth rate." - I dont see how educated is a 'birthright'. If anything, a woman is created, naturally, biologically to nurture a baby.
"there're better options and governmental policies we've yet to explore." - The issue at hand is not policy, its the cause of the problem we are in.
"ugly face of gender bias" - this is nothing to do with gender bias, more of natural process. I dont know why people assume that housework and caregiving is inferior. Those people are the real chauvinists who look down on the noble female role.
"The modern woman whom is a working professional and also a mother, is lugging a double burden, juggling work and her family " - that is a retardation of natural process, putting incredible (and unfair) workloads on women, and leading to the undeniable plummeting birthrates.
Originally posted by rainee:I already said, both sides are pawning themselves.
I won't say that women are more superior compared to men, nor are men more superior than women in all aspects. There are areas which men thrive in, and there are areas which require the women's intuition and touch.
I read that someone said women shouldn't be educated because their best job is to be at home to look after kids. Sure, we would like to do that, but are men able to provide enough for us to not have us working out there? Do you know that most women would like to spend more time with their kids if they could rather than to work? But what drives them to take on a job? It is because they are needed to contribute to the household's expenses.
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:rainee, you make very good points. but you forgot one thing. one of the reasons why household expenses are so high is because women joined the workforce and boosted economic growth leading to higher costs of living.
You look at countries where women play their traditional role. The costs of living are so much lower than in Singapore. and the men can provide enough
Originally posted by rainee:Eh, sorry but I disagree. The cost of living has nothing to do with women joining in the workforce. If women did not come in, the men would still be able to do something among themselves to boost the economic growth...unless you are saying they are not capable of doing that.
It is more like the more civilised we are, the more things come up in life, the more we need to spend to accomodate those needs...those countries have lower living cost because they are not so advanced yet and they do not have so many needs compared to us. Not because the women are not at work.
Page 21
Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:you see, an increase in the workforce is one of the major drivers of economic growth. without the critical mass, economic growth would be substantially slower. women have played a part in economic growth, which is why they are now trapped in a vicious cycle which is the rat race.
This. should not have happened in the first place. Because right now, society is paying for it
If Singapore had not had such economic growth as of to date, do you think its position worldwide would be compromised? What about issues of security, poverty? Look at our neighbouring countries, The Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam etc, why are the females coming out to work as maids in Singapore?Originally posted by rainee:Even without the women, there will still be others who will come in to increase the workforce. For example, foreigners, etc. I don't think women should take blame for this.
Like this might as well say it is good for our economy not to grow, then everything will stay stagnant, our cost of living will not increase..but is that what you want for our country?
Originally posted by Detached:Really, you can continue pushing all the blame to this birthright, women and education. I won’t attempt to debate an outdated/fundementalistic viewpoint, it’s less than worthy.
I understand your stand now, really. You claimed that ‘education is a retardation of natural process which should not have happened’, ‘incredible workloads should not have happened in the first place’ and ‘nothing to do with what should be done now’ inferred that you aren’t interested in a solution.
I’m not calling you a modern day Hitler, he was a charismatic public speaker and I don’t see it in you – with all due respect. It was an analogy for all its worth.
This is a new era and a modern world, today’s society and economy had long past those days of man going on a hunting trip. If you can’t accept educated women in the society due to the “undeniably plummeting birth rate’, I’d suggest you start building a time machine.
Originally posted by Danielhuang88:I reinforce the point that homemaking is a very very NOBLE job. There is nothing chauvinistic about thinking women should perhaps stay at home to look after the children.
-
Page 22
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:It wouldn't be so much of a problem if men shared the burden of taking care of the children and the home more equally (granted that they can't breastfeed, but they can do a million other things, and their presence at home is also very important), but the current provisions for that have not progressed much since the days when women were a rarity in the workforce.
Page 23Originally posted by Master -_-:The pursuit of gender equality is central to sustainable development where each member of society respects others and plays a role in which they can fulfil their potential. The broader goal of gender equality is a societal goal to which education, along with all other social institutions must contribute.
