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...

MrSean SG

No, I never say she marries him for wealth alone. He is a very charming guy, very caring and family oriented, every woman's dream of a husband.

However, she didn't want children, and her hubby wants at least 3. With her kind of job, 3 kids will mean her career needs to be sacrificed.

If a wealthy man wants to marry a less wealthier woman, is he willing to sacrifice his lifestyle to match hers because of equality ?

If you want both to contribute fairly in terms of expense. A woman with lesser earnings cannot live in the same household as the man with higher earnings. Is this how you want your family to be ???

Well, since a wealthy man is not willing to base divorce payout on his accumulated assets after marriage, then how much is a man willing to pay for a housewife's work ?

You are unwilling to accept a pricetag being tagged to your wife's contribution. Then wat ?

If you want to be fair, give us a number. So we may decide if marrying you is worth it at all.

Regards to your poor friend living in the ancestral property. Can your friend who earns a meagre income sustain the maintainance cost of living in one ?

Property tax, maintainance cost will wipe him out good. Just because his wife did not contribute directly into the value of the house does not mean she did not contribute to help maintain the home.

I wonder why guys thinks they are so high and mighty and their assets is so untouchable.

If you don't want to pay alimony to your wife, then pay her a monthly salary !!!!

So you think a maid can replace the work your wife do for you. Then why don't you just simply live with your maid for the rest of your life ??

Referring specifically to the parts in bold: You yourself have just shown that men and women, even though they may have met their dream partners, still make mistakes in relationships that were totally unanticipated and in unforeseen circumstances. Therefore shouldn't men and their finances be protected to a certain extent? I am not suggesting that a woman has absolutely no right to any of her husband's estate; I am simply saying that the laws should provide greater support for a man's finances to be fairly distributed on a case-by-case basis.

What if the roles were reversed. A woman happens to be a high flying surgeon and her husband stays at home to take care of the kids. One day the husband files for divorce because he feels she has been neglecting him in place of her work. He wants a portion of her estate to finance him while he takes care of the kids, assuming they are awarded to him because he was seen to be the party closer to the children. In this case he is underprotected under the law. The laws that usually protect a woman and allow her to claim a part of her husband's estate are in place, yet there are no similar laws protecting a man allowing him to claim part of her estate. In this respect, all Singaporean men are therefore more vulnerable than women. Don't you agree?

jojobeach SG

you are always assuming that all men are rich. that is often not the case. btw, fyi, the 50 yr man i was telling you about appear in the paper, 'cos he ended up in debt after paying all that alimony for just a few years.

he has to depend on his brother on his monthly expenditures. he has nothing other than the house, and has no means of topping up (rmb, he can't work).

do you call that rich? yes, he can keep downsizing his house to pay alimony. but eventually, it will reach a point where he will not be able to pay at all.

from the above case, a man can be made bankrupt by a divorce.

when a wife divorce the husband, she stand to gain 50% of his assets.

if the husband is bankrupt, by logic, shouldn't she get 50% of the debt as well?

and housewife's pay, 30k pounds(S$90k)? that's absurd. you can hire 3 indonesian maids to take care of everything in your household (on the basis that you do not plan to have kids of you own), for $750/mnth, it only amount to $9k per yr.

perhaps you can see from your arguments why guys are so against acts of commitment. are they ready to give, share their assets, income, etc, unconditionally, and risk being suck dry of any miserable wealth they have left in case there's a divorce?

if females are so concern with the ideals that a marriage is something that is long lasting, they should treasure it. instead, we see a rise in the rates divorce initiated by the females for the past 10 years, with divorces ranging from couples in their 20s to couples in their 60s.

esp now, when young girls purposely marry old men for their wealth (yup, its a common trend nowadays), men are not protected by law against treasure hunters. how do you differentiate between treasure hunters and true love? the line is blur.

marriage is not as ideal as you imagine.

how often have you heard about girls wishing to be married into rich families? quite often, i think, esp in spore. guys wishing that they marry a rich girl? yes, there are, but occurrence is much rarer.

so, what is the actual incentive here? true love, or money?

for guys, usually they marry a girl for true love.

for girls, i can't say so.

Deathmaster,

I really dunno how you do your maths. You have no need to do a forex, that report was based on rates in Brit. You can use Sg local rates to calculate mah.. geesh..

9k for doing housework , fine. So how much you willing to pay for exclusive rights of a woman to sleep with you ?

Anyway, stories of how rich men make themselves bankrupt to get out of paying divorce payments are aplenty lah.

Now they make themselves bankrupt, tomorrow they appeal for removal of alimony payments claiming hardship.

Next month they clear themselves from the bankcruptcy, two weeks later they marry their young foreign lover. Sounds familiar ?

You think the family courts are stupid har ?

From the way you want.. it seems you want men to have the upper hand no matter what.

First, if the man is rich, the wife shouldn't share his riches.

If a man is poor, the wife should only take a percentage of his assets. Or best yet, don't bother taking any.

