Singapore government does not support sexual equality

last SG · 2008-05-30T06:20:38+00:00

Alamak.. like that is cheat meh ?That is a business transaction lah.The old man pay money.. and get a young chick to be his companion for 2 hours.Cheat is wh...

deathmaster SG

im sure the caning process goes beyond just skin repairing.. it goes to the flesh too..

and how do u test the pain endurance of a female? I don't even know how to start saying this, but isn't it already known that women tend to KO more easily when dealt with pain? or is this another misconception of mine and the whole world's dat is disproved suddenly after thousands of years?

that a punch to a man and a punch to a woman will yield quite a different result? no?

and as i stated initially, men and women are unequal, by physique, and by society's views, thus the treatment will automatically be unequal.. of coz, then ur points are to argue abt the minority.. to which i said, every law cannot satisfy every individual, and the implementing of new laws, if not done carefully, will only serve to upset more people than the number of people it can pacify..

and if u read my posts earlier, u would have realised that i already said that the laws are unfair, to protect the victims.. just that the bad apples are abusing it.. and if u made it equal, abuses from the other side will come in.. so we have to limit the sufferings of the victims to as low as possible, because sadly, we cant remove it completely.. and i did say that if a new law that comes in can reduce the number of ppl who abuse the law to their advantage, all the better no?

but u are talking about criminals you know? you shouldn't spare them, as they are in for jail and caning because they commited violent crime.

if they don't spare the public, why should the public spare them?

just because they may be weaker, women are not necessary more harmless. in fact, a woman can kill you as easily as a man. all it takes is a decent weapon.

imagine, a woman goes around and stab people with a knife, severly injuring people, but din somehow manage to kill them. in this case, she would most likely be jailed for manslaughter, while a man commiting a similar offense will easily get caning on top of life imprisonment.

my point is that female criminals are no less hardy than a male. spare them, and they will commit the same crime again.

MrSean SG

Purpledragon: Well you are right that women do experience more pain depending on their estrogen levels.

Yes pain can be detected with PET scans to monitor brain activity in the part of the brain that controls endorphin release.

A study found that women experience differing amounts of pain depending on their estrogen levels, which fluctuate throughout their menustral cycle.

When their estrogen levels were highest, pain levels were roughly the same as what men reported.

When their estrogen levels were lowest, the pain reported was worse.

So actually, it is rather difficult with women in that their pain levels will vary over time. What could be a viable solution for this? Allow women to pick which time of the month they want their caning to commence? This is a more tricky one I guess.

With regards to your point about the laws being equal... Perhaps we have misintepreted you in the sense that you didn't mean the laws shouldn't be equal per se, just that the actual amount of pain experienced should be equal. Is that your point?

Also, I still don't really see what you mean that the laws are made unfair to protect the victims. Technically, if the laws were fair, both sides would receive equal and adequate protection.

Deathmaster: I think you misunderstand him, he doesn't mean that women should be spared the cane, but that because of the natural differences in the human body of men and women, women may experience pain differently, to a greater depth, specifically when their estrogen levels are low.

This is a rather tricky situation because pain from the cane lasts for a long period of time, several months at least to my knowledge. This means that through their menustral cycle, they will experience pain at different levels at different times.

To be fair, though, I think we misunderstood him because he did not explain what he meant very clearly.

You can read about the study I quoted here: http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2003/painbrain.htm

deathmaster SG

Also, I still don't really see what you mean that the laws are made unfair to protect the victims. Technically, if the laws were fair, both sides would receive equal and adequate protection.

exactly. what they have been discussing all along is so oxymoronic, to make law unfair so that it will be fair.

its like huh???????????????

MrSean SG

@deathmaster: So, taking into account my current intepretation of what he's said, do you agree with him?

purpledragon84 SG

lol.. maybe my english sux.. but ok.. again i put forth an example..

everyone working is subjected to income tax..

will u mete out a flat tax of 50k annually to everyone that works? or a tax of 10% of a person's annual wage?

that's my stand for caning. The end.

now comes what i mean for the law as a whole or rather..

why was the women's charter set in the 1st place?

to protect women from men who were abusive towards them, correct?

did the people who set it up think that women will abuse it? maybe not..

now if a men's charter were to be set up, what makes u think that the same few abusive men will not use it to their advantage?

again, lesser of the two evils..

no women's charter, men abuse women

got women's charter, women abuse WC..

got men's charter, men abuse MC..

when women in marriage abuse men, it's financially, verbally, almost never physically..

when men in marriage abuse women, it's financially, verbally, and physically..

