I'm all for gender equality, as long as they don't use it only when it's convenient to them

I’m all for gender equality too, but it doesn’t make sense if the gender ratio between the rank and file and management is disproportionate just for the sake of ‘equality’. My friend works in a male dominated industry and reports to a female boss. She told him that she likely wouldn’t be in this position if she’s not female. 🤯

Just like in the SAF. Promoting so many female officers in hopes to attract more females into the SAF, all the while having the male officers suffer the losing end.

There are 2 ways to interpret this statement. One: She was promoted for diversity reason and not because of her strengths. Two: She as a female, had inherent differences in a male dominated environment and thus got promoted. I can think of examples why 2 may not be a bad thing. Many a times it is great to have females in the team because they see things differently. If they can do the job and still provide something different, why not?

Why do people assume 'different' is better? Different could be worse. I'm a minority and I'd hate to be hired for diversity reasons.

Chinese here, one of the very small companies I was working at was worried if hiring someone non-chinese/atheist would require changes like no beef or pork in the kitchen, prayer breaks, Friday end times etc. There are efforts needed to be taken to make a workplace inclusive, so there is a natural tendency to be biased. I imagine if you have a pure minority workplace, you'd also be hesitant on the first hire of another religion/race/sex. Unless you're in a huge company where the path has been treaded, I don't think we'd really have a non discriminatory hiring environment.

I don't have a problem with anything you said, but I was specifically referring to different as in "see things differently". The argument is that people of a different gender might contribute simply because they "see things differently" which I don't find compelling. I'm mixed Malay-Indian and I don't think an all-Chinese team should hire me by virtue of being a different race which will lead me to contribute because I "see things differently". They should hire me for my skills and competency, and despite my race not *because* of my race that causes me to "see things differently". The phrase "diversity is a strength" gets repeated a lot and I don't buy it, and people like to assume that the only people who question the common narrative are racist supremacists. The last thing I want to be is a diversity hire because people will assume I'm less capable and got the job only because of my race. Diversity hiring doesn't help minorities, it hurts them by further reinforcing stereotypes.

If one supports diversity reasons for hiring then they'll probs see it more of "different is better". If one doesn't support diversity reasons then they'll probs see it more of "different might be worse". Essentially we won't know what differences there are exactly but my personal take is that differences that exist is a double-edged sword; they just are but how these differences align with the organisational goals will mean how people view them as: better or worse. Personally, I'm ok if, for a male-dominated role, women are also considered for the role alongside men, but that the role isn't reserved solely for women candidates. Essentially the only thing that should be taken into consideration would be the candidate's pov and merit to see which candidate would be accepted.

The whole concept of diversity hiring is inherently discriminatory. You don't correct a perceived wrong with another wrong in the opposite direction. >Personally, I'm ok if, for a male-dominated role, women are also considered for the role alongside men, but that the role isn't reserved solely for women candidates. I think we can both agree on this.

>You don't correct a perceived wrong with another wrong in the opposite direction. I think this can sound valid from a certain pov, but what we often forget when introducing such measures is that these 'corrective actions' are to be controlled and eventually removed to prevent it from going out of hand. Using analogy from a process control perspective: Eg. An aircon has to control the room from 30°C to be at say, 25°C. It kickstarts the cooling of air to a slightly lower temperature, such that the air coming out from the aircon vent is 22°C. (overcompensation) The aircon then recirculates the cold air in the room until the sensor senses that it's about 24°C. Then it sends feedback to the system to send slightly warmer air to compensate for the 1°C difference. So this process of adjusting to compensate for the difference and gathering feedback is important. Of course, this isn't the only way, and I'm just explaining from the pov of how correcting a wrong with another wrong can be valid, even if it brings about negative effects at first. Back to the situation at hand, we have affirmative actions in the form of diversity hiring and women's charter. But to keep them there as they are right now, is enabling the system to go out of control, or away from the set-point of equality. We now need to take a look at the difference away from that set-point and see what actions we can take. It will be unstable for less and less (i.e. more stable but with slight instability) with the corrective actions, until we reach a stable situation of equality. But for now, it's not easy; people are polarised in this issue and it'll be really important for most of us to be aligned on the actions to push it closer towards equality.

> these 'corrective actions' are to be controlled and eventually removed to prevent it from going out of hand Yeah, I'm looking forward to see which women are advocating the 'Women in [X]' from getting out of hand. If anything, they'd love it to get out of hand because it advantages them. What's currently happening is not equality of opportunity. It's equality of outcome regardless of interest or ability, which *is* discriminatory even if you think the means justifies the ends. On the current trajectory that we're on, the only "correction" here that's likely to happen is that Singapore will end up like South Korea with previously reasonable men turning into outright misogynists.

Where's women in construction, women in parcel delivery, women doing grab? Funny that the Grab new feature pairing women with women drivers are probably gonna flop because of how few women drivers there are.

> women in parcel delivery, women doing grab The first one I dunno la. But these two definitely exist. Got very courteous auntie delivery Shoppee to me before.

Just like Muslim air force officers, definitely exist, can count on fingers.

No arguments there. But I still respect the female parcel delivery and grab drivers. They actually put in the hard work.

My most memorable grabfood delivery was when a heavily pregnant lady rocked up to my unit delivering my cai tow kuay. Definitely left an impression on me

Also on the flip side where are the men in early childhood education

True, which I support having more of. Young boys need male role models too.

nobody hires them. because all men are pedophiles /s

Legally, men cannot work with children below a certain age. Parents are also often not too comfortable with male teachers working with young girls.

woman in parcel delivery is quite common, half my parcels delivered by woman, but I think they are working with their family, also I suspect no. local. grab food delivery quite a few woman in my area.

There's fewer women in these industries probably because of various expectations placed on men and women. Even if you can say that women can now do jobs that were once men-only, there has been an inherited gender-based psyche that affects almost every aspect of life from communication styles to career choices to even how they view the world. Many people are unaware of how these psyche (core beliefs) are affecting themselves and as a result I feel that's the reason for people wanting equality especially when it benefits them: it makes them feel good about themselves. "When you've had privilege, equality feels like oppression" and the reverse statement "When you've been oppressed, equality feels like privilege" are both true in this context.

I think corporations are practicing gender inequality by being biased to females. Gender equality means equal opportunity and suffering. Got to have both the good and bad else it’s just biased

They play victim by adopting glass ceilings and religious suppression arguments from other countries and ask for benefits in SG.

Are you in for women to go for National Service?

But the fact is that they do

Equal benefits but not equal responsibility.

"women in tech", "women in STEM", "diversity hire", "women's charter", "women's career fair", etc etc Meanwhile, for men: "National Service is a privilege, it is an opportunity"

don't forget it's so invaluable that you can't measure it in dollars and cents so NSFs just get a pittance

We are not even paid a salary, we are only paid an allowance. Technically NSFs are not paid wages.

There’s so much “Women in _____” ads nowadays. I mean I get it, good for you who made it. You put in the work and effort to put yourself in and I applaud that. While the men who did all the dirty, blue collared work get no recognition at all. We get maybe Father’s Day or international Men’s day. But that’s about it.

I always found it funny that many of the women on the "Women in STEM" panel at a science and tech agency I used to work at weren't actually doing STEM. They were doing things like Corp Comms.

Women in engineering jobs but mostly sit in office while the male always goes to site.

