Do you agree with the above statement? Personally I feel that
the Singapore government is more in favour of women than men.
The time is past where women were mistreated and womens' rights was
a big issue, in Singapore at any rate.
Especially under the law there are various instances where women
seem to get off more lightly than men.
First, there is the heated NS issue. Why is it that men are
forced under the law to endure two years of this hell, while women
are not? The line the Singaporean government has been standing by
is that "women contribute to society in other ways", but to this
day I have not yet heard a satisfactory response as to how women
can contribute to society in ways that men cannot. Is it fair that
men are treated so badly when they are drawn into NS, and that
women avoid it altogether? I mean, if we are there to protect our
country, we are doing something FOR the country. Surely in return
we do not deserve to be unreasonably treated? I shall not go into
specifics as to how NSmen can be treated unfairly because I know
that many of you guys already have dozens of horror stories to
tell. Meanwhile the women are able to use the two years to either
further their educations or perhaps begin their career/ gain work
experience etc. They say that the women respect us for protecting
our nation, but do they really? No, in practice they laugh at us
and the idealogies that our national education teaches. They are
simply glad that they are not victims of the system and instead
stand by to laugh at us. I am not saying that our government does
not have good reasons for the National Service system, far from it,
but what I feel is wrong is that men have to endure the physical
and mental "torture" they put us through while women do not. Are
women above us? Are we not equal?
Then there are the various other issues. One other major one is
the issue on caning. Why is it that when women, even schoolgirls,
are protected under the law from caning, men and boys of similar
ages are not? Why is it that girls get off more lightly? I have
personally heard a school principal who expelled a female student
say that if she were a boy she would have been caned long ago. Why
is it that women cannot be caned? Is there a valid reason for this?
I do not know, perhaps a professional in medicine or law can
provide greater insight on this matter. YET, even if there are
valid medical reasons why women cannot be caned, why is it that men
should be subject to this? If women cannot be subject to this, I
don't think men should be either. I think the rights of men should
be protected.
It is obvious, and many a lawyer will tell you so, that under
the law women tend to get away more lightly than men. Is this fair?
I do accept that physically women have been proven scientifcally to
be weaker: for example production of the hormone estrogen reduces
their ability to gain muscle mass as quickly as men. Yet should
they not still bear their share of the burden? Do they not still
bear responsibility equal to that of a man's when they violate the
law?
I wish to make it clear here that I do not accuse the
Singaporean government of doing these things without reason. Yet
even with reason, is it fair that men bear greater consequences for
just being men? I think it's time for a Men's Charter.
What are your views?
EDIT: I would like to quote deathmaster because I think what he
said is also relevant to my argument.
look at the law. it is obviously bias.
while 377a is against gays, it has NOTHING on lesbians.
when a couple divorce, the wife (or ex-wife), can gain up to 50%
of the husband's assets. ( even when she contributes nothing to the
assets). let say, you (male), inherited a bungalow from your
decreased grandfather. you were an average bloke all along, not too
rich, not poor either.
when you divorce, half of your ANCESTOR's hard earn money(in the
form of the bungalow) disappear to the ex-wife.
is this reasonable? if the house is co-paid by the couple,
that to me, splitting half-half is acceptable. but in the above
case i mentioned, do anyone here thinks that its fair?
don't tell me that this is a hypothetical scenario. these
cases are frequently reported in the news.
you can argue that its all right, since the women bears
child for their husband, tend the house etc. but, as we all know,
there are alot of tai-tai out there, who live the life of luxury,
with all their comforts paid for by their husbands.
maids to do their housework. some of them don't even have
children. so what is their justification in claiming 50% of their
spouse assets?
and since this discrimination against men is written in the law,
linking back to the question, doesn't it tells us that our
government does not support sexual equality?
doesn't it shows that the government does not protects men's
rights as vigorously as it protects women's rights?
Another issue is regarding hair length. In our mordern society
it is no longer frowned upon for men to have hair styles with long
hair. Yet under MOE regulations most, if not all, our schools
requires boys to have their hair short, while girls are allowed to
retain their hairstyles as long as they keep it tied up. Even
during reservice training, our men go in only to come out bald
again. What if someone was working as a model for an agency and was
picked by a designer to do a certain job? Then he gets called in
for reservice and BAM he's lost a job because he no longer has the
look that the designer wants to model.
I think Singapore's laws and rules need to be relevant to the
times. Many schools claim to be "geared to the times" but clearly
this is not entirely so. For boys, having a short haircut
apparently means that they are "disciplined". So that means girls
are allowed to run around "undisciplined"? A haircut does not make
a man's character. Below is a link to a blog writing about such
experiences with NS training. Read to the bottom of the page.
=)
http://singaporepeasants.blogspot.com/2007/07/non-replies-and-salaries.html
Another fantastic link provided by deathmaster again regarding
caning:
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/singapore/TI4P234TIAJ7G27GL/p3#lastPost
(Comments written by richard on that page are
exceptionally persuasive.)