As i said, a society, based on the majority, will not accept men abusing women, they will rather take the chances of women abusing men because that's the lesser of the two evils..

and a law of a society will definitely have to suit the beliefs of the society, based on the majority..

and like i said before, minority will raise issues(eg. MrSean and deathmaster), but sadly, minority are always sacrificed, and like i said before, unless the men's charter can further reduce the number of minority, implementing it will only lead to more ppl raising issues..

BadzMaro SG

You guys should ask yourselves where did all these come from ?

787180 SG

The Women’s Charter is unlikely to be changed-just look at the no of female voters,u’ll get the hint,government unlikley want to rock the female voters who are likely to support current government.

With more foreign women esp from PRC ,open > to abuse as these creatures from China are gd in exploiting these loopholes

oxford mushroom SG

Medically, there is no reason why women should be spared caning. A young healthy woman is definitely more able to withstand caning than an older man with health problems. All offenders sentenced to caning have to be certified fit to do so by a doctor.

As such, the law does not treat men and women equally.

MrSean SG

As such, the law does not treat men and women equally.

You're right, they're more than capable of withstanding a caning, but due to their hormonal fluctuations, when estrogen levels are low they feel pain more than men do... Yet when estrogen levels are high, they feel pain roughly equal to what men experience. Should this be taken into account if new laws allowing women to be caned were established? This question has been posed to anyone willing to provide their views.

Personally, I think it does not really matter and unless anyone can provide an innovative solution to overcome this problem, it should not need to be considered. The reason is this: at any one time, the pain experienced from caning will still be proportionate to pain experienced from other incidents (say, an inmate knocked her arm on something hard), and therefore will still bear the same significance relative to other situations. Although the pain experienced may be more relative to what a man feels, relative to everything else a woman feels the pain from caning will still be proportionate. I hope my explanation was not too complex...

Purpledragon: If equal rights were given under the law to both sexes, it would lower the chances of the system being abused. The reason the system can be abused is because men do not have an equal amount of protection under the law. There is simply no reason to discuss lesser evils or greater goods, because there is an absolute good in this case.

In any case... How can we be considered the minority, it's half the damn country involved!

Badzmaro: I don't understand what you mean... Where did all what come from?

jojobeach SG

In any case... How can we be considered the minority, it's half the damn country involved!

Badzmaro: I don't understand what you mean... Where did all what come from?

Haiz Mr Sean.... when you are of legal age... I give you money to go get yourself a young chick from Geylang for one session.. ok ?

Then you may understand that men and women are actually very different.

purpledragon84 SG

In any case... How can we be considered the minority, it's half the damn country involved!

Badzmaro: I don't understand what you mean... Where did all what come from?

yandao.. equal rights will lead to lower chances of system abuse but it does not mean lower chances of ACTUAL abuse..

and not all men think that women's charter is wrong.. all unfair, because they know that eventually, the men have a physical advantage over women, and eventually, when fights start, women lose.. and the purpose of the women's charter is to protect the women when the fight starts, and not to help women reap the men off..

that is probably what badzmaro mean.. that in any case, there are always ppl who spoil the market and abuse the system, no matter how hard u try to maintain it well..

VoiceofReason SG

I shudder at the utter lack of intelligence displayed in your reply, "purpledragon".

Surely, you must have been educated?

It is being purported that there is need for balance to be restored, and the fixing of the weak spots in the system, to which you have no reply for but.. ".. there willl always be imperfections".

I am bewildered at the lack of intelligence in that statement.

[quote=]

that is probably what badzmaro mean.. that in any case, there are always ppl who spoil the market and abuse the system, no matter how hard u try to maintain it well..[/quote]

So, as above, does this mean we should not strive to perfect the system as much as we can? Or do you concede that the system is unfair but we should perpetuate it just for.. some PC feminist drivel?

@ Jojo: Typical feminist replies. Missing the point, throwing out personal insults, running away from the argument at hand, coming up with bizzarre personal anecdotes and citing them as wholesale proof... the list goes on.

Please, for the love of jesus, read through the replies directed to you.

In essence, you are reluctant to give up anything which is...expected for a feministic women. Princess, the world doesn't belong to you. Chivalry is a privilege, not an expectation.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, the same way you cannot laud yourself as my equal(as if, haha) and enjoy unequal privileges. Privileges, such as aforementioned, are for the weak. Don't be weak.

-VoR

purpledragon84 SG

erpz..

i did mentioned that if the implementing of yet another system will only serve to cause more issues, we shouldn't do it at all..

so u mean to say that it is ok to fill up a hole with sand dug from another hole..?

and i think u have misunderstood me.. i do not think that we should just let it rot, but rather, to improve it.. but will a men's charter as per stated be able to do that? i don't think so.. just like women have abused the WC, what's to stop men from abusing a men's charter?

jojobeach SG

I shudder at the utter lack of intelligence displayed in your reply, "purpledragon".