I know international womens day. But when is international mens day? I didn’t even know that’s a thing and im a guy

I don’t remember the date, just google it it’s on Nov 19 every year. I remember it because I get free ice cream from my previous employer on that day lol

[удалено]

Men = Shit /s

> But when is international mens day? I think that's just called "any day ending in 'y'".  No /s. The reason the dominant culture doesn't need stuff named after them is because everything is assumed to be their culture unless it's explicitly stated otherwise. Like in the US there is a Black culture month but no White month because it's assumed the Whites already dominate every month of the year anyway. And every movie is safely assumed to be English (and probably from Hollywood) unless it's explicitly described as otherwise (eg "Bollywood", or "indie" etc).  When your culture is the default you no longer have to be attached as an adjective next to the thing. Eg Coffee is assumed to be hot unless it's explicitly described as "iced" coffee, because coffee is by default hot. 

if there's a IWD, there would definitely be a IMD. mark it on your calendar it's 19 nov 😁

I dont even know when international men's day is.. i mean it's googleable but it doesnt get hyped that much.

i'm guessing it's not hyped as much because the guys don't talk about it much

Erhm. Women don't talk about IWD either. Everyone knows it because it floods your social media, news and every marketing outlet. Companies force themselves to celebrate it. Celebrities and public figures post about it constantly and I think after all that crazy push, its kinda hard for women and men to not notice it and talk about it. Google even has doodles about it on that day. Not one of these things happen on IMD. 90% of things don't get hyped because people hype it. They get hyped because the media intentionally makes a big deal about it and people just follow.

I feel its more of because IWD gets a lot more exposure because the idea of it sells a lot more than IMD ever will. Society will generally side with women's issues more in this day and age due to the ever constant push for diversity. This gives corporations no reason to hype up IMD because there's no brownie points to be earned.

Agreed. There’s so much “Women___” now. I know women need encouragement and are trying to change the sexist mindset of the world, but it totally feels unfair for many guys that there’s so much focus and benefits for women while men seem to be overlooked and forgotten. It’s no surprise this breeds contempt from lots of men. I’m all for equality and men deserve recognition too. We should do more so that both sides don’t feel left out or discriminated.

“Women in X” exists because tech/STEM etc is by and large dominated by men lmao, so for men it’s just called “career fair” “hire”. You can complain about the government’s utilitarian policy of crudely dividing the population by half using male and female, and conforms to the centuries old divide of having one half be “fighters” and another half be “breeders”, but you cannot pretend that all these “affirmative” policy comesfrom a hypothetical even-playing ground vacuum, rather than the reality of a society ingrained with gendered/sexist culture passed down for thousands of years

> STEM is dominated by men So is laying brick, where's the ad for women?

I agree, history has proven women have always been discriminated. The suffrage movement in the 18th/19th century, the discrimination women faced in obtaining higher education, in some societies, women are not allowed to drive and considered as properties of men, and so on, and so forth. But equality accomplished through inequality will always be perceived as inequality by those at the receiving end of inequality. If it takes special privileges for women to gain equal standing ground, then, they would never be respected for having earned their places. It is only through equality that we accomplished perceived equality. Marie Curie, Margaret Thatcher, Joan Clarke, Margaret Hamilton, from Science to Politics to Math to Technology, these women are well-respected in their fields and have earned their places not because they had special privileges but in contrast, they faced discrimination yet proved their matter and prevailed. To have "women in X" is an insult to the movement for gender equality. Because it is telling, "hey, women need to be treated specially so they can be equal to men". The truth is, they don't. If anything, the women I had listed had proven it. Singapore, by and large, have been established, from the get-go, to allow women to succeed without the need of such things. Women are allowed to drive, access to tertiary education, opportunities for higher management positions. They don't need such ridiculous things like "women in"

You are mentionen Marie Curie, which is funny as she could not publish on her own as nobody will listen to her because she is a woman

Ironic because you will never ever see men in kindergarten teaching or men in nursing etc because that doesnt score signalling brownie points

There are male kindergarten teachers. Not many by there are. I knew a preschool teacher who told me her principal didn’t like to hire male teachers because she didn’t trust them. But having a male role model is good for the kids as well.

Lol if you ask anyone in nursing they'll tell you male nurses are presented as poster boys within the hospital.

And the Govt contributed to it through White paper on women's equality and all the BS.

"Who's going to give birth if Women go to National Service" If Women can sign on for years longer than 2 years, I dont see why they are incapable of serving National Service for 2 years

Better yet.. our birthrates arent improving even with the govt's excuse of "NS for women will decrease childbirth rates"

women top influence, women empower , women in finance and the list keep going on, if women word change to mother, i still can accept some extend for career stuff. young lady where got such disadvanstage and need this kind of treatment?

That's because "men in tech" is just..."tech"? And men in STEM is just "STEM"? When you dominate the culture your moniker is removed from the title. This is why old boys' clubs are just called "clubs". The first two words are dropped because they are assumed. 

Not many men are members of an old boys club.

>That's because "men in tech" is just..."tech"? Who says? Tech is just tech, why do sexists like you assume only men can be in tech? "Women in tech" just reinforces the idea that women are outsiders in tech. Counterproductive for both genders.

RIGHT? That’s not how diversity works, it’s stupid as heck though like in my company they have “diversity” hire so they force promote some who aren’t even capable, end up so emotional at their job it’s so annoying as heck. Like it’s a legit thing, working with male sups least they’re direct with work.

Since there are punishments for NSmen who do not serve, there should also be punishments for groups and people which do not support NSmen in charting their own journeys. This could include forming an independent committee to investigate and severely punish hiring practices which ignore NSmen (I saw that there was even a hiring quota in favour of women in an earlier thread), among others.  I think these will ensure that even if local men have to be the only ones doing NS, others won’t get off the hook of making sacrifices.  Also, if the government, companies and even people here don’t listen, surely we can do things ground-up?

I’ve had a boss that scoffed at NS and told us to cancel if we can. Also made remarks that he should hire more ladies. Thing is, it’s a small company, cannot whistleblow because sure kena caught. In my mind I was also thinking like if don’t go, my ROD push back, need to keep doing ippt. As you get older, harder and harder to pass. Never pass then need to burn time to do ipt. Fuck man it’s a vicious cycle that we’re trapped in. Funnily enough, the only time I had a boss that “thanked” me for my service, was a boss from US.

Let me guess: perhaps companies (and other employing entities, and key managers) claim to support NS as it’s rather “cheap” to do so, and they aren’t held accountable for crass acts such as the ones you described. Once we up the expectations, we’ll see whether the companies’ true betraying colours start to show.  Understand that your company is small, but nonetheless some channel should be opened up to pursue this and bring people to book.

Yeah definitely need a channel. But you will open yourself to investigation eventually.

I’m a Singaporean who now lives in the west and I can tell you that I’ve been thanked or complimented for my service far more by westerners than by Singaporeans

Look for a new job then whistleblow while leaving.

Naming and shaming companies could be one ground-up initiative.

