Having a parental responsibility law is a good idea, because all parents are responsible for disciplining their children and teaching them the right things. If they fail to supervise their children, they are more likely to be led astray by other people. Children must be disciplined since young, and parents also need to start building a close relationship with their children from the day they were born. That way the children can grow into good people.
Being a parent is not easy. Some parents may have tried their best to control their children but still failed. But some parents may not even bother to discipline their children, or maybe they teach their children the wrong things. When their children commit a crime, the parental responsibility law can act as a wake up call to these parents. It can also help those parents who do not know how to handle their children. Like mentioned in the article, parents should first be given counseling. If these parents refuse to change their children’s criminal behaviour, then they should be prosecuted. Sometimes people just need some help to redirect them to the correct path, but if they insist on walking the wrong way, then they should bear the consequences. As for the consequences they need to face, it depends on how serious the violations or offences their children have made.
For the case of the 16 year old boy who murdered his girlfriend’s husband, I think he should be sentenced to maybe 20 years of imprisonment. He is still a teenager, and he came from a broken family where his parents had little time to spend with him. He is very vulnerable to bad influences. It is not surprising that he would come to this stage. Therefore I think he was not completely at fault and should not be given a life sentence or death sentence. As for his (step) parents, they should be given counseling. Maybe they did not know that their negligence have affected their son, and so they should be given a chance.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
When good wombs bear bad sons
I think that having parental responsibility law is not a very good idea. After all, parents could not possibly follow their children twenty-four hours everyday just to make sure that they stay out of trouble. We should learn to take responsibility for all our actions, and not let our parents be responsible of whatever we do.
We should put the juveniles who commit criminal offences like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson and other violent crimes into boys/girls' home and to be sent for counselling. They are still young, and I am pretty sure they would regret their actions as they do not really mean to kill the person. It would be sort of an act of rashness. Or, we could put them on probation, and if they still show some signs of violence, then we could then take other actions.
For the parents to be held responsible part, I would think that it is not necessary. After all, just as I have said, parents could not follow their children twenty-four hours per day and stop them from doing anything wrong. We should learn to be responsible for what we do, or else, we would start to have this mindset that "My parents are being held responsible for whatever I do so I can do whatever I feel like doing." This way, teenagers would be more likely to commit crimes. Only by being responsible ourselves, then we could learn to stay out of trouble.
Everyone deserves a second chance. I guess this statement is always true, and thus, the 16 year old boy should be given a second chance to repent. However, I would say (again) that his (step)parents are not to blame for what he have done so they should not be held responsible.
-HUIQING! (:
We should put the juveniles who commit criminal offences like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson and other violent crimes into boys/girls' home and to be sent for counselling. They are still young, and I am pretty sure they would regret their actions as they do not really mean to kill the person. It would be sort of an act of rashness. Or, we could put them on probation, and if they still show some signs of violence, then we could then take other actions.
For the parents to be held responsible part, I would think that it is not necessary. After all, just as I have said, parents could not follow their children twenty-four hours per day and stop them from doing anything wrong. We should learn to be responsible for what we do, or else, we would start to have this mindset that "My parents are being held responsible for whatever I do so I can do whatever I feel like doing." This way, teenagers would be more likely to commit crimes. Only by being responsible ourselves, then we could learn to stay out of trouble.
Everyone deserves a second chance. I guess this statement is always true, and thus, the 16 year old boy should be given a second chance to repent. However, I would say (again) that his (step)parents are not to blame for what he have done so they should not be held responsible.
-HUIQING! (:
when good wombs bear bad sons.
What are your thoughts on having a parental responsibility law?
A parental responsibility law ensures that parents do their jobs as parents to educate and discipline their child while they are still understage, and most probably still unable to think and act maturely.
If you support such a law, how can the law be enforced?
The law can be enforced when the child breaks the law and it is provened that the parents did not do their parts as parents to teach and guide the child.
What are the suggested punishments (counselling, jail, fines, pay for damages, community work, etc.)?
Counselling for both parents and child. Putting child in boys' or girls' home if they break the laws frequently. Pay for damages and fine the parents.
What kinds of violations or offences require which type or level of penalties and why? Will such laws help to reduce juvenile deliquency?
Murder, robbery, rape, arson, joining street gangs, getting into fights, taking drugs..
Such laws will be able to help to reduce juvenile deliquency. Parents will keep a lookout on their child's doings and they will care of their child. The children will not be given much chance to violate the laws.
In the case of the 16 year old boy who was charged with murder, what do you think the law should do to him? To his (step)parents?
He should be given a chance, but still punished. And his step parents should be punished (maybe fine), and both parents and child should be counselled.
zoeyneo(:
3faith.
A parental responsibility law ensures that parents do their jobs as parents to educate and discipline their child while they are still understage, and most probably still unable to think and act maturely.
If you support such a law, how can the law be enforced?
The law can be enforced when the child breaks the law and it is provened that the parents did not do their parts as parents to teach and guide the child.
What are the suggested punishments (counselling, jail, fines, pay for damages, community work, etc.)?
Counselling for both parents and child. Putting child in boys' or girls' home if they break the laws frequently. Pay for damages and fine the parents.
What kinds of violations or offences require which type or level of penalties and why? Will such laws help to reduce juvenile deliquency?
Murder, robbery, rape, arson, joining street gangs, getting into fights, taking drugs..
Such laws will be able to help to reduce juvenile deliquency. Parents will keep a lookout on their child's doings and they will care of their child. The children will not be given much chance to violate the laws.
In the case of the 16 year old boy who was charged with murder, what do you think the law should do to him? To his (step)parents?
He should be given a chance, but still punished. And his step parents should be punished (maybe fine), and both parents and child should be counselled.
zoeyneo(:
3faith.
When good wombs bear bad sons
A parent has a responsibility to teach their child.
I think that everyone should have morals and a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Laws are almost always made up around the people in the society's morals. For instance, the reason that there are laws for the 16 years old who murdered the disc jockey is because the morals of the people in our society say that killing and stealing are wrong and should be punished. Without morals we would have no laws. Without morals we would have no society. Without morals, we may as well live in the middle of the woods without any kind of society at all. Morals are needed in order to have a safe and productive society. Since society is made up of the people within it, people need to have morals in order to be safe and productive.
Parents also have a moral responsibility to teach their child morals. According to most philosophical and family scientists, the primary purpose of the family is teach a child as he or she grows up. Part of this teaching is teaching the child morals. The responsibility for a child's actions rests with the parent, and if a parent expects their child to act responsibly, they need to teach him or her morals. The responsibility to teach children morals belongs to the parents of a child.
A parent must be allowed to know everything that their child is doing in order for them to teach their children right from wrong.