Surely, you must have been educated?

It is being purported that there is need for balance to be restored, and the fixing of the weak spots in the system, to which you have no reply for but.. ".. there willl always be imperfections".

I am bewildered at the lack of intelligence in that statement.

[quote=]

that is probably what badzmaro mean.. that in any case, there are always ppl who spoil the market and abuse the system, no matter how hard u try to maintain it well..[/quote]

So, as above, does this mean we should not strive to perfect the system as much as we can? Or do you concede that the system is unfair but we should perpetuate it just for.. some PC feminist drivel?

Please, for the love of jesus, read through the replies directed to you.

In essence, you are reluctant to give up anything which is...expected for a feministic women. Princess, the world doesn't belong to you. Chivalry is a privilege, not an expectation.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, the same way you cannot laud yourself as my equal(as if, haha) and enjoy unequal privileges. Privileges, such as aforementioned, are for the weak. Don't be weak.

-VoR

Voice of Reason ?...LOL.... where's the reasons in your postings ?? Bwahahahahh....

Ofcors the whole world don't belong to me.. now stop being so stupid will ya ?

You don't want to believe my stories.. then go out there and seek them yourself !!

There will be tons of stories for you to start believing what you thought were nonsense I've been sprouting.

Unequal priviledges ? Don't tell me about unequal priviledges until you've castrated yourself ok ?

You guys just wanna come here and complain like a little old lady.

When ask what kinda solution you think is best, I get no answer.

Why should I have to keep repeating myself when you guys are not willing to compromise anyway?

Like I said.. if you guys come out from your father's ass , I got nothing to say.

At least purpleD knows the difference between men and women.

If you are a virgin, just say so.

And NO, I'm not gonna pay for your session in Geylang if that's what you're hoping to get.

MrSean SG

yandao.. equal rights will lead to lower chances of system abuse but it does not mean lower chances of ACTUAL abuse..

that is probably what badzmaro mean.. that in any case, there are always ppl who spoil the market and abuse the system, no matter how hard u try to maintain it well..

Well in this case... Actual abuse happens to be the same thing as system abuse, doesn't it...? I dunno I'm kinda confused again.

Purpledragon, again, women do not always lose... I mean, like for instance richard's post in the link regarding caning, he was sexually abused as a child and yet the offender was not punished as heavily as she should have been.... (Was she punished at all? I can't remember.) Even in the case of divorce, we've all heard the story of the woman bullying the man and crushing him emotionally, even possibly physically where he may be unwilling to retaliate... Yes the women's charter is to protect women in the event that a relationship rots to the point of a divorce, so why can't a men's charter do the same? Can you name a specific example of how a man could abuse the system if a men's charter was started? That way maybe I would understand what you're trying to put across more clearly.

MrSean SG

Haiz Mr Sean.... when you are of legal age... I give you money to go get yourself a young chick from Geylang for one session.. ok ?

Then you may understand that men and women are actually very different.

Men and women are very different. White Americans are very different from African Americans.

Yet we still fight for racial equality. Different races in the US: Everyone from the main whites, the blacks, the hispanics and everyone else, all of them are different biologically. Some are more susceptible to certain diseases than others due to genetic predispositions. Yet I'm quite sure that no one here would oppose racial equality because we all know how important it is.

There is a subtle difference between just being different and being unequal. In the eyes of the law, they may appear to be the same thing, but I think that has to change.

deathmaster SG

In essence, you are reluctant to give up anything which is...expected for a feministic women. Princess, the world doesn't belong to you. Chivalry is a privilege, not an expectation.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, the same way you cannot laud yourself as my equal(as if, haha) and enjoy unequal privileges. Privileges, such as aforementioned, are for the weak. Don't be weak.

-VoR

yes, VoR, you struck the nail on the head. feminists always want to push for more rights, and also at the same time expect to retain their privilege from an earlier era.

Chivalry is conceive in a period where women, undeniably, has a lower social standing in society. nevertheless, it's application is solely optional, and there is no law stating that you must pay respect to women, nor to allow them any legal advantage.

chivalry is an act of the willing, where men exhibit chivalry to those deserving females.

ie. you show respect to an elderly lady, helping her cross the road etc. but you don't give a damn about female thieves. only those worthy are respected.

respect for any person, be it male or female, is to be earned. only when you earned that person's respect then can you command his or her respect. you don't demand respect.

and purpleD, the point about "you cannot laud yourself as my equal(as if, haha) and enjoy unequal privileges."

i think ur analogy is off tangent. in fact, it more like:

2 person earn $50k each, in the same position in the same company. but 1 is taxed 20% while the other is not taxed at all.

if you still can't see the link, here's a more direct example:

a man molest a teenage girl, he gets jailed and 12 strokes of caning.

an indonesian maid rape her employer's 2 yr old son, she gets jailed for a few months followed by deportation. (was reported in the papers before. employers caught her in the act on film)

is this equal treatment to criminals? just because the person who commited the offense is a women doesn't make her a lesser criminal.

jojobeach SG

Men and women are very different. White Americans are very different from African Americans.