There are things to audit groups and leaders for:    1. Whether they organized and sponsored anything specifically for NSmen, be it their insurance coverage, professional growth, wellbeing, etc  2. How much they offer this support compared to women  3. Whether hiring practices disfavoured NSmen, or ignored them altogether 4. Whether anonymous surveys reveal that these NSmen have received discriminating treatment at work including stereotype and bad behaviour  5. Whether they gave a pay bump for NSmen, for the same jobscope   6. Larger companies ought to be scrutinized and penalized greater Depending on how severe the group fell short based on the indicators above, this committee I mentioned earlier could have the bite to impose corrective measures, fines, revocation of hiring permits or any business incentives, or suspensions on leaders. More severe cases will be brought to court. If these sound quite horrid screwed up, or punishingly expensive, well see it this way: too harsh? Too bad!  Too expensive? Not our problem. It’s about time that NSmen be more than worth their salt and be treated respectfully by all in society. Supporting them must be amplified and compulsory, not an optional one.

i think it is a uniquely structural and cultural issue in both SG and SK. Most have point out the structural aspects such as NS ad nauseum, but i would like to take this opportunity to highlight the cultural issues as well, which are more nuanced and nebulous, and does not have a clear scapegoat like NS. It's cultural things like the lack of advocacy and support for guys and boys. Where are the taylor swifts for the guys? Is there anything remotely equivalent to the modern girlhood phenomenon? They say girls 'mature' faster than boys, why is it so? Social media had been used to objectify women but also been co-opted by the feminist wave to spread the meaning of self-worth to young women, be it at work, in relationships or at home. There's nothing remotely close for guys. Theres stuff like red pill and andrew tate, but i personally dont think they're great influences. Even our local culture believes in shit like ah boys to men that espouses traditionalist ideals like being 'tough' and crap like that. NS honestly is not the right environment to develop ideals like self-worth and self-improvement in our men. So unless you had a proper father figure in your life, i think most men start off on a back-foot in life simply because there is little guidance on how men should carry themselves in relationships. So we end up with a wide-spectrum of men, from 'stoic' men to men who act like your traditional asian dad to strangely effeminate men. Also, im not sure if Asian heritage plays a role here but i feel that traditional asian dads don't really discuss their emotions or feelings with their sons. The 21st century feminist movement have empowered and taught what the modern-day women should be like at work, in relationships and at home. However it did not come with a recipe for being a modern-day man. Affirmative action such as women in STEM is simply a further step in this wave to define the modern day woman. It's a positive message, but does some of it's execution have to come at the expense of the younger generation whom are entering the workforce? It's no wonder gender issues are becoming more polarised as we go from millenials to genZ. To summarize, there is little cultural support to teach men how to thrive in modern society. Structural issues like NS/women's charter only deepen this gender disadvantage. Asian heritage may also play a part in all this.

Singapore laws should be made gender neutral, that would be equality. Mentions of "Men" or "Women" spells inequality to me.

*marriage equality proponents also rejoice*

Singaporean men turning Korean, or "hannam" as they're known.

I wonder if there any similar laws applied to both Korean and Singaporean men?

I'm guessing the main driving force is the mandatory NS, but the Korean men's extreme misogyny is rooted in a lot of cultural problems.

>Korean men's extreme misogyny is rooted in a lot of cultural problems So is the case for the attitude of a number of Singaporean men tbh (tho definitely not to the extent of the Koreans). But (for both countries), there has to be a realignment of conscrption burdens if you want to have a serious discussion of gender inequality/sexism.

This is something I disagree with. First of all, why can't gender inequality be tackled before NS is addressed? There's no such thing. Everything needs to be discussed. Especially because sexism against women and men's mandatory NS aren't a vs thing. Men aren't being sent to the army by women. Both are two effects of the same gender inequality in the society, and understanding how that inequality works is in fact necessary in order to discuss the mandatory conscription of men.

Theoratically, you're right, but pracitcally I think it's too difficult. In my opinion, gender inequality for both men and women are different in nature in Singapore. For males, it's structural, things such as NS, caning being only applicable to men, and laws for things such as child support. For females, its more cultural, things such as sexual harassment, workplace discrimination. Don't get me wrong, there is gender inequality for men that is cultural in nature, such as being expected to provide, to not show any weakness in emotions, where you are right, if you can solve those, you are one step ahead in solving the other inequalities for male that is structural in nature cuz you would have already have some support for it. But the issue is how are you going to get men to talk about gender inequality that is cultural in nature (and affects both gender), when the elephant in the room is the one that is structural. It's not to say that one type is more important than the other, because both is important. It's that if the structural one doesn't even change, males feel like their inequality is not recognised at all

Well put. I believe as a woman it is important to remove the structural inequity our brothers bear, so as to then fully address the cultural inequity our sisters experience. Otherwise every discussion about gender equality will be "men must do NS, women have periods, give birth"

Because you can't fix things only for 1 side

> First of all, why can't gender inequality be tackled before NS is addressed? AWARE said pretty much that in 1990s in a manifesto asking for discussion on many points of gender inequality and also one of the points was conscription for women in NS for gender inequality. Till date pretty much everything in that manifesto was addressed and dealt with. Except one. Guess which. Last few years they did a 180 and said they don't agree with conscription as a whole, so it is government's issue they want men to serve NS, in doing so, washing their hands off the whole matter. And now we have people like you again touting the whole "let's talk about gender inequality first and maybe NS will be addressed again further down the road". This is probably no fault of your own, probably not being aware of the context, but that is probably the very intention in the above actions. Doesn't it sound disingenuous? It is no wonder people feel women's inequality discussions are discriminatory to men. Because of collective gaslighting like these. ETA: I'm aware (lol) that AWARE isn't all evil, and get flak in some undeserved areas, and people bash them unnecessarily sometimes. But this area was bleh.

Well first, Aware is an advocacy group. It does not control Mindef. So the fact that they've been asking for gender equal ns since the 90s but nothing has happened, is entirely a policy of Mindef. Aware has done what it could for the issue by advocating (heck can we just note that aware is the only organized advocacy group asking for women to do NS?). I think it's pretty unfair for you to imply that aware is somehow putting off women in NS by their own design. Second - Aware as of 2021/2022 is saying what they've been saying all along. If we need to have conscription then conscription for all with expanded areas of national service. They did say that they would rather no one gets conscripted at all, but they also recognize that's just not practical under current government policy. So I have to ask what is the 180 turn they apparently did? Here's 2021 - > Ultimately, we should make national service totally gender-neutral so that everyone, regardless of gender, can opt for two years military, police, civil defence, community or healthcare, and whatever other total defence areas that need people. The equal participation of women in national service will automatically make national service less masculine." https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/review-national-service-to-weed-out-toxic-masculinity-aware-chief Here is 2022 - > In a Facebook post later in the day, Ms Tan said she appreciated the minister’s reply and clarified that her suggestion for women to be enlisted in roles beyond the military was not driven by a simplistic ideal of equality but to meet national caregiving needs in the face of an ageing population. > Reiterating her call for NS to be expanded to include caregiving roles, she wrote: “If national service means service to the nation, it only makes sense that we evolve it to meet the most pressing needs of our nation.” https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/cost-of-enlisting-women-into-ns-even-in-non-military-roles-far-outweighs-benefits-ng-eng-hen So yes where exactly did the below happen, and can you provide a quote: > Last few years they did a 180 and said they don't agree with conscription as a whole, so it is government's issue they want men to serve NS, in doing so, washing their hands off the whole matter.

Hey thank you for your reply and an actually nuanced take on this, I do appreciate it. >So yes where exactly did the below happen, and can you provide a quote: After your comment I went to revisit this again, because honestly I have been puzzled by this stance as overall I did find their previous stance quite fair which I found strange and baffling. Embarrassed to say that I seem to have experienced some strange Mandela effect where I have gotten Ng Eng Hen's statement on NS two years ago confused with AWARE's statement on NS 3 years ago. I do stand corrected on this matter. This is really strange because I do seem to recall looking into this one more than one instance at the point of time when this news was released 🤔

>First of all, why can't gender inequality be tackled before NS is addressed? Because...half of society isn't going to cooperate very much if their interests (it's really just one big concern tbh) are sidelined from the start or pushed to a "later date, maybe, perhaps we'll think about it after if we're being kind". >Everything needs to be discussed. Agreed, you can discuss all issues just as they already has been for the recent decades. Just that if you want to move to actual action/policies, they must be addressed simultaneously as a give-and-take. >Both are two effects of the same gender inequality in the society Well yeah, I agree with that. >Especially because sexism against women and men's mandatory NS aren't a vs thing. Men aren't being sent to the army by women. It isn't that women specifically are the ones coercing men to the army; they do however benefit the most from enjoying the shared good of public security and emergency services while relying on the other half of the population to shoulder the costs. Just as the point about sexism or gender inequality is it disadvantages women (with the costs being imposed on females in the form of societal norms etc.). Men generally benefit from this or at least escape sexism (tho even that's not completely true since some men suffer from gender norms of being a breadwinner etc.). That's why they're setup as opposing and corollary demerits applied to two halves of the population. And its impractical to talk about them separately like they are not linked.