Discrimination based on sex is often structurally embedded. In many societies women bear the major burden of responsibility for food production and child-rearing, they are excluded from family and community decisions affecting them and they have little or no access to the means of income generation.
Gender issues must therefore be mainstreamed throughout educational planning from infrastructure planning to material development to pedagogical processes. The full and equal engagement of women is crucial to ensuring a sustainable future.
Page 26Originally posted by HyperionDCZ:women worked at factories to fulfill war requirements.
What about the requirements of today’s era?
Page 28
Originally posted by Danielhuang88:It is however, sexist to deny women the rights to education, which is not what the basis of my argument is. We encourage women to stay as homemakers because men do not make as good ones as women.
Therefore, I highlight ONCE AGAIN, that homemaking is a worthy job, as noble as any coporate job out there. I do not see anything wrong with it and if women stay on as homemakers, they do not have the need for high education, however they are still welcome to be educated if they wish.
And if women don't look after the children, who will? Sure, men can do it, but not as well as women , on a scientifically proven general basis. Why do you think courts are often prejudiced to give the child to the female side.
Page 30
Originally posted by soleachip:
Like I said earlier, people who think that gender directly determines the value/worth of a person's potential in the workforce are incapable of negotiating beyond conventional ideas. These ideas are outdated and invalid in modern society.The principle here in mind is cigars are just cigars. Boys and girls, men and women are simply people. Rights, responsibilities and chances should not be affected by things like gender. A full-blown investigation into this is foolish.
Imho, we have varied roles and these roles are ever changing, there is beauty in this change because it is fluid and it represents possibilities.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Let you win. YOu can't be responsible for your words, so there is nothing to talk about, it is not the issue of me misinterpreting you. You and parn make a good couple.
Wow, thanks for letting me win.
if i have to guess, you mean winning the debate, which i feel so happy about after reading your post. and thanks for the ending insult on me being irresponsible for my words too.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
Wow, thanks for letting me win.
if i have to guess, you mean winning the debate, which i feel so happy about after reading your post. and thanks for the ending insult on me being irresponsible for my words too.
You can go on to be unpleasant towards me, it is fine. Letting you win does not mean I lose. I find you and parn really share the same nastiness.
-
Coming to the end of MY summary of this topic... woo hoo!
Page 34
About pregnancy:
Originally posted by RedizAlertz:U OBVIOUSLY duno anything abt being pregnant, do u??
& U think nine mths carrying a tummy BIGGER than the size of the basketball & weighing heavier is easy?? Gettin cramps at nite almost daily for nine mths, havin mornin sickness for the 1st 3 mths, havin weird food cravings, bloated painful breasts...& the finale for more than 8hrs.. u SERIOUSLY think it's EASY??!
Originally posted by RedizAlertz:Finally! I hav finished all 34 pages of "debates" from educations to WW1,2 to cars..wow!
LOL!! Really very entertaining thread for the longest time..
Seriously, Parn is good! Just look at all the posts..Parn has been fighting against the relay team of pple (note tat the pple who target parn keep changin..). I see tat guys are enjoying themselves flaming Parn. How can Parn be banned? SGF need intellectual feminist like her!
Page 38
Originally posted by RedizAlertz:Geezz...Did i make a comment tat make Sky the target?? Sorry if i do, Sky.
I dun take sides nor do i go with majority. I only state wat comes to my mind.
& I will not feel apologetic if my
statements is against the majority. I think Parn is still standin firm despite havin so many hated posts against her & I kindda admire her for tat. Tho' sometimes she's too hardcore liaoz..
That's all folks!
-END of highlights from Page 1 to Page 38-
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
You can go on to be unpleasant towards me, it is fine. Letting you win does not mean I lose. I find you and parn really share the same nastiness.
haha
-
tis will become the topic of the year liao
Best Awards
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
haha
Whats the joke all about?
-
Originally posted by Beautiful951:
Whats the joke all about?
he said he let me win, but doesn't mean he lose. so it's a win-win, so be happy bah.