If the father or the step mother of the 16 year old boy had taught him about this or know what he is doing, will he still be in this state?
by victoria
I think that everyone should have morals and a sense of what is right and what is wrong. Laws are almost always made up around the people in the society's morals. For instance, the reason that there are laws for the 16 years old who murdered the disc jockey is because the morals of the people in our society say that killing and stealing are wrong and should be punished. Without morals we would have no laws. Without morals we would have no society. Without morals, we may as well live in the middle of the woods without any kind of society at all. Morals are needed in order to have a safe and productive society. Since society is made up of the people within it, people need to have morals in order to be safe and productive.
Parents also have a moral responsibility to teach their child morals. According to most philosophical and family scientists, the primary purpose of the family is teach a child as he or she grows up. Part of this teaching is teaching the child morals. The responsibility for a child's actions rests with the parent, and if a parent expects their child to act responsibly, they need to teach him or her morals. The responsibility to teach children morals belongs to the parents of a child.
A parent must be allowed to know everything that their child is doing in order for them to teach their children right from wrong.
If the father or the step mother of the 16 year old boy had taught him about this or know what he is doing, will he still be in this state?
by victoria
When ladies’ night isn’t for all ladies
Wed nights are known to clubbers as the night when ladies needn’t be ashamed of entering a club free and having drinks on the house. After all, that’s all “Ladies’ Night” is about, isn’t it? Ladies’ Nights usually starts after 9pm and it goes on for the entire evening.Although it was a ladies’ night, there was probably an equal number of males present, and didn’t seem to have any less a good time than the ladies. It is so impossible for gender equality to exist.
Why do clubs have ladies' night? From the point of the club, they know the ladies will bring in a friend or two to keep her company and watch their back so if she should get to drunk and make sure she get to her own house vice some one else’s that she may have just meet. Second, the guys will come in to check out the ladies to see what is happening and who is back for another visit. So, I think that the club is right about not allowing her to go in to the club. It was also stated that the maximum age for the ladies’ night is 35.
by victoria
Why do clubs have ladies' night? From the point of the club, they know the ladies will bring in a friend or two to keep her company and watch their back so if she should get to drunk and make sure she get to her own house vice some one else’s that she may have just meet. Second, the guys will come in to check out the ladies to see what is happening and who is back for another visit. So, I think that the club is right about not allowing her to go in to the club. It was also stated that the maximum age for the ladies’ night is 35.
by victoria
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
RE: When good womb bear bad sons
I myself feel that having a parental responsitbility law is important as parents need to take responsibility for what the actions of their children. The discipline of the offspring would be the responsibility of their parents. If the parents are unresponsible then they have to face the consequences.
I support such a law as it forces unresponsible parents to pull up their socks and care and discipline any unruly children.
The law can be enforced be sending offenders for psychiatric treatment, counselling, to prison, etc.
Juvenile delinquency can be lowered by having more talks held in schools to explain the consequences to younbg children and drill it into their minds when they are young.
Did u c dis high son?
I myself feel that having a parental responsitbility law is important as parents need to take responsibility for what the actions of their children. The discipline of the offspring would be the responsibility of their parents. If the parents are unresponsible then they have to face the consequences.
I support such a law as it forces unresponsible parents to pull up their socks and care and discipline any unruly children.
The law can be enforced be sending offenders for psychiatric treatment, counselling, to prison, etc.
Juvenile delinquency can be lowered by having more talks held in schools to explain the consequences to younbg children and drill it into their minds when they are young.
Did u c dis high son?
Discrimination
The writer’s main point in this article is written very clearly in bold, ‘A woman’s self image is based on standards set by men and younger women…’ which simple means older women are being discriminated against.
I agree with the local nightspots’ decision to refuse women over 35 free drinks on ladies night only if the bar has stated it very clearly.
Perhaps yes, in a way many people may argue that this is discrimination. But look at it this way. Women over 35 are arguably less attractive than younger women. This is a fact based on science, simply that women over 35 have less chances of giving birth and hence appear less attractive to men.
We live in a pragmatic world, and we must know our worth. People go clubbing for many reasons, some to have fun, and a lot to meet new people and friends around their age. Obviously, most who go clubbing are around their 20s. Then naturally these nightspots want to attract them and give them special benefits. What is wrong with that?
It is like the Singapore government treating our own citizens better (giving them more benefits eg. Money when the economy is doing well, Medisave, CPF etc.) Is it discrimination that we do not give the money to foreigners?
Again why older men do not face such discrimination is because men can have children even at an older age and that again is a fact proved by science. Women who face age and sex discrimination is normal and a result of human instinct. Discrimination is a way of helping our species to continue, and is very necessary in daily life by telling us what is good and what is bad.
(due to time constraints I shall wrap this up)
What then can we do about discrimination? The only feasible solution is to prove that those being discriminated against can do for eg. jobs as well as their younger counterparts.
However this probably will not happen, the old should give way to the new, and instead act as mentors.
I agree with the local nightspots’ decision to refuse women over 35 free drinks on ladies night only if the bar has stated it very clearly.
Perhaps yes, in a way many people may argue that this is discrimination. But look at it this way. Women over 35 are arguably less attractive than younger women. This is a fact based on science, simply that women over 35 have less chances of giving birth and hence appear less attractive to men.
We live in a pragmatic world, and we must know our worth. People go clubbing for many reasons, some to have fun, and a lot to meet new people and friends around their age. Obviously, most who go clubbing are around their 20s. Then naturally these nightspots want to attract them and give them special benefits. What is wrong with that?
It is like the Singapore government treating our own citizens better (giving them more benefits eg. Money when the economy is doing well, Medisave, CPF etc.) Is it discrimination that we do not give the money to foreigners?
Again why older men do not face such discrimination is because men can have children even at an older age and that again is a fact proved by science. Women who face age and sex discrimination is normal and a result of human instinct. Discrimination is a way of helping our species to continue, and is very necessary in daily life by telling us what is good and what is bad.
(due to time constraints I shall wrap this up)
What then can we do about discrimination? The only feasible solution is to prove that those being discriminated against can do for eg. jobs as well as their younger counterparts.
However this probably will not happen, the old should give way to the new, and instead act as mentors.
When good wombs bear bad sons
I think having a parental responsibility law is a good idea, especially when the offender is below 18 years old as the parents are suppose to be responsible for their child's actions and behaviour. Researches have also shown that children grow up to be how they've been brought up by their parents, so parents should be held partly responsible when a child commits a crime.
As for the punitive measures, I think the juveniles should serve minimal jail term, followed by community service work and counseling. This way, they would be able to spend time in jail reflecting on their mistakes and be determined to change through the counseling help. Their parents should be given counseling, as well as a fine to educate them and to teach them a lesson so as to serve as a constant reminder to guide their child properly.
I also feel that these punishments can only be implemented after thorough investigations to see if the parents have really mislead the child. As the people whom the child spends the most time with, parents should educate their children, set good examples for them to follow. Unfortunately, even the most well-brought-up child can also be changed due to peer influences. If the child commits a crime solely because of such influences, his parents should not be punished.