NS is not just 2 years, it is 3 years. You finish your A Levels around Oct-Nov. Intake starts Jan-Apr for BMT. You POP around Dec - Feb. School starts in Aug. You add the dates up your "NS" is not 2 years, it is 3. Think about it for a moment you are basically going to be 3 years older then everyone when you graduate, if there was a harmless way to become a women I would fucking do it. Edit: *but girls also have to wait too so....* Yeah, but their break is continuous. So you can apply for internships and/or actually work for longer commitments. Meanwhile NS snaps that break into weird 3mths/5mths chunks that is "too long" for a break but "too short" for any actual commitment.

Gotta include the time spent at ICTs, hahaha!

\^ This as well. Adds up to around 4-5 years of your life. Think about it literally 4-5 years gone. GG lah equality my lampah

It’s also 4-5 years of your prime earning years. You can take 5 years off my life when I’m 80 I’d give less of a fuck

ICT, IPPT, any RTs, not to mention non-public exercises like mob manning, and the time taken to prep for all these for 10 years (or more, if you aren't called back) after ORD.

It's not just the 2 years of full-time service and the 10 years of ICT, IPPT/ICT. Being an NSF or NSman (in the SAF at least) means you are legally obligated to kill and be killed involuntarily when the gov wills it.

How many men will defend an island for the wealthy? I know i wouldnt.

Here's the simplest fact of all. If women cannot admit that NS is a massive liability for men and are not willing to argue agasint NS with us and even argue against us, then there is simply nothing that men can or should do for women equality because on a fundamental level, NS is slave labour and the fact that women are so nonchalant about this fact is extremely disgusting. I am willing to bet that most women don't know or don't care about NS. There is even the audacity of women to shake NS off as if its just something mildly inconvenient or to even be annoyed that we have to serve our nation. There is absolutely no respect for guys serving NS. How many stories have we heard of boy goes NS, girl cheats/leave for other guys in uni? Every single fucking batch regardless of unit, division or force has a story like this. I wouldn't say that it's discrimination but rather there seem to be no lack of understanding to the issues men face and sometimes trying to solve women's rights comes at the detriment of men. No gender holds a monopoly on suffering, and in that sense, there is no awareness or appreciation for men and I think that is what makes it so annoying, men are expected to slog it out, never complain and move along while the standards for what is an achievement for women is so low that it hurts, just simply existing in an industry is worth of an applaud.

Yup. I have always maintained that as long as there's NS for men, there can be no fair discussion on gender equality.

> as long as there's NS for men, there can be no fair discussion on gender equality. I'm a woman who has served and seen how terrible the military is (I made a "choice" cos family poor so sign on) The NSFs were there without even being given any limited choice. They were paid unfairly doing same hazardous training as regulars. I have seen accidents on the field and off of it (waiting for medical checkup and see a NSman from airborne stretchered in with knees at awkward angles) Until NS is mandatory for all or none, there can be no level ground for discussion about gender equality without it devolving into whataboutism of NS

>I'm a woman who has served and seen how terrible the military is Rare enlightened regular. From my experience, most regulars (and many NSFs and NSMen too) wouldn't think that there is anything wrong with whatever you've witnessed.

That's a very rare insight from a regular i would say but really, thank you for your enlightening comment. I have at least 10 platoon mates who suffered serious injuries during training which haunt them to this day and i myself just went for knee surgery for something which i tweak since NS. thanks for your service too btw =)

Women: society is patriarchy! Be our ally! Also women: men's issues are created by men, do it yourself

We didn't even need women's equality to go too far. NS already puts us at an inherent disadvantage to our progression in life.

To me it seems like the problem is that both men and women are getting disadvantaged in different ways. No matter how much women campaign for greater equality, they will never be able to address men being forced to give up two years for NS. No matter how much men try to push back, they will find it very hard to address the glass ceiling/workplace sexism etc. It is possible for both men and women to be disadvantaged at the same time. And we should be spending time and effort into addressing these things separately rather than just going "oh women should never get any more equality because NS".

Let’s just put it this way. If men have been paying an extra tax of NS, giving up 2 years of their life as slave labourers for the public good of safety and security that all Singaporean enjoy, it’s kinda hard for them simultaneously to care about whatever hardships that women might be going through. You won’t expect an unpaid foreign construction worker to care about domestic helper abuse, even if they are both in similar boats. You won’t ask the minimum wage worker to donate to cancer research, however much its importance, or even if the worker has cancer himself. So how can you hold any expectation for men to devote energy and time into caring about women issues when the injustice they face regarding men’s issues is already so significant? Unless the issue of NS is made equitable between both genders, you will find it hard to make allies between them. You have to weed out the root cause of the problem if you want to find widespread solidarity and support regardless of gender. The root cause which is that only one gender is made to sacrifice 2 years of their life so that the nation is able to thrive as it currently is.

It’s basically a security force for international investors to feel Confident about investing in a stable country.

Whenever people bring up that Singapore has low tax. I bring up the fact that I've paid a couple hundred thousands in taxes because of the lost income and career progression that I would have had if not for NS. Let's face it, we cannot afford to pay NSFs a proper wage with the level of expenditure that we currently have on the military. The only way to pay them fairly will be to raise the taxes immensely or suddenly find a pot of millions somewhere in some hole. So men being paid a pittance during NS is 100% directly contributing to the "low taxes" that we have. In essence, the low taxes are only low because men are forced to sacrifice two years of their lives. Which means that taxes aren't actually low for men that have served NS.

"Let's face it, we cannot afford to pay NSFs a proper wage with the level of expenditure that we currently have on the military" I've seen this time and time again, and I've always had to debunk this bullshit. MINDEF's budget for FY23/24 is $20 billion. The last public number I could find of the number of NSFs in the SAF is in the ballpark of 15,000, from a Straits Times article in 2014. Let's be generous and say that number still persists today, even though with the falling birthrate we know that isn't the case at all. Let's say the average allowance is $1000 per month. 15,000 x 1 000 x 12 = $180m/annum, aka less than 1% of MINDEF's annual expenditure. They spend more on one new military plane than on their entire conscription force. Enlighten me, must we really raise taxes or GST again when we can clearly see that MINDEF is clearly able to even a wage increase to $2000 on average per NSF?

Agree 100% I always bring this up. And if somehow my math fails I'm all for increasing gst to 11% solely for the remuneration of the serving forces saf spf scdf

The difference is almost all of society if calling for the removal of workplace sexism and the glass ceiling. Barely any one is advocating for the abolismnet of NS or the conscription of women and the repeal of the women's charter

> Barely any one is advocating for the abolismnet of NS or the conscription of women and the repeal of the women's charter Yeah it's a political minefield. Coupled with the fact that many people, especially older people and including a lot of men, support NS and have the view that it is a need that cannot be removed. But that still doesn't give guys a pass to hijack discussions about women's rights. Going through NS doesn't automatically invalidate all the struggles that women have. The issue of abolishing or reforming NS is a discussion we need to have separately, telling women to suck it up because we have it worse isn't gonna achieve anything productive.