I showed my businessman brother your postings. And he pretty much balks at your replies. Turns to me and tells me.. " Ah mei, this kind of man, make sure you don't marry, OK ?" And I ask why.. he says " He's a blardy cheapskate !!", " So useless this guy.. I don't think he'll be able to find himself a wife."

Nobardie force a knife to your head and force you to marry a woman.

If you think your asset is more valuable than your wife, then by all means.. stay single lah. Never will you need to face divorce , EVER.

Kao peh so much for what ?

If not, then stay poor your whole life lor. That way, you got nothing, you fear nothing will be ripped off your arms. When divorce, make your wife take care of your children lah, she can support herself also mah.

Even if you found someone you love, I suggest you tell her how cheapskate you are lor. If she is willing to marry such a calculative bloke like you.. I say you are a very lucky man!

What young women marry old man crap. Please lah.. the young girl force the man to marry her ah ? Old men wants young flesh, then wants freebies ah ? Kaoz !

Just because men thinks with their dick, then all blame women's charter lah !

Frankly, I don't give a shyt about how Sg men are so unwilling to commit, because they are so worried about women stealing their money.

Don;t commit then don't lor. Want the girls to teach you how to use your brain anot ?

It is also guys like you, that makes SG girls look down on SG guys.

oxford mushroom SG

Common law provisions at divorce generally grant to the woman half of the combined assets, on grounds that she should be able to enjoy the lifestyle she is used to after divorce. This may be modified according to the length of the marriage, e.g she may get less if she is divorced after 3 months of marriage. That's why rich families marry rich families....nobody will really lose in the event of divorce. Pre-nuptial agreements are not recognized in Singapore, so don't think of going there. One way out is to gift most of your assets to your parents/broethers etc...if you suspect a divorce is looming.

If you have children, it gets complex. The husband is expected to contribute to the child's expenses, but in return the courts generally will give him visiting rights with his children.

jojobeach SG

Yes, I agree, very vulnerable.

So if the laws are similar to California's no fault law. Will more SG men be willing to be Mr Mom ?

If the 50% asset division is applicable to both gender. Will men stop whining ?

If they will.. I say : BRING IT ON

Wahsehwahseh SG

Yes, I agree, very vulnerable.

So if the laws are similar to California's no fault law. Will more SG men be willing to be Mr Mom ?

If the 50% asset division is applicable to both gender. Will men stop whining ?

If they will.. I say : BRING IT ON

Yes, and you're only good for saying for the sake of saying.

jojobeach SG

Yes, and you're only good for saying for the sake of saying.

LOL.. Darn, you're too smart for me !

Lets face it lah.

What are the chances of it happening anyway ?????

deathmaster SG

that's what i have been saying all along. to Mr Sean, thanks for helping me elaborate on this.

@oxford mushroom, thanks for raising the point about men generally getting only visiting rights to their kids. this also means that men are generally not awarded the custody of their kids. why? men contribute more to the financial needs of the kids, so why shouldn't they have custody of their kids?

to raise a recent case, a man was denied access (illegally), to his son. the mom went on further to change the boy's surname and name without the knowledge of the father. is this fairness?

since men are paying the majority of their children's expenses, (regardless of whether they are married or divorce, regardless of custody of child), why not just award them the custody of their children, and grant the wife visiting rights to their child instead?

you may claim that mums generally spend more time with their kids. but, the mother will still have to work after her divorce, to support herself. in the end, the man and woman will still spend equally short time with their children. i have known of friends raised up by either their dad or their mum, and more often than not, those living with dads have better opportunities than those living with mums.

for example, both parents are able to provide their kids with local uni education. however, dads are more likely to afford overseas uni education in the uk, us, than mums. since the fathers are better endowed to look after their child, why are most of them not awarded the custody of their child? It is well-known that custody are often awarded to mothers, due to their stereotypical role as nurturers. is it necessary so? fathers too have their own style and ideals about parenting, and the father has great influence on the social and mental development of a child, as scientific studies have concluded.

if we are to talk about gender equality in singapore, shouldn't we see a even distribution of custodies between males and females? obviously, that isn't what we are seeing here.

LOL.. Darn, you're too smart for me !

Lets face it lah.

What are the chances of it happening anyway ?????

laws are set by humans, by the government. if enough people raise the topic, it will be discuss and amended like in the case of 377 and 377a.

once there's a ministerial discussion on the issue, it would start the ball rolling.

jojobeach SG

that's what i have been saying all along. to Mr Sean, thanks for helping me elaborate on this.

to raise a recent case, a man was denied access (illegally), to his son. the mom went on further to change the boy's surname and name without the knowledge of the father. is this fairness?

if we are to talk about gender equality in singapore, shouldn't we see a even distribution of custodies between males and females? obviously, that isn't what we are seeing here.

laws are set by humans, by the government. if enough people raise the topic, it will be discuss and amended like in the case of 377 and 377a.

once there's a ministerial discussion on the issue, it would start the ball rolling.

I asked my brother who has 4 kids, in the event of a divorce, how much is he willing to pay ?

His reply is.

Since he is the bigger earner.

He will make sure his 4 children are well taken care of. He will pay for all their expenses, and request shared custody.