As for the punitive measures, I think the juveniles should serve minimal jail term, followed by community service work and counseling. This way, they would be able to spend time in jail reflecting on their mistakes and be determined to change through the counseling help. Their parents should be given counseling, as well as a fine to educate them and to teach them a lesson so as to serve as a constant reminder to guide their child properly.
I also feel that these punishments can only be implemented after thorough investigations to see if the parents have really mislead the child. As the people whom the child spends the most time with, parents should educate their children, set good examples for them to follow. Unfortunately, even the most well-brought-up child can also be changed due to peer influences. If the child commits a crime solely because of such influences, his parents should not be punished.
RE: When ladies' night is'nt for all ladies
Edited:
The writer's point of view should be that there should not be a difference in treatment towards older woman, there should not be any discirmination, just because of age. Everyone would grow older.
It is quite unfair for the nightspot to refuse the woman over 35 the free drinks that it promised ladies on the specific day of the week. Even if the woman is older, she is a woman too. Did'nt it promise to give ladies free drinks on the specific day of the week? So they do not have the right to refuse the woman, as there should not be any age or gender discrimination. Anyway, it says LADIES' NIGHT, so there should not be any age limit, it is really unfair towards the older ladies, they too, are woman, and they have the right too.
I think that there is more of age discrimination then gender discrimination. In this 21st century, women and men mostly receive equal treatment, what men can do, most women can do too. While for old people, it may be hard for them to look for jobs, as some employers might think that they are old and perhaps useless. Some employers when looking for workers would specify the age group they want. But in fact, don't older people know more things than younger people?
There should be law against discrimination.
The writer's point of view should be that there should not be a difference in treatment towards older woman, there should not be any discirmination, just because of age. Everyone would grow older.
It is quite unfair for the nightspot to refuse the woman over 35 the free drinks that it promised ladies on the specific day of the week. Even if the woman is older, she is a woman too. Did'nt it promise to give ladies free drinks on the specific day of the week? So they do not have the right to refuse the woman, as there should not be any age or gender discrimination. Anyway, it says LADIES' NIGHT, so there should not be any age limit, it is really unfair towards the older ladies, they too, are woman, and they have the right too.
I think that there is more of age discrimination then gender discrimination. In this 21st century, women and men mostly receive equal treatment, what men can do, most women can do too. While for old people, it may be hard for them to look for jobs, as some employers might think that they are old and perhaps useless. Some employers when looking for workers would specify the age group they want. But in fact, don't older people know more things than younger people?
There should be law against discrimination.
When Ladies Night Isn't For All Ladies
A local nightspot recently refused a women over 35 the free drinks it has promised ladies on a specific day of the week.
The writer thinks that it is fair to assume that the propritors of such establishments take for granted that only young nubile females get the men with money to burn-regradless of age-in. And they won't be starying too much from what most of us would assume as well.
The writer also questioned the readers: Which mattered more in this case-the gender discrimination or the age discrimination?
I agree with the writer that in this case, it is about both gender and age discrimination.
The nightspot practised age discrimination by not allowing ladies above 35 to get the free drinks. 'Ladies night' means that all ladies should get what is promised.Women above 35 are still considered ladies and therefore should be given what other ladies below the age of 35 was given.
I think that they are practising gender discrimination because they do not have an age restriction for men.I feel that such policy is unfair and biased.
I think that the reason the nightspot allow allmen who are willing to spend money in so that they may make more money from the men. But they must not forget thatwomen are also capable of spending money.
Kah Him 3G
The writer thinks that it is fair to assume that the propritors of such establishments take for granted that only young nubile females get the men with money to burn-regradless of age-in. And they won't be starying too much from what most of us would assume as well.
The writer also questioned the readers: Which mattered more in this case-the gender discrimination or the age discrimination?
I agree with the writer that in this case, it is about both gender and age discrimination.
The nightspot practised age discrimination by not allowing ladies above 35 to get the free drinks. 'Ladies night' means that all ladies should get what is promised.Women above 35 are still considered ladies and therefore should be given what other ladies below the age of 35 was given.
I think that they are practising gender discrimination because they do not have an age restriction for men.I feel that such policy is unfair and biased.
I think that the reason the nightspot allow allmen who are willing to spend money in so that they may make more money from the men. But they must not forget thatwomen are also capable of spending money.
Kah Him 3G
When ladies' night isn't for all ladies
Nicholas 3Faith
The author point is that a woman was discriminated at a local nightspot just because she was 55, and overaged to get free drinks
I feel local pubs do not have the right to refuse giving free drinks to older women. Everyone who goes to the pub are trying to unwind and relax after a stressful day at work. So, I strongly feel that everyone is entitled to go to the pub and get the same priveliage as everyone. Everyone is equal
I feel that age discrimation is more then gender discrimination. Nowsday, more women are doing men jobs and gender discrimination is fading away. However more jobs have age requirements as most companies would prefer a university graduate then a experienced worker
The author point is that a woman was discriminated at a local nightspot just because she was 55, and overaged to get free drinks
I feel local pubs do not have the right to refuse giving free drinks to older women. Everyone who goes to the pub are trying to unwind and relax after a stressful day at work. So, I strongly feel that everyone is entitled to go to the pub and get the same priveliage as everyone. Everyone is equal
I feel that age discrimation is more then gender discrimination. Nowsday, more women are doing men jobs and gender discrimination is fading away. However more jobs have age requirements as most companies would prefer a university graduate then a experienced worker
When ladies' night isn't for all ladies
In this article, the author says that older women are discriminated from a nightspot. There was a limit to the age to get a free drink — which is 35. But an old woman of age 55 was not allowed to get a free drink. Is this really fair?
I think that it is fair that the old woman do not get the drink. After all, rules are rules. They may be young at heart, but there must be limits. But isn’t this discrimination? Actually, yes, but this form of discrimination is not very discriminating. This is a rule, and unless someone who is able to change the rule does so, the age 55 woman should not get the free drink after all.
Old woman face a “double whammy” as their appearance changes as time passes. So they are discriminated.
I think that it is fair that the old woman do not get the drink. After all, rules are rules. They may be young at heart, but there must be limits. But isn’t this discrimination? Actually, yes, but this form of discrimination is not very discriminating. This is a rule, and unless someone who is able to change the rule does so, the age 55 woman should not get the free drink after all.
Old woman face a “double whammy” as their appearance changes as time passes. So they are discriminated.
Nicholas 3Faith
The author point in this article is that despite a reader thinking that parents should be held criminally responsible for violent children, he feel "bad" parenting is not the only cause of their children becoming delinquent. Hence I feel I have to agree to the writer's view
I too feel that teenagers turning back is mostly due to their ignorance and only some part due to negliant of parents. Some parents are forced to somewhat neglect their children as they need to work hard in earning a living to provide for the children's lives and so children should understand their parents situation.