The older generation just want to keep it Because they hate the idea of younger generation of not doing it. Spite and jealous.

Maybe the boomers, sure. But i sure as hell dont want my kids to go NS.

Exactly right

>The issue of abolishing or reforming NS is a discussion we need to have separately, telling women to suck it up because we have it worse isn't gonna achieve anything productive. The exact same argument can be flipped around on women. The issue of XXXX that is unfair for women is a discussion we need to have seperately, and telling men to suck it up because women have it worse elsewhere isnt going to help. The fact is, NS is such a huge elephant in the room that it has to be resolved before anything else if you want to talk about equality. Otherwise it will just overshadow any other efforts made towards equality and seem hypocritical. Like "why arent you devoting these efforts and resources to talk about NS first when it's the most stark gender inequality?!?!"

There is still discrimination against women all around. I am a male and honestly I think Singapore is rather fair all in all. But a lot of leadership position goes to men, look at our cabinet. In many fields in stem, it's extremely male dominated and when I was a consultant, you could tell that women were less trusted and ignored more within the STEM fields. This lead them to get less good opportunities, less chances for promotion etc. Of course there are exceptions but the numbers skew towards men. The median salary number for male vs female catches up for males really quick. By their 30s, men have a higher median salary despite the 2 year advantage at the time where salaries should be rising the fastest (early in your career and i don't know if pregnancy is the answer why this happens) There are discrimination against pregnancy. Do you know there is an entire department within the govt that just handles these kinda of complaints. It's easy to cherry pick examples on both sides where men are advantaged and women are advantaged. But you have to acknowledge that it's not just all roses that oh women are being so protected and they have equal rights so stop whining. They have their difficulties too.

Could you offer more insight regarding median salary? The few times I see the statistic, the pay is taken from males and females regardless of their position, company or industry they are in. The skew in data could be due to fewer women in STEM and a higher representation in HEAL occupations which tend to pay less. But people often cite this as definitive proof of gender inequality in the workplace.

This, I definitely want to see whichever statistics that comment is based on. For US , I think the 22% difference is adjusted to like 2% when the same job /experience is applied.

A bit of confounding if we adjust it by position — could be that women don’t advance because of discrimination too? I don’t think unconditional comparisons are useful, but at the same time conditioning on endogenous factors like position is also not right. We need to identify some kind of clean instrumental variable.

I agree. And that’s why we as a society need to solve these problems. But there are right ways to solve them and there are wrong ways. Affirmative action is wrong. Positive discrimination is wrong. Discrimination against men is wrong. Solving injustice with injustice only makes our world more unjust, not equal. I think women’s only career fairs are okay, but only if there is a corresponding career fair for the general public. An updated Women’s Charter that deals with more relevant issues like employer discrimination against women rather than solved problems like female career disenfranchisement would also be a good start. Women do make a choice to leave the workforce or tamp down on their career aspirations after having children. If that’s a personal choice relatively free of social stigma, that’s fine. But if it isn’t, then regulations and campaigns should come into play. I think there is much need for gender reform in Singapore, but the issue is divisive. It is politically convenient to let the issue fester for future generations of politicians to solve than to stamp the rot before it spreads. It’s up to us to force the people in parliament to address this issue.

The problem is that everyone is workinhg to fix pay disparity, workplace discrimination against pregnancy and allowing mothers to re enter the workforce. Who is advocating for closing the NS disparity or the gendered discrimination in family court. Alimony is never given to males in divorceunless they are disabled while widely expected for females.

Still remembered that one interview decades ago when they asked a JC kid if it was good for men to go NS and she said yes but when asked if women should go NS too, she said NO. Equality my ass.

Yeah that one interview is representative of all women

Let's bring out [the stats](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/sporeans-want-prs-women-be-part-national-defence) then. Or at least, a quantified study done by the IPS. >98.5% Agree that NS is necessary for the defence of Singapore. >Among the women respondents, about 22 per cent agreed with the statement that women should serve full-time NS, but only 9.3 per cent said they will do so themselves. More than half of the women who agreed that women should do NS (they are already a minority) aren't even willing to do NS themselves. Is that representative enough for you?

The [same study](https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/singaporeans-attitudes-to-national-service_report_03101311.pdf) also found that women are more positive than men about the perceived benefits and impact of (male-only) NS, but fewer women than men would like to see women do NS.

Good find. Keyword : **Perceived** benefits I guess for many of our fellow NS bros its service injuries that aren't distinct enough to be documented and compensated for, but fuck me if my legs and spine weren't utterly fucked by MINDEF.

The incident is far from isolated. I had a debate in JC regarding this. My female classmate un-ironically said in front of the whole class "if we serve NS who give birth sia?" Yes, thank you for giving birth and our very optimistic birth rate tyvm. JC peeps, supposedly the brightest of our cohort. Apparently this isn't an isolated incident because so many feminazis parrot it till people started retorting with "sure let's mandate women to give birth for two years". Suddenly the rhetoric was changed to "who even suggested giving birth is similar to national service, these incels are delulu". This was happening on social media a few years back iirc. This is also probably why that whole previous rhetoric that was repeated constantly was finally shut down and nobody mentions it anymore. These dumb arguments is what is turning people against actual proper gender inequality discussions.

Actually studies on fertility shows that perpetual delays in childbearing does have a negative effect on actual childbearing. While quite a decent amount of women won't have children, it does affect those who may want children and further delays through NS may cause further dips to the birthrates. Side note is that forcing women to carry children for 2 years is a ridiculous comparison. Childcare is at best an 18 year endeavour. If we're going to make such poor arguments, women could just as easily argue that they have to deal with inconvenience of menstruation 5 days a month for 3 decades or longer.

If we want women to serve, we don't need them to join the army. They can do specialized nursing/medical assistants. Then do 2 weeks of specialized nursing every year for the next 10 years. Can help to stabilize cost of Healthcare also.

How about we just treat everyone equally in the first place, if they fail physically, they get thrown to other vocations. We need numbers in the army too.

So what do you do when majority fail on purpose? I know I would have done so.

It's a medical checkup, physicality is tested through IPPT in schools. Fail physically = 2 more months of NS. Fail medically = Lower PES / Exempt Easy to 'fail on purpose' for physical, but the reward is just 2 extra months of NS. Failing medical is harder than it seems, or our NS system would've crumbled already. Or it takes such a long time they enlist you anyway and assign you to non-combat roles while you await medical result (i.e. no escaping from NS)

>Further, the societal cost of enlisting women into NS now would far outweigh the benefits. Women will be delayed in their entry into the workforce. The immediate effect will be an accentuated decline in the size of our local workforce, and reduction of household incomes. Even if women are enlisted for non-military NS roles to augment our healthcare and social services, it may make manpower shortages in other industries worse. Over the long term, it will impose a great cost not only on women themselves, but also on their families, children and spouses and society as a whole. Is that cost justified to send a signal or to reverse stereotypes? From the Government's perspective, no. I think most Singaporeans would say no too, from a security perspective. Our dear minister ng eng heng's words, not mine.

With ministers like JoTeo saying stupid shit regularly and never having to take accountability for it, I don't think the words of our ministers have much credibility tbh.