As for his wife, he will make sure that he will pay her enough to still stay at home and raise the children.

It does not make sense to punish the wife, deny her adequate living expense and force her to go outside to work.

Because, since he has to work to bring income, he cannot stay home to take care of his children.

If he force his wife to go to work, his children will be raised by hired help. That is the last thing he wants for his children.

He feels that when a marriage falls apart, the children are the innocent parties.

Just because the adults cannot get along under one roof does not means the children should lose parental supervision.

When he punishes his wife, he is essentially punishing his children too.

Who else is better than a hired help to raise his own kids ? Their own mother ofcors.

In this regards, he puts his children's interests top priority.

Looking at your post.. everything is about you you you. Have you given a second thought to those who matters most ?

deathmaster SG

that's the ideal. have you ever ask an actual divorcee how they work things out?

you can't support someone forever. eventually, you will move on to a 2nd marriage(assuming you divorce young at 20,30+.)

yes, you can pay your ex just enough to get by. but her retire how? she still need to go earn her own retirement nest egg.

if the man managed to remarry, and the woman remain single, the man has his new family to support. you can't expect him to neglect his new family to continue being leech off by someone who can jolly well earn her own living.

jojobeach SG

that's the ideal. have you ever ask an actual divorcee how they work things out?

you can't support someone forever. eventually, you will move on to a 2nd marriage(assuming you divorce young at 20,30+.)

yes, you can pay your ex just enough to get by. but her retire how? she still need to go earn her own retirement nest egg.

I am no divorce expert.

But if a man divorce at a young age, it is likely his marriage is relatively short.

In that respect, the court will not award much to the other party.

If I am not wrong, alimony/maintenance does not apply to every divorce case. Most are only required to split the profts from the sale of matrimonial properties. After which each goes their own ways.

The shorter the marriage, the shorter the strings.

As for my SIL's retirement. My brother has been contributing a fixed amount into her retirement accounts since they got married.

It is unfair for her to have to suffer her old age when she gave up her teaching job to stay home and watch the kids.

drawer SG

@Drawer: Let's not take advantage of this to put down the PAP again. There are enough out there already as it is... >_>

I am not using this topic to put down PAP or Lou Lee,young Lee n boot-licker Lou Goh,i am simply stating the facts.:)

seow SG

Men and women were never equal in the first place?

BadzMaro SG

Pre-nuptial agreements are not recognized in Singapore, so don't think of going there.

why ?

angel7030 SG

Men and women were never equal in the first place?

Ah! u seow seow also can think than other ya.

True, all things can never be equal and there is never a fair play in this world.

MrSean SG

Yes, I agree, very vulnerable.

So if the laws are similar to California's no fault law. Will more SG men be willing to be Mr Mom ?

If the 50% asset division is applicable to both gender. Will men stop whining ?

If they will.. I say : BRING IT ON

What has this got to do with California?

To answer your question... This is not the only issue at hand, so no I'm sorry we won't stop whining till everything has been changed. =P A step closer to that means a step closer to no whining to put up with, so it's still something I guess.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Donald G. Dutton and Tonia L. Nicholls, from the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia also undertook a meta-analysis of data in 2005. They concluded:

Clearly, shelter houses full of battered women demonstrate the need for their continued existence. Moreover, outside of North American and Northern Europe, gender inequality is still the norm (Archer, in press). However, within those countries that have been most progressive about women’s equality, female violence has increased as male violence has decreased (Archer, in press). There is not one solution for every domestically violent situation; some require incarceration of a terrorist perpetrator, others can be dealt with through court-mandated treatment, still others may benefit from couples therapy. However, feminist inspired intervention standards that preclude therapists in many states from doing effective therapy with male batterers are one outcome of this paradigm. The failure to recognize female threat to husbands, female partners, or children is another (Straus et al., 1980 found 10% higher rates of child abuse reported by mothers than by fathers).
The one size fits all policy driven by a simplistic notion that intimate violence is a recapitulation of class war does not most effectively deal with this serious problem or represent the variety of spousal violence patterns revealed by research. At some point, one has to ask whether feminists are more interested in diminishing violence within a population or promoting a political ideology. If they are interested in diminishing violence, it should be diminished for all members of a population and by the most effective and utilitarian means possible. This would mean an intervention/treatment approach based on other successful approaches from criminology and psychology.^[81]

16/f/lonely SG

Men and women were never equal in the first place?

Good point.

rokkie SG

i think sexual equality means facing the difference of male and female.female is very good at language ,literature ,male is good at rational think,strategy plan.

Company should put no prejudice against female worker,although is quite hard that,female usual take long leave when giving birth to baby.

rokkie SG

i think all the problems came from that ppl r too calculative.Marriage is a relationship build up by mutual trust and love,if u love each other ,then the problem is no more problem base on different case ,can have different solution,the decision is on urself ,not the law

deathmaster SG

but it is very hard to prevent abuse of the system by hateful individuals. there should an equivilent of women's charters for men, to prevent abuse of the system by women.

« Previous Page Next Page »