However, punishment still must be handed out to the delinquent's serious crimes such as handing out usual jail terms, varying according to the seriousness of their crimes. Also, parents can still play a part by making a rule that parents should visit their children in jail at least once a week to counsel and encourage them
As for the 16 years old boy who was charged with murder, I still feel he should be handed out heavy punishments such as lengthy jail terms and caning to let him know he must bear all the consequences for the things he did. However parents of him should play a part by visitng him at least 33 times a week to encourage and counsel him.
The author point in this article is that despite a reader thinking that parents should be held criminally responsible for violent children, he feel "bad" parenting is not the only cause of their children becoming delinquent. Hence I feel I have to agree to the writer's view
I too feel that teenagers turning back is mostly due to their ignorance and only some part due to negliant of parents. Some parents are forced to somewhat neglect their children as they need to work hard in earning a living to provide for the children's lives and so children should understand their parents situation.
However, punishment still must be handed out to the delinquent's serious crimes such as handing out usual jail terms, varying according to the seriousness of their crimes. Also, parents can still play a part by making a rule that parents should visit their children in jail at least once a week to counsel and encourage them
As for the 16 years old boy who was charged with murder, I still feel he should be handed out heavy punishments such as lengthy jail terms and caning to let him know he must bear all the consequences for the things he did. However parents of him should play a part by visitng him at least 33 times a week to encourage and counsel him.
Eugene's answer for ladies night thing
i think that the author is trying to say that
if there is a ladies night offer it should be given to all ladies
not to only ladies of a certain age group this is a form of age discrimination
i feel that the nightspot does have the right to refuse older woman
(its the bar owner's decision)
however the offer should be more fair
like i say earlier the ladies night offer should have been given
to all ladies
I feel that steps should be taken against age discrimination but not laws
this discrimination should not go unattended but neither should it be taken to seriously
we all grow old someday right?
if there is a ladies night offer it should be given to all ladies
not to only ladies of a certain age group this is a form of age discrimination
i feel that the nightspot does have the right to refuse older woman
(its the bar owner's decision)
however the offer should be more fair
like i say earlier the ladies night offer should have been given
to all ladies
I feel that steps should be taken against age discrimination but not laws
this discrimination should not go unattended but neither should it be taken to seriously
we all grow old someday right?
We should not have gender and age discrimination. Older people are equally important to the society.
No. They should allow females aged 35 and above have free drinks also. As it is "LADIES' NIITE", females aged over 35 are also ladies. There should be laws to stop this discrimination.
It is very true. Women will come to a menopause age and can no longer give birth. However, men can get medicine to increase their potency.
Working old women get discriminated by the young women in their workplaces as they may find their working abilities are slow.
Lillian, 3 Integrity
No. They should allow females aged 35 and above have free drinks also. As it is "LADIES' NIITE", females aged over 35 are also ladies. There should be laws to stop this discrimination.
It is very true. Women will come to a menopause age and can no longer give birth. However, men can get medicine to increase their potency.
Working old women get discriminated by the young women in their workplaces as they may find their working abilities are slow.
Lillian, 3 Integrity
RE: When ladies night isn't for ladies
RE: When ladies night isn't for ladies
I feel that the pubs have the right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks. They should have the right to choose who to give their free driniks to. In the long run this will only affect the credibility of the pub and its reputation. However, they should be clear in any of their advertisements that there is an age limit for women.
I admit that one can view this as discrimination but I personally feel that it isn't. If they are unhappy with this they can choose to go to other pubs.
Older women face a "double whammy" like gender and age discrimination. Since it is gender discrimination, old men obviously do not face as much discrimination. However it is not as if they do not face any discrimination at all. Surely you have seen the advertisements where jobs openings are for young people only. They do not seem to realise that older people also have more experience.
Due to time constraints, I am forced to wrap up this post. happy reading. LOLOLOL
I feel that the pubs have the right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks. They should have the right to choose who to give their free driniks to. In the long run this will only affect the credibility of the pub and its reputation. However, they should be clear in any of their advertisements that there is an age limit for women.
I admit that one can view this as discrimination but I personally feel that it isn't. If they are unhappy with this they can choose to go to other pubs.
Older women face a "double whammy" like gender and age discrimination. Since it is gender discrimination, old men obviously do not face as much discrimination. However it is not as if they do not face any discrimination at all. Surely you have seen the advertisements where jobs openings are for young people only. They do not seem to realise that older people also have more experience.
Due to time constraints, I am forced to wrap up this post. happy reading. LOLOLOL
Re: When ladies' night isn't for all ladies
Does the local nightspot have a right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on ladies night? If yes, isn't this discrimination? If no, what can we do about it? Should there be laws against such discrimination?
No, I do not think so. Are not women over 35 ladies? Was not "ladies night" orginally introduced just for ladies? If not, why is it called "ladies night", not something else like "younger-ladies-only night"? What can be done is changing the society's perception of women. Questions like the above should be asked. Women have come a long way since the ancient times when feet of women were bound in China. I wonder why the society discriminate older women as Singapore is a modern country. We are not sexists and women have rights and some are even more powerful than men today. There SHOULD be laws against such discrimination. If not, the term "human rights" should be redefined.
(Will post more next time. Post shortened due to time constraints.)
:)
No, I do not think so. Are not women over 35 ladies? Was not "ladies night" orginally introduced just for ladies? If not, why is it called "ladies night", not something else like "younger-ladies-only night"? What can be done is changing the society's perception of women. Questions like the above should be asked. Women have come a long way since the ancient times when feet of women were bound in China. I wonder why the society discriminate older women as Singapore is a modern country. We are not sexists and women have rights and some are even more powerful than men today. There SHOULD be laws against such discrimination. If not, the term "human rights" should be redefined.
(Will post more next time. Post shortened due to time constraints.)
:)
When ladies' night isn't for all ladies
The ladies' night should be open to all ladies. I agree that a certain guideline is needed like age limit, but 35 is simply too young. Women nowadays have high paying jobs and well established career too and they do not retire early.
There are a far bit of women with high ranking jobs over the age of 40. They still look good and are mostly able to communicate well.
It cannot be that all men who go to pubs are young too and it is still good to be able to communicate to someone near your age.
Women definitely suffer discrimination more than the men, especially those who are older. I do not think discrimination laws are needed but certain guidelines should be introduced.
Pubs want to earn as much money as possible so we cannot blame them for the restrictions, but it would be good if they could, perhaps, change the age limit to 45 and be more lax about it.
Discrimination is not something that will change overnight, but we can do something to make it fade away...
There are a far bit of women with high ranking jobs over the age of 40. They still look good and are mostly able to communicate well.
It cannot be that all men who go to pubs are young too and it is still good to be able to communicate to someone near your age.
Women definitely suffer discrimination more than the men, especially those who are older. I do not think discrimination laws are needed but certain guidelines should be introduced.