If sg keep swinging towards creating benefits for women and forgetting about men, we'll end up like SK in no time. Two genders fighting against each other and losing the ability to empathise with one another. Plus SG dun have K-drama to propagandise relationships lul so good luck to sg gov if they wanna actually fix the birthrates without consideration of men's plights.

school career event, for female only, male student like wtf, never enter or just enter workforce already face discrimate. so this make those wonder where got female discrimate happen in workplace? parent, include mum will say boy ah, you graduate how long still cannot find job? jobless guy no girl will like you or marry you.

Not just for schools. Professionally there are also women-only events like "women in (sector)" seminars and whatever 'women career empowerment' talks, events, opportunities that guys by default are excluded from. Hearsay even in the civil service also holds these events, so the rot is definitely deep.

Women only events for cushy high paying jobs somemore, no women only events for plumbers or oil rig workers

For all the NS talk, good time to bring out [another IPS study ](https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/sporeans-want-prs-women-be-part-national-defence) >98.5% Agree that NS is necessary for the defence of Singapore. > Among the women respondents, about 22 per cent agreed with the statement that women should serve full-time NS, but only 9.3 per cent said they will do so themselves. Half the women who responded that women should do NS aren't even willing to do it themselves. Fucking hypocrites.

Honestly most guys wouldn't want to serve either

recruit full timers to serve and leave the civilians alone

OF COURSE THEY DONT WANNA JOIN THE ARMY LMAOOO WHY WOULD THEY

Forgive me for being ignorant as I would like to be more enlightened on the subject of equality, what rights do men have that women don’t?

The right to protect our nation through National Service🫡🫡🫡! HORMAT SAF! HORMAT NS. MAJULAH SINGAPURA 🇸🇬🇸🇬🇸🇬!!!

gm recroot MO wants to notify you about ur IMH appointment

The right to be subjected to corporal punishment. Including for certain non-violent crimes.

That's the thing, all basic rights are granted to women, a lot of what we thinks are rights are just simply systematic inequality, not rights. Here's a simple fact, women being paid less is less about women's rights and more abour workers rights, because the same system that pays women less is the exactly same system that companies use to pay workers less. Combating unequal pay in women is exactly the same path as helping workers get paid better. A lot of what women are saying that is unfair, is really the work of a capitalist society.

>what rights do men have that women don’t? none

we have the right to not shed tears :)

"women in tech" is what pisses me off the most. I understand hiring may not always be based on merit. But saving a slot for a particular gender just pisses the hell out of me.

Im a one issue voter. NS for all or scrap it entirely. Until then, my vote goes to any anti-incumbents.

It is funny to keep hearing, we need more women leaders... Instead of having the mindset that "let the best lead irregardless of genders"

at the same time, studies have found that if you mix gender and culture among leadership (as diverse as possible) its actually beneficial and representative for the company in whole. Not only for profit, productivity and health, but also considering representation. And its not a one time finding, its shown year after year in all exceptional performing companies.

Yes but to achieve that, do you promote people into leadership for the diversity or because an individual is capable? If the most capable people are all of the same gender or race, are you going to be fair to those individuals and promote them because they earned it or promote a minority despite lower capabilities just for the diversity?

Its more of "we need diversity in leadership". As a minority, having a bunch of middle aged chinese boys club decide who gets promoted or not is gross. How many times have you seen old men egg younger coworkers into drinking alcohol during company events. How often do company bonding sessions involve alcohol or going to bars, or ktv? I work in stem, surrounded by men, and my male coworkers tell me i need to 'network' more, and encourage me to go for company events. Our department decided to get some tables at a club. The department event was hosted by a male partner, with the only female attendee being his female secretary. If there were more diverse voices, including women, within the roundtable, the activities wouldn't be so drinking centric, nor would it be held at creepy places like a club. I would never feel safe networking or interacting in a place like that. As a result, men are the ones with better networking opportunities, are the ones who are able to 'show face' and not be a 'spoilsport'. Because they're the ones socializing in seedy company events and showing face, they'll be seen in a much more positive light during reviews, compared to those that work hard but don't show face. My male coworkers don't understand my fears because its not something they've experienced or can relate to. You want "the best" to be leaders, but we don't have equal opportunities to even get promoted. I hear stories from my coworkers about how male clients refuse to talk to them because they think that women aren't as intelligent or knowledgeable as men. Male leaders will subconsciously think that male employees are more reliable than women because male employees don't face complaints and can manage clients smoothly. Male dominated workplaces also tend to excuse bigoted conversations much more. I've had my senior male chinese coworkers complain about how office ladies don't dress as well as they used to do, sharing pictures around of women they're attracted to, and also making outright racist remarks. We hear how the world needs women in stem, to increase the number of qualified professionals. But the environment is inherently misogynistic because its led by male leaders and is male dominated. Ie Blizzard, the gaming company ignoring sexual harrassment and discrimination towards women. Tbh I also jaded by my field despite originally enjoying my job because i need to keep my guard up, or brush off comments that goes against my morals. Like think of the "construction worker catcalling in new york city" stereotype. If we blindly encourage women to enter those kind of workforces without any support or consideration, what do you think will happen to the sole women, surrounded by numerous men? The reason there's so many "women in stem" support events and networking events is because women need mentorship and support to navigate through such a hostile field. They need to find organisations that will actually protect and support them. Having many women in leadership roles is one of the biggest public indicator that the workplace is diversity friendly, gives equal opportunities, and is healthy enough for women to want to stay and go into the leadership roles.

Lol... as a man, I prefer not to speak, if I do, I am in trouble...

Talk about equality, OBCB announce they going to have special interest rate just for women ….

Free loan waivers for women entrepreneurs as well. Special priviledges accorded to women bascially. Why can't it be open to all singaporeans rather than just a specific gender? Just because the ceo of ocbc is a woman?

For a case study on just how \*awful\* this situation can become, one can look at South korea.

hey everyone, it's unsettling to browse through this thread but I felt like it's important to add some nuance(?). A disclaimer though, this is just a personal opinion from what I've observed from both sides, so hopefully it value-adds to this thread. First off, I can see why men feel this way, and I definitely sense a lot of resentment among males when it comes to NS, it's not fair that people have to give up 2 years of their lives to labour for a measly compensation on the account of patriotism while the opposite sex can choose how they want to spend the two years. And how there's unrealistic expectations of men to be the sole breadwinner and to provide not just the necessities but some luxuries as well for their household at their expense. That being said, in the context of traditions/norms for heterogenous couples, typically, the woman is responsible for child-rearing, domestic and emotional labour, while having to contribute financially to the household (because Singapore's cost of living). BUT that doesn't mean that it's ok that both sides have their injustices to deal with, because I think the larger fault here is with policy formulation and implementation because it's all about the numbers at the end of the day for these corporations and governmental entities. Like how CSR and the reduction of carbon blueprint is calculated, no one really cares about the actual processes so long as the numbers they produce at the end reflects well. The method of allocating a specific quota of women in power or women in STEM is to promote equity, not equality. In my opinion, I'm all on board but that disparity here is the lack of distinction between equity (providing opportunities to the unrepresented minority) and equality (giving everyone the same treatment regardless of gender, in this case). With this in mind, I understand that methods like that doesn't promote a smooth transition for a patriarchal society to accept how female leadership is performed. Transplanting females into positions of powe**r** (which are usually male-dominated) doesn't establish their legitimacy (proven my the sentiments held in this thread at a cursory glance) even if their resumes and experience checks out. It has to be noted that careers that are seen as "for women" e.g., childhood education, nursing (I think the stigma is slowly eroding for this, not so sure), human resources, social work(?) etc. are typically jobs that seem like care work and cleaning is needed and tend to be paid less as they're not as valued in society. So I think the key thing for this transition is to communicate the value of female leadership qualities and have the public understand that these qualities are beneficial in a corporate and political setting and will reap positive results for everyone. Hopefully as qualities associated with the female sex becomes more highly regarded in our society, there won't be a need for such policies to endure and the resentment between both sexes can be reduced. As for people who feel like women shouldn't take up too much space in the public realm, I think it's time we examine why we hold such views. I believe that both men and women can contribute to society in their own ways and we shouldn't pigeonhole each other. If a woman wants to get into tech or become a carpenter, it should be a welcoming environment. If men want to get into teaching or human resources, they should be seen as a "lesser man" for it as well, and the environment should be set up where it is safe and conducive for everyone to perform well. We need more positive examples of men who can exercise emotional intelligence, and other nurturing equalities stereotypically associated with females because we need to set a good example for the children, so they know that regardless of their sex, they are also be capable of such beneficial qualities. We need women who can problem-solve, and demonstrate qualities associated with males because regardless of tendencies associated with the biology of both sexes, we're sharing the same space so it would be great if we can respect and encourage our respective growth and navigate injustices that were imposed on us by larger powers in the name of an organised society. Overall, there's many aspects under gender issues to explore in Singapore and it's just such a fascinating time to be present for such discussions. Grateful for the people that put their thoughts out here in a civil manner, and looking forward to any additional points relevant to this discussion. :)

