I beleive the idea of this women's charter in 1961 was to protect the rights of women to enable them to voice out and act upoun grievances in times of dire injustice of human rights. But in Singapore, why is it being used and abused by women to gain material assets? The purpose of the law was to protect women, not discourage marriage, encourage separation, gain an unfair share of matrimonial assets which exactly what it is doing right now.
While its true that women were less educated in the past and this women's charter was there to protect them. But now with Singapore as a developed country , strong security rule of law and effective law enforcement, what purpose does this women's charter serve now?
There are many other avenues to voice out and prove grievances
All i can see it a reversal where the abuse of the charter isnt impossible . An amendment was passed to the Women's Charter in 1996, which focused around rights regarding domestic abuse and matrimonial assets. But times have changed and women are no longer that subservient group of people, and so are the men who grew up under women who raised them during the feminine movement of the world.The again, it's high time to do some amendments to the women charter. Unlike the past, women these day are not as naive and uneducated compared to the past.
Women these days are educated, some are smarter than men and in some cases, more scheming than men.
The outdated women's charter therefore become an ideal and formidable weapon if women have the right knowledge on manipulating it and you can't deny the possiblity.
i mean i'm sure some of you have heard stories of how a men's life is destroyed after a divorce which forces the men to pay ridiculous sum of alimony with respect to their salary etc
there was this one story of a man earning $800 a month, supporting his son in NTU, barely making end's meet but his ex wife earning $3000 suing him for not being able to keep up with alimony?
when women plot on exploiting to their advantage, its time to rethink the women's charter. many see it as the main reason for falling birthrates, high divorce in singapore as a nuptial knot to a singaporean women means being at the mercy of the Women's Charter as educated women now are ever more scheming, merciless and greedy as much as their uneducated counterparts in the 3rd world countries. The Women's Charter possibly gives them a license to kill and gain from a divorce or maintenance legal suit. There will always be a segment of females who are bent on exploiting the Charter for their own selfishness.They demanded full rights, they got it. but at the same time wanted extra treatment.
Demanding for the right to work, for equal social status is fair. But belittling man, degrading them to slavery is a not.
Though the Women's Charter was a step forward in human rights, its also a step backwards the very same human rights aspects as it rewards women at the expense of men with the amended version
The Women's charter has helped many women in the past but now it the real victims are in fact - Women themselves.They accquired a clichéd mentality tat they can get away with anything exploitive under the cover of the Women's Charter.-no conformity- no rules,- only an individualistic mind.
For every credit this women receive from the law, it will hit back at their own future and that of their good sisters as well.
Society as a whole becomes dysfunctional in terms of marriage and procreation due to the paranoia created in men in tying the knot with a singaporean woman.But having a strong charter to protect women, makes SG men more desirable to foreign women compared to other countries who don't protect their women when they marry their local men.
The women's Charter has created fear and paranoia of women in Singapore and in a true sense screwed women more than it did to men
Definately guys dont like women's charter.
Guys lost out quite alot.
A number of divorced men are affected by it and thus learn to be precautious
I sometimes feel Singapore men to be quite spineless.
there was this one story of a man earning $800 a month, supporting his son in NTU, barely making end's meet but his ex wife earning $3000 suing him for not being able to keep up with alimony?
That was a very sad case.
If u ask me in countries like Japan, it should be enforced but its pretty useless in Singapore to follow the women's charter and besides, the matrimonial assets component found in it results in exploitative behavior.
Originally posted by ztreyier:I sometimes feel Singapore men to be quite spineless.
We can always get more humble and obedient foreign brides
Cheaper to hire a hitman to take em' out.
Drop flower pot on head $1000, Car accident $5000
Originally posted by ☃®:We can always get more humble and obedient foreign brides
Seems like PAP screwed up everything with their social engineering policies. They are good for nothing. The worst is that racist lky and his complete rubbish theories on human beings.