Pubs want to earn as much money as possible so we cannot blame them for the restrictions, but it would be good if they could, perhaps, change the age limit to 45 and be more lax about it.
Discrimination is not something that will change overnight, but we can do something to make it fade away...
"When ladies' night isn't for all ladies"
"When ladies' night isn't for all ladies"
What is the writer's point in this article?
After reading the article, i think that the writer's point of view is that older women does not deserves to be age and gender dirscriminated.
Does the local nightspot have a right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on ladies night? If yes, isn't this discrimination? If no, what can we do about it? Should there be laws against such discrimination?
Thinking from the local nightspot's side of view, i personally think they have the right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on ladies night. This is because women to be given free drinks on ladies' night is just a promotion tatic. Thus they do have the right to choose to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on ladies night. Besides, if they do not have the right, why in the first place is it only "ladies' night" and not "men's night". However, from my point of view, since this is ladies' night, all women should be entitled to the free drinks.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Eugene's answer. for When Good wombs....
I agree with the idea of having a parental law
as the actually prevents delinquency.
I strongly believe that all parents a child's best teacher
they are suppose to educate them
however the child is also responsible
at 16 years old he should be able eto differenate
between right and wrong
I believe that this parental law can be enforced by counselling
should a parent fail to educate his/her child
the parent should be sent for counselling
the pparent then should be educated on how to educate the child
the child also has to be given counselling
because if at 16 he is still unable to tell the difference between right and wrong
he needs the counselling.
the law has to treat this very seriously
manslaughter, murder and other acts of violence
should be handled and dealt with seriously
for in this case of the 16 year old boy
he and his parents should be dealt with.
as the actually prevents delinquency.
I strongly believe that all parents a child's best teacher
they are suppose to educate them
however the child is also responsible
at 16 years old he should be able eto differenate
between right and wrong
I believe that this parental law can be enforced by counselling
should a parent fail to educate his/her child
the parent should be sent for counselling
the pparent then should be educated on how to educate the child
the child also has to be given counselling
because if at 16 he is still unable to tell the difference between right and wrong
he needs the counselling.
the law has to treat this very seriously
manslaughter, murder and other acts of violence
should be handled and dealt with seriously
for in this case of the 16 year old boy
he and his parents should be dealt with.
When good woman wombs bear bad sons
Having a parental responsibility law is important. If parents do not show responsibilty to their children, the children will not be cared by their parents. This will affect their discipline, and what they do. As these children grow up, they are easily influenced by the people around them. The children may find the wrong kind of friends, such as bad influence. Thus, they start to become violent.
I support the idea of such a law. If the parents do not care about the children, who can? They are the ones who hold the responsibility of taking care of the children, that no one else can take the place of.
I feel that these irresponsible parents should be harshly punished. They should be fined for about $1500, and jailed up to 7 months. These parents should be put to counselling. The children's violence may be influenced from their parents. If their parents are drinkers, the parents will easily get into a fight easily, so influencing their children.
I believe that most people would have held the parents responsible for the children’s violent actions. However, we cannot entirely blame the parents.
These children may have leant it from other people, instead of their parents. Some parents who are too busy working may not realise that their children are learning bad. So, these children continue doing what they do, without the parents’ knowledge. When the children do such things, the parents would not have known and thus unable to stop them from doing these actions. So, we cannot entirely blame everything on the parents.
For the case of the 16 year-old boy charged with murder, I think that the parents should be punished but not too harshly. It is not entirely the parents fault; the boy is partly responsible.
I support the idea of such a law. If the parents do not care about the children, who can? They are the ones who hold the responsibility of taking care of the children, that no one else can take the place of.
I feel that these irresponsible parents should be harshly punished. They should be fined for about $1500, and jailed up to 7 months. These parents should be put to counselling. The children's violence may be influenced from their parents. If their parents are drinkers, the parents will easily get into a fight easily, so influencing their children.
I believe that most people would have held the parents responsible for the children’s violent actions. However, we cannot entirely blame the parents.
These children may have leant it from other people, instead of their parents. Some parents who are too busy working may not realise that their children are learning bad. So, these children continue doing what they do, without the parents’ knowledge. When the children do such things, the parents would not have known and thus unable to stop them from doing these actions. So, we cannot entirely blame everything on the parents.
For the case of the 16 year-old boy charged with murder, I think that the parents should be punished but not too harshly. It is not entirely the parents fault; the boy is partly responsible.
When ladies' night isn't for all ladies...
The writer's point of this article is that older women are discriminated in term of age, and I agree with that. Local nighspots are for everyone to enjoy, regardless of age and gender (Of course under-aged people like me are not allowed to visit pubs yet.) Ladies night is entitled to all ladies. Old women are ladies, so the pub had no right to refuse the 55 year old woman of the free drinks. So what if she is old? They should know that the percentage of old women visiting pubs is surely lower than the percentage of young, middle-aged women. Even though older women may not attract men into pubs, there are still so many young ladies to do that. So why can't they just let the older women enjoy themselves? It is not as if old women scares men away. Everyone was young once. How would they feel if they became old one day and were the ones rejected by other people as worthless and ugly people, especially the youths?
I personally do not think gender discrimination mattered much in this case, as I feel that many people pay more attention to a person's wealth and looks rather than gender.
I personally do not think gender discrimination mattered much in this case, as I feel that many people pay more attention to a person's wealth and looks rather than gender.
When good wombs bear bad sons
Firstly,parents are always the guiding light of a child.But as the children grows older,they seem to have a certain thinking that they can survive on their own,yearning to have their own freedom and thinking.Upon reaching the teenage years,children rely more on their friends rather than their elders.But are parents suppose to get the punishments on behalf of their children.When commiting a crime,the culprit should be the one to face the punishments.In reference to the article as mentioned in the title,some parts of the world have set certain laws to hold parents either criminally or civilly liable for their children crimes,probably just because the children were not of adult age.But if the child was able to commit the crime,isn't he or she thinking as an adult?Children were born innocent,and only learn bad things due to his or her surroundings and influence.As children are exposed to bad influence,they can only blame themselves for not resisting peer pressure.And parents should not take the blame,because the fact is that the parents have already done alot for their children,some even taking on a few jobs a day,working their asses off for their child,just to see their child get influenced and turn out to be the scum of society.Then what is the point of having a child who disgraces you after so much you have done for him?
"When good wombs bear bad sons"
Personally, i feel that parents should put more effort in raising their children, as most of the juvenile deliquent cases are due to a lack of family concern. TO solve this problem, i'm afraid that the only way to do so is through enforcing parental enforcement laws. Again, Singaporeans will only change when they are being punished. An example for such punishment can include fines or house arrest on the child. Why the extreme measures? THis is because fining the parents would not necessary stop the youth from committing crimes.