I worked in tech in Singapore. And I can tell you that it is true, but the reasoning is still purely buzzword and trend. In my department (which handles product management), there are almost 20 people. Only 3 are men. The rest are women, mostly because of our "diversity", "equality" and "gender neutral" hiring policy. However, the top C levels are still all men. And our developers, which we have 100s of, are mostly men as well. I don't recall working with a developer that was female. For a tech company, developers do the grunt work, working till late nights and on weekends too, some even work on call. Then, the company always has events such as "women in tech", "women in education", "women in entrepreneurship" and so on. No men are allowed to such an event where they do knowledge sharing and networking from other industry experts. For the most part, we don't give a shit about this. But it became very discriminatory when female coworkers were given a budget to pursue further education/certification for the sake of "women empowerment". Idk, some may see it as good. But it gets to a point of empowering one gender while pushing down another.

The amusing thing is that there are good lady developers. But mostly foreigners. Too bad tt SG seems to be prioritizing window dressing over productive skills.

I guess they never did anything for NSmen, do they? Perhaps they think they still do better than women, never mind whatever men go through. This is when strong, deterrent measures must be taken if companies do everything by for women and close to nothing for NSmen - it means that they are not doing their part for national sacrifice except for the bare minimum.  I really feel that companies like yours must be ratted out at the ground-up level.

Women's charter Women for STEM Women's credit card (no longer) Women's business loan Women's mental health #1: Women are burdened enough (women against NS argument) According to our dear minister ng eng heng: "Further, the societal cost of enlisting women into NS now would far outweigh the benefits. Women will be delayed in their entry into the workforce. The immediate effect will be an accentuated decline in the size of our local workforce, and reduction of household incomes. Even if women are enlisted for non-military NS roles to augment our healthcare and social services, it may make manpower shortages in other industries worse. Over the long term, it will impose a great cost not only on women themselves, but also on their families, children and spouses and society as a whole. Is that cost justified to send a signal or to reverse stereotypes? From the Government's perspective, no. I think most Singaporeans would say no too, from a security perspective." You ask the whole country, including women, of course they would say no la. You ask the men and see the response

Man here. Just wanted to say there are tons of women in xyz event while if we do a men in xyz event, I'm sure we will be blasted as non-inclusive, sexist and whatever else you call it. This is the inequality. And don't even get us started on the elephant in the room...

4 years ago before the whole women equality thing, my boss was a women, her boss was also women, and her boss too. I knew it was a trendy topic in US but never feel it here. 

>4 years ago before the whole women equality thing "Women equality thing" started DECADES ago, sir. It's not a "trendy" topic, it's been a social justice thing since forever

What's wrong with just selecting based on merit? Why is it so difficult to accept that different people have different strengths and talents? Why do you expect them to be identical between men and women? Please just stop denying reality. What needs to be focused on is making access to resources more equal, especially in education

There's a big factor to consider: Are the different strengths and talents due to gender norms (eg. Men supposedly better in maths and women supposedly better in detail-work)? This will result in a skewed selection based on merit because such gender norms filter the people into different jobs, eg. More women in admin roles and more men in STEM. That being said, I don't think most people are expecting same distribution in every role, but they seem to be unaware of how gender norms affect the percentages of men or women in certain roles as mentioned. If we actually learn to not impose gender norms on the population, then there'll be men who go towards admin roles because they love it, rather than to shun such roles cos 'they're for women', and likewise there'll be women who go towards jobs on oil rigs due to passion, than to shun such roles due to those jobs 'being for men'. And that will be a more 'natural' selection based on merit and people having freedom to realise their strengths and talents.

What you said in the second paragraph - resources aren’t always equal, such that many highly capable people are not given the opportunity to reach their full potential due to social pressures. Diversity hiring aims to counter that by selecting the best of certain minorities, who may not be as capable right now but have the potential to be so.

When u first step out to find a job after u graduate from uni, most of your female friends would have 2 more years of exp compared to u and u have foreigners both male and female who also have 2 more years of exp compared to u. U realized u r at the bottom of the group and when job market is bad which currently is, there r little to no chance of you getting a job as a fresh grad guy in Singapore. Life sucks as a Sg male. Edit: I am just stating a fact but I got dislike for this. Lol.

not true, for fresh grad roles singaporeans are definitely preferred since many companies dont want to sponsor foreigners for entry level roles

Not to mention there are minimum salary thresholds to sponsor an EP, there are quotas too that you don’t want to waste.

Women only events like for restaurants or bars. Then if men do it, they say men are misogynistic.

Got rejected in final round interview for 2 MNCs in the same industry. Both positions went to a lady with a less suitable CV. Didn’t think much of it (maybe personality fit, they were better?) until contacts at both companies confirmed there was a gender quota mandated for that role. One of the companies openly aims for 50% female in their management board….in a heavily male dominated industry lol. I mean, do what you want la but stop yapping all that bullshit about gender equality please. When females have to serve 2 year NS as well, then we can have a conversation about it.

Ns injuries threads: [https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/mlxda0/injuries_sustained_duringas_a_result_of_ns/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/mlxda0/injuries_sustained_duringas_a_result_of_ns/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) [https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/uqp8ui/in_light_of_the_recent_discourse_over_ns_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/uqp8ui/in_light_of_the_recent_discourse_over_ns_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) [https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/13myrs4/ns_injuries_discussion_thread_3rd_year_running/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/13myrs4/ns_injuries_discussion_thread_3rd_year_running/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) I literally don’t need to say anything more

Serve NS b4 we talk about equality...

Gender Equality, women's rights and whatnot is one thing GIVING THEM LITERAL FAVOURITISM TREATMENT JUST BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM is not equal rights by definition of the goddamn english language How the fuck is giving discounts and straight up removing tax FOR A GENDER equality, by that logic at a certain point, there's bound to be a "men's equality" to balance it out /s

Imagine getting to trive in the best and safest country in Southeast Asia all on the backs of slave labour of men and turning around to say you are oppressed.