There is a subtle difference between just being different and being unequal. In the eyes of the law, they may appear to be the same thing, but I think that has to change.

I suggest you go find out more about divorces in Singapore.

You can go talk to a family lawyer.

He/She will explain to you the complexities more clearly than any of us here can provide with our half baked knowledge.

Your feeling of unequality stems from your lack of knowledge.

Ranting on and on about how men are being taken advantages of by women via the Women's Charter , will not get you anywhere.

What you need is some solid answers from someone who really know the works.

So kid, stop wasting your time here.

jojobeach SG

yes, VoR, you struck the nail on the head. feminists always want to push for more rights, and also at the same time expect to retain their privilege from an earlier era.

chivalry is an act of the willing, where men exhibit chivalry to those deserving females.

ie. you show respect to an elderly lady, helping her cross the road etc. but you don't give a damn about female thieves. only those worthy are respected.

respect for any person, be it male or female, is to be earned. only when you earned that person's respect then can you command his or her respect. you don't demand respect.

and purpleD, the point about "you cannot laud yourself as my equal(as if, haha) and enjoy unequal privileges."

i think ur analogy is off tangent. in fact, it more like:

2 person earn $50k each, in the same position in the same company. but 1 is taxed 20% while the other is not taxed at all.

if you still can't see the link, here's a more direct example:

a man molest a teenage girl, he gets jailed and 12 strokes of caning.

an indonesian maid rape her employer's 2 yr old son, she gets jailed for a few months followed by deportation. (was reported in the papers before. employers caught her in the act on film)

is this equal treatment to criminals? just because the person who commited the offense is a women doesn't make her a lesser criminal.

Priviledge from an earlier era ?? How laughable.

Dude, in the early era.. women stays at home and men goes to work to bring home the bacon.

Now, men expect women to bring home the bacon AND give birth to his offsprings AND take care of the family while the men "help out".

Not only is she expected to do all the above.. she also needs to know how to groom herself so he can be proud of her. That's why so many women goes under scalpel just to make herself look good for her husband.

In the older days.. mothers are frumpy and they don't need to even bother dressing up. But their hubby accepts them as they are because that's how it is after child birth.

Now, when the wife loses her pre-pregnancy body.. he thinks she is too fat and ugly for him and goes out and find himself a nice young chick.

Women nowadays needs to be a SuperWoman. Priviledge my ass.

MrSean SG

Jojobeach: I am not suggesting that this inequality exists only between a married couple. In fact, between a married couple, they obviously would have each other in the highest respect, or why would they have got married?

I am suggesting that this inequality extends far beyond that, between people who otherwise have no relationship between themselves at all. It extends to the furthest depths of society. It's a question of principles and of impartiality as to the rights granted to men and to women. This does not solely exist between couples who personally know each other. We feel we are undervalued by our own government, and for all the work we do for our country, little thanks do we get in return. We feel that where there are rules and laws, one eye is on the men, and the other eye is closed. Where there are regulations, even ones without good reason, half our population is subject to them while the other half sneak their way past, unnoticed.

The requirements you named, those are requirements set upon women by social standards. Our men are not without these too, and we do not complain for them. What we are against is that under the law we are forcibly subject to stricter regulations than women are, where they are undeserving of special treatment. These are laws set by the leaders of our country, and all are fully obliged to follow lest we face punishment. When you do not abide by those social standards, you do not go to jail, you're just held in lower regard by the people. Those are unwritten rules set forth by our people; the key to changing that is a campaign to change the mindset of people.

We're not even asking for that. All we're asking for is a little official impartiality. Something to show that at least, on the surface, our government does not blatantly discriminate against us unfairly, whether society may or may not. How does this reflect on the Singaporean government, for one? There are boards to which international netizens read, and when they read of these double standards, their impression of Singapore is that we are a second-standard country and society, geared to traditionalist beliefs that may no longer stand but still steadfast in our belief that this is the way things must be.

Surely by now, even though you may not agree with all our views, your eyes have been opened to the fact that we do not share equal privileges with the women.

« Previous Page Next Page »