In the case of the 16-year old boy, his father and stepmother should show the boy more concern, as a lack of concern for the boy has led him to doing this. The boy should also be jailed, even though he is under 18, as he had committed a very serious crime, and putting him into the boys home would not help much (what happens if he kills in the home?)
In the case of the 16-year old boy, his father and stepmother should show the boy more concern, as a lack of concern for the boy has led him to doing this. The boy should also be jailed, even though he is under 18, as he had committed a very serious crime, and putting him into the boys home would not help much (what happens if he kills in the home?)
RE: When good wombs bear bad sons
I think that having a parental responsibility law is not very relevant. I agree with the criminologists, as a child may be affected by his or her surrounding, not only his or her parents. And it may not definitely be bad parenting that cause the child to go bad. As, it may be up to the child whether he wants to listen to his parents or not.
Parents might be responsible in teaching their children, but they might not be able to control their children always. As teenagers would want freedom, they would want to choose the type of friend they are with and all these may affect the child as a bad influence.
I do not support the idea of having a parental responsibility law. Although parents should be responsible for their child, they but if the child commits any crime like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson, and other violent crime or less violent crimes like vandalism, burglary, outrage of modesty, it is really out of the parent's control.
They would obviously not harm their own child by teaching them to commit those crime. If parents were punished on behalf of their children, as it is not their fault, and what if the child felt nothing even when their parents were punished? They might not even bother about that, so what is the point of punishing the parents?
For this 16 year old boy's case, i think he should be counselled to see what was the problem. His step-parents should think through if they were partly the reasons why their child became like that.
In conclusion, i think that there is no need for introducing such a law in Singapore...
-carine =)
Parents might be responsible in teaching their children, but they might not be able to control their children always. As teenagers would want freedom, they would want to choose the type of friend they are with and all these may affect the child as a bad influence.
I do not support the idea of having a parental responsibility law. Although parents should be responsible for their child, they but if the child commits any crime like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson, and other violent crime or less violent crimes like vandalism, burglary, outrage of modesty, it is really out of the parent's control.
They would obviously not harm their own child by teaching them to commit those crime. If parents were punished on behalf of their children, as it is not their fault, and what if the child felt nothing even when their parents were punished? They might not even bother about that, so what is the point of punishing the parents?
For this 16 year old boy's case, i think he should be counselled to see what was the problem. His step-parents should think through if they were partly the reasons why their child became like that.
In conclusion, i think that there is no need for introducing such a law in Singapore...
-carine =)
When ladies' night isn't for all ladies
The writer's point of view is that he thinks that no matter how old a lady is, she should be allowed to qualify for the "Ladies' Night" as after all, she IS a female.
The local nightspot have the right to refuse women over 35 years of age, but they are not doing the right thing. No matter how old a lady is, she is still female and should be allowed to have the priviledge of "Ladies' Night". Even if a lady IS over 35 years old, she is still female, it is not like she changed sex and become a male, right? So I think the local nightspot should allow all females to enjoy the priviledge of "Ladies' Night" regardless of their age. Somehow, this kind of age discrimination should be stopped. It is really unfair.
It is true that older women face a "double whammy" on discrimination. Somehow, it is just this way. We tend to value older women lesser, but actually, we should value older women MORE as they have more knowledge, more experience. Compared to a woman of a younger age, they would have less problems when doing a particular job, thus an increase in efficiency.
Why don't men face the same problem? They SHOULD be facing the same problems if we are talking about common sense, but, this society tends to regard older men more favourably. Older men are usually better-off money-wise and probably regarded as sexually potent. Older women, however, are being regarded otherwise. I guess this explains it all.
I AM pretty sure that age discrimination is more prevalent than gender discrimination in Singapore. I once saw that the ticket of a TV Show, Music in the Air, only allows people under 35 years old to enter the studio. Why is is so that people over 35 years old is not allowed? Is it because the show's audience is more likely to be the younger generation? I guess, the answer is pretty obvious.
What would you do if a family member or relative tell you they could not get a job because they are too old or they preferred men, how would you respond?
Somehow, I must agree that it is harder for people over the age of 40 to get a job in this society nowadays. Companies would prefer people of the younger generation who are thought to have a 'higher efficiency'. Thus, I would tell the family member or relative to go to some job-finding programmes or something. There are a lot of programmes like this around.
TIME'S UP! Can't write anymore. Oops. (:
-HUIQING!
The local nightspot have the right to refuse women over 35 years of age, but they are not doing the right thing. No matter how old a lady is, she is still female and should be allowed to have the priviledge of "Ladies' Night". Even if a lady IS over 35 years old, she is still female, it is not like she changed sex and become a male, right? So I think the local nightspot should allow all females to enjoy the priviledge of "Ladies' Night" regardless of their age. Somehow, this kind of age discrimination should be stopped. It is really unfair.
It is true that older women face a "double whammy" on discrimination. Somehow, it is just this way. We tend to value older women lesser, but actually, we should value older women MORE as they have more knowledge, more experience. Compared to a woman of a younger age, they would have less problems when doing a particular job, thus an increase in efficiency.
Why don't men face the same problem? They SHOULD be facing the same problems if we are talking about common sense, but, this society tends to regard older men more favourably. Older men are usually better-off money-wise and probably regarded as sexually potent. Older women, however, are being regarded otherwise. I guess this explains it all.
I AM pretty sure that age discrimination is more prevalent than gender discrimination in Singapore. I once saw that the ticket of a TV Show, Music in the Air, only allows people under 35 years old to enter the studio. Why is is so that people over 35 years old is not allowed? Is it because the show's audience is more likely to be the younger generation? I guess, the answer is pretty obvious.
What would you do if a family member or relative tell you they could not get a job because they are too old or they preferred men, how would you respond?
Somehow, I must agree that it is harder for people over the age of 40 to get a job in this society nowadays. Companies would prefer people of the younger generation who are thought to have a 'higher efficiency'. Thus, I would tell the family member or relative to go to some job-finding programmes or something. There are a lot of programmes like this around.
-HUIQING!
when good wombs bear bad sons
I think that the parents should not be blamed for their chlid's misbehavior. This is because the parents sometimes may not even be able to control the child themselvesas the child is too rebellious. The child may even runaway from home and create trouble and the parents would not even have the power to stop them.
Also, the children themselves should be responsible for what they have done, thay should have the mentality that what ever things that they have done, they should take full responsibility. If the parent were to take the punishment for the child, the child may grow up to be a very irresponsible person and will think that there will also be someone there to take the rap for them and maybe the crime rate may shoot up.
Also, the children themselves should be responsible for what they have done, thay should have the mentality that what ever things that they have done, they should take full responsibility. If the parent were to take the punishment for the child, the child may grow up to be a very irresponsible person and will think that there will also be someone there to take the rap for them and maybe the crime rate may shoot up.