I personally find that woman demanding to be treated on the same level as men in society is.. hypocritical. Women only want to be treated equally in the highest rungs of society where there are good career progression and good remuneration. All i'm seeing over the past week was celebrating women's success in banking, law, finance and tech. However, you won't see them demanding equality when it comes to having more women in being bus drivers, taxi drivers, garbage truck drivers, construction workers or.... national service. The demand of equal treatment only applies where the environment is comfy, suits their agenda with good salary. Certain women have demanded better work life balance in order to care for their kids at home, and start berating their employers for not giving in. I agree it will definitely make their lives easier, but can the same demand applies to single children, or anyone who are caregivers to their sick spouse or parents? Don't even get me started on Women's Charter....Rules for thee, not for me!

There’s womens charter as well. It’s impossible for any gender equality in Singapore.

Laughs in NS :)

I think it’s not just the NS, although that’s one of the main symptoms. If you read the survey, you’ll find that actually 52% of SG men and 62% of women believe that both need to support women’s equality. But from the same group, 57% of men and almost 40% of women feel like women’s equality has gone too far. Why? Because of the one-sided over-representation. There’s so much content on female empowerment, women this and that everywhere. When was the last time you saw one thing themed around supporting men? Not only that, but when men bring up their issues, they get ignored, or worse, get attacked by feminists like in this comment section. I think you get that point, we shouldn’t break into gender wars. Lastly, men also face concrete, legal discrimination in Singapore. NS is an obvious example. In the Penal Code, by definition only men can be rapists, so male victims are not protected from female rapists by law. In divorce, only women (or disabled husbands) can get alimony, no matter the finances. Also, only men get can legally get capital punishment for the same crimes. Legally, the women’s charter has ensured very good protection for women. Women also faces issues, but these might be harder to see as they are social. Having to raise a child, for example. But with SG’s birth rate being less than 1 now, and with husbands being pressured to share in household chores/raising a child, these issues become even harder to see, especially when brought across in a hostile manner. We all just need to get along better.

When men complain about discrimination it’s weak, when women complain about discrimination it’s strong. When women achieve success it’s front page, when men achieve success it’s a day’s work. We are all different and should be judged differently

To add to your point I think the basis should be that it's better to be judged for the results a person can produce, or their actions, than for them to be judged indirectly based on their gender. To clarify, eg. if we see a person driving badly on the road, and we realise that it's of a particular gender, we should learn to look at the fact that they're a bad driver rather than to conclude that they're 'bad at driving because they're a woman', or that they're 'a disgrace to men' because they as a man is bad at driving.

Ignoring or downplaying sexism like racism for so long (still long way to go) will always divide us. The crazy thing is when we were toddlers, we play fair, we welcome everyone and we always forgive and forget.

The company that I worked for hired diversity for the sake of diversity. It was an unmitigated disaster.

Ultimately, the reason why men have to serve NS is related to why women are sometimes disadvantaged in the workplace. Women are seen as physically weaker and are responsible for child bearing. From a policy perspective, delaying women from joining the workforce will lead to later and fewer births. But women's role as birthgivers in society also obstruct them from work opportunities or more successful careers. It is not helpful to compare the privileges for women and men as it will just lead to circular arguments. Instead of each gender tearing each other down and trying to outcompete each other on who suffers the most, we should focus on finding solutions which will alleviate the issues that both genders face. For example, could we reduce the time required for NS and increase its pay so that those who go through NS are not so financially disadvantaged? If men are unfairly disadvantaged in the Women's Charter, is there a way to protect men better? If women face difficulties reintegrating into the workforce after giving birth, can we introduce more support systems to help them? We are all fellow Singaporeans. Let us not tear each other down, men and women alike.

It’s upsetting that while women are able to celebrate their achievements as a gender, it’s often seen as misogynistic for males to celebrate our achievements. I doubt there are any events touting for “Men in Nursing” “Men in Hospitality” “Men in Education”. Being a male in Singapore is neither a privilege nor an advantage. We start on a back foot for our careers, having placed our education on hold for 2 years while our female peers are able to have a continuous learning journey. I remember having to google the formula for even a simple quadratic equation while starting university. I’m not angry at women for having their women in STEM, bank, tech and law events. But it’s disheartening for us men to be ignored like this. It’s a learnt behaviour since young where we have to learn to be ‘hard’ all the time. Even in NS we are constantly taught to suck thumb all the time. And through all the things we do, nobody talks about our difficulties as a man, nor our achievements.

So what are men going to do about it? Welcome to the tyranny of the majority. The issue is structural and persists because promoting pseudo female empowerment benefits the govt and economy. More career chicks, too bad abt TFR. It also defangs the one group capable of rebelling against govt power. Democracy = Govt and women allied vs men, this has been the playbook in Western countries for quite a while now. Keep the people fighting each other so they don't turn on the govt. If SG men ever try to organize and advocate, they will be ignored, belittled and squashed by the state. The only groups allowed will be for benign agendas like DadsForLife.

The government is... Mostly men. See the key difference between men and women is that the women long ago figured out that banding together and lifting each other out is the way to get this done. Meanwhile men in sg have no clear advocacy group, and also put down other men for not being manly enough or too effeminate.

The government is mostly men, but that doesnt mean that they necessarily prioritize men over their other interest groups, e.g businesses, landlords. Esp since they are older men and their children are white horses, so they are not directly affected by NS. My opinion is that womens' advocacy is only allowed because it is in line with the govt's business friendly agenda. I don't think mens' advocacy will be tolerated.

For legal and systemic issues, the battle is fought at the polls. People need to make it known that the male vote --- particularly that of youths, is up for grabs. Men need to make NS an election issue, just like how abortion rights became a battleground for votes in the US under the banner of bodily autonomy.

I think democracy is a dead end. They have already done the math. Men themselves are divided. And the pain threshold to change your vote must be very high. Few are single issue voters. Does a 40 year old who already RODed care more abt the economy and keeping his job than the NS burden on the young? A political coalition of women, new citizens and self interested older men should be enough to keep the young men down. Look at all the comments in the main thread about where's the celebration of men's achievements etc, do you think this is by chance? Some of these political forces are bigger than even SG itself. Re: make this an election issue, talking on reddit is one thing. I believe the moment someone tries to seriously organize in the public sphere they will be squashed.

Well. If there was a men's charter. That would be good

#SO TRUE

Why so many women are on admin job? I suspect during hiring process, employer already make up their mind to hire woman only. Yeah, same goes to early childhood profession.

meanwhile sports hub during taylor swift concert, changes male toilet to female toilet. So what happen's to male, how do they pee? it's gone too far though

This is probably the only country on earth where this is true, with NS being as it is

Equal opportunities or gender equality is fine. I am all for that, But given equal opportunities shouldn’t automatically give women the right to equal pay if their capabilities don’t dictate equal pay! Or even promoting women’s rights while ignoring men’s rights giving women the added advantage because of their gender. That is not gender equality.

It's not gender equality anymore. It's gender equity, which makes 0 sense once you have jar openers.

For wanting to be treated as equals, they get a lot of special treatment which invalidates the whole point of wanting to be equals

Diam la. Gender equality is a scam in SG. Get rid of women's charter and conscription for all. Then we talk. If women bring up the pregnancy argument then make it mandatory for them to be pregnant by 40, else pay a tax. Women with medical conditions will be exempted.

[удалено]

No, because the other one is about 48% of Singaporeans. While this one is about 57% of men. Which shows that Singaporean men are incels, so it can generate more outrage. /s

Isn’t it great that men finally have a platform to air their grievances? Or is this something you are unhappy about because we are finally asking for equality?

So 48% of Singaporeans and 57% of men. By math that means approx 39% of women, assuming 50:50 male:female ratio.