and i am sure, with money, women can too go buy a
toyboy, just like these men are looking to mail-to-order foreign
brides.
u look for a soulmate.. and u claim that a toyboy can be one? i
dun see how u can equate toyboys to mail-to-order foreign brides..
not all women can afford toyboys, like not all men can afford
mail-to-order brides.. but who do u think lose out more, a
single old man or a single old woman? a divorced man with kids
or a divorced woman with kids?
and as i said, it is obvious who will be
hired between a father of three and a mother of
three..
regarding elections, u claim that females and males are equal
when it comes to election candidates.. u claim that the proportion
of male and female population is roughly equal, u claim that there
are more female graduates than male graduates, but where are the
female? why are the men leading everything and women not given
their share? you mean to say that all those educated women are
unwilling to step out of their comfort zone to seek political
rights? surely, the women are stuck somewhere.. somewhere called
the KITCHEN..
how many men are willing to stay at hm and be house-husband
while the female goes out to work? are you? even in dual-income
families, there are conflicts and times when someone has to
sacrifice when something crops up.. and the women are the ones who
has to take a step back.. don't ask me for stats because there
aren't any.. because, quoting u, this is the general observation,
that women despite all the education and so-called abilities in the
office, are still the ones who has to be home to do the chores,
where the men only "help out".. no matter what, eventually the
woman has to be the one taking a step back to the family and
eventually depending on the man to bring home the bacon..
and what happens if the man goes out to have fun and make
merry and refuse to give money to the wife "out of chivalry"? there
is a thin line between chivalry and lawful obligation.. and giving
money to ur wife is fulfilling your obligation..
if until now u refuse to accept the fact that our society views
men and women differently, which in turn leads to a difference in
the treatment of the law, den lets not continue this topic
anymore.. quite sick and tired of this topic which is so obvious..
that when a marriage turns ugly, it no longer becomes just about
qualifications, or men and women being equal.. it may turn
violent.. and the woman loses when it turns violent..
Dragon, he does not claim that a toyboy is a soulmate, he is
merely expressing his disbelief through sarcasm... O.O
Single old man, single old woman... They both lose out equally?
I don't see the difference...
Again, regarding employment, what we mean is that the law does
not in any way restrict women from working. Even if this
stereotypical view existed, it should be challenged in that scope,
perhaps a campaign to educate companies and make it unlawful to
dismiss a worker based on sexual discrimination. It does not
justify hitting men back in other ways to make up for it.
Personally, I feel that there are two scopes in discussion that you
are confusing: the mainstream beliefs of society, and the laws of
Singapore. Just because women MAY be (I'm not even confirming that
they are) discriminated against when getting a job, that does not
justify the laws being prejudiced against men to balance it out.
The correct way to balance it out is to balance BOTH scales and not
mix them together. Obviously to some degree there will be a grey
area, but surely this can be minimised, far more than it is
now.
As for staying home to work... All couples have the decision to
both have jobs. Seriously, in this day and age, how many men would
force their wives to give up their careers? Even suggest that they
are obliged to means divorce papers are probably coming your way
already. In fact, if a couple cannot agree on a permanent
arrangement regarding careers, they aren't prepared for marriage
and shouldn't have got married in the first place. Any marriage
counsellor would tell you that the first rule is not to rush in if
you're not sure, because this is one of the biggest mistakes.
Yes, providing for your family is both a moral and lawful
obligation, but you are forgetting (or suggesting that we should
all forget) that there are some cases where it goes too far. We are
not suggesting that men should not have to provide for their
families at all, just that the lines of distinction within the law
be adjusted to be in equal favour of both sexes, while leaving that
grey area for discretion. Yes, decisions can be appealed, by why
bother waiting for the appeal? As deathmaster and richard geist (in
the link provided on caning) say: If they don't go outside reason,
they will not be hurt by the laws. So why leave the gap there in
the first place? The laws we are suggesting are laws that will not
be violated when something reasonable is asked for. We're not
saying women should not be provided for at all in a divorce, rather
there should be clearer distinctions to protect men from this
situation.
Yes, people in our society may view men and women differently. I
therefore set this challenge to you: go into any school in
Singapore, even RI or ACSI or Hwa Chong, and tell me that there
isn't a single person in there who isn't racially prejudiced. We've
all heard the chinese students calling students with darker skin
names and all that. (I shall not go into specifics in order to
prevent anyone's feelings from being hurt excessively.) So our
society perceives people of different races differently, does that
mean we support racial prejudice? No, we have strict laws against
sedition and racism, and I challenge anyone here to say that they
shouldn't be there.
As for a marriage going bad... I think deathmaster has already
proven how men can get hurt financially and emotionally, and
physical abuse is not out of the question either. (Some men may be
unwilling to retaliate and may allow their spouses to physically
abuse them.)