RE: When good wombs bear bad sons
I think we should have a parental responsibilty law, but punishments need not be harsh, it might be things like fine.
The main reason why a delinquent child commits criminal acts is because the parents neglect them as they are too busy to have time for them.
Although it may not be the parents' fault that the child does something wrong but the parents have the responsibilty and duty to ensure the child is on the right track in life. Being their 'mentors', the parents have to be somewhat responsible for the child's actions.
As for the 16 year old teen, i feel he should not be hanged as that is too harsh and he is still young. Everyone deserves a second chance. However, he needs to learn that a murder is intolerable and inhuman, thus he should be jailed at the mercy of His Excellency, the President. That is, he shall be jailed till the President agrees to release him.
The main reason why a delinquent child commits criminal acts is because the parents neglect them as they are too busy to have time for them.
Although it may not be the parents' fault that the child does something wrong but the parents have the responsibilty and duty to ensure the child is on the right track in life. Being their 'mentors', the parents have to be somewhat responsible for the child's actions.
As for the 16 year old teen, i feel he should not be hanged as that is too harsh and he is still young. Everyone deserves a second chance. However, he needs to learn that a murder is intolerable and inhuman, thus he should be jailed at the mercy of His Excellency, the President. That is, he shall be jailed till the President agrees to release him.
ladies' night.
WHEN LADIES' NIGHT ISN'T FOR ALL LADIES.
What is the writer's point in this article?
The writer felt that it is unfair for the older women to be discriminated and not given the free drinks of Ladies' Night, that is promised by the nightspot. He thinks that older women should also be able to receive the same treatment and not be left out of anything just because of their age.
He wanted to raise this awareness and let the older women think over this, and maybe bring this up in court, as this sort of discrimination is not yet recognised by our local laws.
Does the local nightspot have a right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on ladies night? If yes, isn't this discrimination? If no, what can we do about it? Should there be laws against such discrimination?
The nightspot does have the right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on Ladies Night as it is their own business and they can do anything they like. But, this would be discrimination towards the older ladies. The nightspot will slowly lose their appeal to the crowd as many would not be pleased on this 'rule'. There should laws against such discrimination as this is also a kind of discrimination and should be dealt with according as well.
How true is it that older women face a "double whammy" on discrimination? Why don't older men face the same discrimination?
It is true that older women face a "double whammy" on discrimination. They face discrimination for being a woman, and now they face discrimination for being an old woman. It is very unfair for the old women. They were discriminated when they were young, and now they get another discrimination when they are old. They would be treated as 'no values' like they are already useless. Older men does not face such discrimination as severely as the older women. They would be considered to be most successful when they get older. People thought that women's prime age would be the 20s, while the men's would be older. Thus, older women face a "double whammy" on dirscrimantion.
done by: zoeyneo(:
What is the writer's point in this article?
The writer felt that it is unfair for the older women to be discriminated and not given the free drinks of Ladies' Night, that is promised by the nightspot. He thinks that older women should also be able to receive the same treatment and not be left out of anything just because of their age.
He wanted to raise this awareness and let the older women think over this, and maybe bring this up in court, as this sort of discrimination is not yet recognised by our local laws.
Does the local nightspot have a right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on ladies night? If yes, isn't this discrimination? If no, what can we do about it? Should there be laws against such discrimination?
The nightspot does have the right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on Ladies Night as it is their own business and they can do anything they like. But, this would be discrimination towards the older ladies. The nightspot will slowly lose their appeal to the crowd as many would not be pleased on this 'rule'. There should laws against such discrimination as this is also a kind of discrimination and should be dealt with according as well.
How true is it that older women face a "double whammy" on discrimination? Why don't older men face the same discrimination?
It is true that older women face a "double whammy" on discrimination. They face discrimination for being a woman, and now they face discrimination for being an old woman. It is very unfair for the old women. They were discriminated when they were young, and now they get another discrimination when they are old. They would be treated as 'no values' like they are already useless. Older men does not face such discrimination as severely as the older women. They would be considered to be most successful when they get older. People thought that women's prime age would be the 20s, while the men's would be older. Thus, older women face a "double whammy" on dirscrimantion.
done by: zoeyneo(:
Re: When good wombs bear bad sons.
1. What are your thoughts on having a parental responsibility law?
It might work, but it is crazy to charge a parent criminally responsible for violent children! Should a child attempt to violate any law, the parent will be charged. What if the child is already beyond the parent's control?
I have to say I agree with the criminologists.
Bad parenting is obviously not the only cause. A parent cannot control his or her child at all times, for example, at school. It will be up to the child whether to follow in a delinquent's footsteps and cause trouble, or whether just study and be a good child. Parents could not do anything at this point; so they should not be held responsible for any criminal act of their child.
If so, the law will not have any effect on the child, where the parents will be under sheer pressure, having take responsibility of their child. The children should take the responsibility, and should they want to change, they will.
In conclusion, I will not support such a law.
- If not, what should we do with juveniles who commit criminal offences like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson, and other violent crimes? What about less violent crimes like vandalism, burglary, outrage of modesty, etc. How do we hold the parents accountable for their children's crimes? If the parents are not accountable, then what are the parental roles and responsibility with regard to raising children? How can society reduce juvenile delinquency then?
When juveniles commited these offences, there must be someone or something to make them do so. Firstly, we should find out why they did it. Is it because of their own lust? Is it because someone forced them to do it?
Secondly, nowadays young juveniles are just thrown into boys home and be watched over. I believe they should be given second chances (for less violent crimes). Stern warnings should be given. If they commited a crime the second time, they should be sent to the boys home, and visits to the councilor should be arranged.
Parental roles should be just taking care of their kids, and being strict with them when it comes to their freedom. Do not be too strict though (etc: forbiding kids to go out with their friends as they could be bad people; i seen it happened before, that is crazy!!)
-In the case of the 16 year old boy who was charged with murder, what do you think the law should do to him? To his (step)parents?
Interrogated why. If found to be guilty, sent to jail.
It might work, but it is crazy to charge a parent criminally responsible for violent children! Should a child attempt to violate any law, the parent will be charged. What if the child is already beyond the parent's control?
I have to say I agree with the criminologists.
Bad parenting is obviously not the only cause. A parent cannot control his or her child at all times, for example, at school. It will be up to the child whether to follow in a delinquent's footsteps and cause trouble, or whether just study and be a good child. Parents could not do anything at this point; so they should not be held responsible for any criminal act of their child.
If so, the law will not have any effect on the child, where the parents will be under sheer pressure, having take responsibility of their child. The children should take the responsibility, and should they want to change, they will.
In conclusion, I will not support such a law.
- If not, what should we do with juveniles who commit criminal offences like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson, and other violent crimes? What about less violent crimes like vandalism, burglary, outrage of modesty, etc. How do we hold the parents accountable for their children's crimes? If the parents are not accountable, then what are the parental roles and responsibility with regard to raising children? How can society reduce juvenile delinquency then?