Any link with local guys prefer to marry foreign bride than locals?
spineless or not is a subjective matter...men could also term women who go for security as selling themselves like prostitutes.."unlicensed" prostitutes to be exact...it's a trading clause cloaked in the name of "love"...
becoming too cynical this topic. But my neighbour are both singaporeans and they love each other very much.
Women have changed now. They also rape, murder, steal and engage in illegal activities.
still subjective..the rise of singles is a social fact...and it is greatly effected by the system and policies....support whatever.....without which where do all charity shows have a place on tv set today...it is fully backed by the system and well promoted by it
Originally posted by Fcukpap:spineless or not is a subjective matter...men could also term women who go for security as selling themselves like prostitutes.."unlicensed" prostitutes to be exact...it's a trading clause cloaked in the name of "love"...
U mean they have no financial security when they were single? Even if they did marry a man with a lower income, their financial security will only rise and not fall due to combined income
we have overlooked the costs of liability of men upon divorce...it is much greater and did much arm not only financially but also mentally ....it is superficial not to look at the total costs
women's status has changed...there is a need to amend accordingly to balance with that for men....in that way could social balance be sustained
Fcukpap, your nick sound familar......somewhere in another forum?
Originally posted by Fcukpap:women's status has changed...there is a need to amend accordingly to balance with that for men....in that way could social balance be sustained
Agreed. Women is already on par with men.
Originally posted by likeyou:Any link with local guys prefer to marry foreign bride than locals?
It was already known years ago since 2002. Singaporean women seem to be money minded and scheming = higher risk of divorce and women's charter coming into play
if there are Men in White...i m one of the Men in Black ...i be anywhere i could if my brothers suffer...Men in Silence has a long history...let's break the tradition - what gentleman? what the saint? all at our expense to help women...we do not need a prefix before the word man....we are men...unabashedly
So in the context of grave social inequalities between men and women, the Women's Charter was a noble attempt to, in every way possible, to require husbands to treat their wives as equal partners. It was okay during those days to have one-sided obligations; after all, inequality then too was one-sided (okay, maybe 99.999 percent). However, the egalitarian instincts of the Women's Charter has gone awry as socially, the status of women have progressed to a point where some obligations placed on husbands by way of the Woman's Charter in certain factual contexts are un-egalitarian instead.
The obligation for a man to maintain his wife starts during marriage.
Section 69(1) provides :
"Any married woman whose husband neglects or refuses to provide her reasonable maintenance may apply to a District Court or a Magistrate's Court and that Court may, on due proof thereof, order the husband to pay a monthly allowance or a lump sum for her maintenance."
Only in the continuation of total existing social inequalities between men and women may such a one-sided obligation make any sense. Take a very likely scenario: a handicapped (or sick) husband with a wife who earns a sufficient income to provide for his needs. It is ludicrous that in such a case, the wife will not be obliged to provide for the husband. While the intention and spirit of Section 69(1) is commendable, as it requires husbands to take care of their wives when they can afford to and when their wives are dependent on them; it becomes equally callous to then not oblige the wives to do the same in a similar situation. The expression in Section 46(1) is clear - "the husband and the wife shall be mutually bound to co-operate with each other in safeguarding the interests of the union."
Originally posted by ☃®:It was already known years ago since 2002. Singaporean women seem to be money minded and scheming = higher risk of divorce and women's charter coming into pl
Sin women earning power on par liao.
They got right to say this and that.
if there are Men in White...i m one of the Men in Black ...i be anywhere i could if my brothers suffer...Men in Silence has a long history...let's break the tradition - what gentleman? what the saint? all at our expense to help women...we do not need a prefix before the word man....we are men...unabashedly
if there are Men in White...i m one of the Men in Black ...i be anywhere i could if my brothers suffer...Men in Silence has a long history...let's break the tradition - what gentleman? what the saint? all at our expense to help women...we do not need a prefix before the word man....we are men...unabashedly