When juveniles commited these offences, there must be someone or something to make them do so. Firstly, we should find out why they did it. Is it because of their own lust? Is it because someone forced them to do it?
Secondly, nowadays young juveniles are just thrown into boys home and be watched over. I believe they should be given second chances (for less violent crimes). Stern warnings should be given. If they commited a crime the second time, they should be sent to the boys home, and visits to the councilor should be arranged.
Parental roles should be just taking care of their kids, and being strict with them when it comes to their freedom. Do not be too strict though (etc: forbiding kids to go out with their friends as they could be bad people; i seen it happened before, that is crazy!!)
-In the case of the 16 year old boy who was charged with murder, what do you think the law should do to him? To his (step)parents?
Interrogated why. If found to be guilty, sent to jail.
When Good Womb Bear Bad Sons
Joannas- (:
I felt that there is a need for a parental responsibility law. In my opinion, it is the parent’s responsibility to take care and supervise their children and providing them with good parenting. If the children were to receive good parenting, they would not turn to violent acts and crimes which they knew themselves that they were not supposed to do. As parents, they must have the responsibility to control their children’s behaviour.
When parents are violent and unreasonable, as children, they would tend to follow their parent’s footsteps, turning into rebellion and violent actions. In such cases, the parents are the ones who need to face up the larger consequences.
As the parental responsibility law is being implemented, I trust that most parents would make an effort to discipline their children which I believe would reduce the amount of youths committing crimes.
Concerning with the parental responsibility law, I think that jailing is too much of a serious consequence towards “bad” parenting. Instead, counseling, fining, and paying for damages are better solutions to enforce the law.
Through counseling, I believe that the parents would be able to learn how to control and manage their own children. They would also be educated on how to punish their children in the correct way.
:D tadda!
Joannas- (:
I felt that there is a need for a parental responsibility law. In my opinion, it is the parent’s responsibility to take care and supervise their children and providing them with good parenting. If the children were to receive good parenting, they would not turn to violent acts and crimes which they knew themselves that they were not supposed to do. As parents, they must have the responsibility to control their children’s behaviour.
When parents are violent and unreasonable, as children, they would tend to follow their parent’s footsteps, turning into rebellion and violent actions. In such cases, the parents are the ones who need to face up the larger consequences.
As the parental responsibility law is being implemented, I trust that most parents would make an effort to discipline their children which I believe would reduce the amount of youths committing crimes.
Concerning with the parental responsibility law, I think that jailing is too much of a serious consequence towards “bad” parenting. Instead, counseling, fining, and paying for damages are better solutions to enforce the law.
Through counseling, I believe that the parents would be able to learn how to control and manage their own children. They would also be educated on how to punish their children in the correct way.
:D tadda!
When good wombs bear bad sons
Personally, I feel that parents should not be punished on behalf of their children.It is not fair for the parents to take the punishment on their children's behalf while the children have their sentences lightened or run totally scot-free, not accounting for their wrongdoings, leaving their poor and innocent parents to pay for their mistakes.Does this mean that if we commit murder, our parents will have to be hanged or jailed for our wrongdoings Does this mean that if u steal or commit arson, our parents have to be jailed or fined just because they did not stop us, or due to the fact that they did not have an inkling of what we were doing at that time?Also, it is not their fault that they have given life to a wastrel, that they have given birth to a irresponsible and heartless child who would rather his or her parents go to jail or be punished on their behalf.They did not have a choice of who they wanted for as a child, would you think that they would not choose to have Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey as their child, would they not rather have David Beckham or President Bush for their child?If authorities are to blame parents for their children's wrongdoings, then what would become of this world?Most of the times, the parents of the child would do their best to try to turn the situation around by inculcating a sense of responsibility and making their children law abiding citizens,but however it is the child who would refuse their help,or refuse to listen to their techings.Is it still the parent's fault again?Therefore I feel that troublemakers and law breakers should pay for what they have done instead of hiding behind the shelter of their parent's protection and sacrifices.
Done by: Donovan Tan 3 faith
Done by: Donovan Tan 3 faith
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
When ladies' night isn't for all ladies
What is the writer's point in this article?
Ans: The discrimination against older woman (not only ageism but also sexism)
Does the local nightspot have a right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on ladies night? If yes, isn't this discrimination? If no, what can we do about it? Should there be laws against such discrimination?
Ans: No. They should provide free drinks for women who are over 35 too.. though they are over 35, but aren't they the same? they are still women. we should let the ladies know that now they are under 35..but what if a few years later?maybe one or two years or even ten or twenty years later. They will still reach the age of 35..then won't they be discriminating themselve? isn't it ironical? I think there should be a law against such discrimination
How true is it that older women face a "double whammy" on discrimination? Why don't older men face the same discrimination?
Ans: Yes, it is very true. Women in the olden days, were made to do housework and look after the children, they weren't given chance to study in school..though now the situation is better..and women started becoming career-minded they weren't considered to be as good as man...Man do not faced the same discrimination as the society regard older men more favourable, the society believes that older men are more money-wise and regarded as sexually potent.
Can you give examples that older women are "at the short end of the stick"?
Ans:Like the example in the article, older women was not given the priveledge of free drinks as they were above 35 years of age. Another example is when older women tried to make themselve younger by wearing more stylish or younger looking clothes..they would be discriminated against or laughed at.
Find 3 advertisements/articles/classified jobs which shows gender or age discrimination.
Ans:http://www.business-marketing.com/store/article-walmart.html
http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/05/12/29854/graduate-claims-sex-discrimination-against-ibm.html
http://www.discriminationattorney.com/article-age.shtml
Do you think age discrimination is more prevalent than gender discrimination in Singapore? Give examples or evidence to support your views.
Ans: No i think gender discrimination is more prevalent in singapore. Though times have change but women were still not regarded as equal in competency as men..they were considered not capable enough compared to men. Alot of women nowadays after giving birth to children stop working and went into the full time profession of a housewife requested by their husband as their husband do not think that they were capable of working and looking after the children but i think that if thats the case, the husband should also take up the responsibility to look after the children too.
What do you think we can do about (a) gender discrimination (b) age discrimination in Singapore? Should there be laws against such discrimination?
a) Let the men know that women is as capable as them.. Women can even be more capable then them.
b) Let the youngsters realise that eventhoguh their are young now, they may aged in time to come and would they want others to discriminate them like what they did?
I think there should be laws against such discrimination.
What would you do if a family member or relative tell you they could not get a job because they are too old or they preferred men, how would you respond?
Ans: I will go confront the company and demand an explanation as to why they preferred young workers and men instead.. old doesn't mean you will be slow in everything, and men doesn't means they are invincible and more capable then women. MAN AND WOMEN YOUNG OR OLD ARE EQUAL!!!
By: Josephine
~paiseh for the craps
When ladies' night isn't for all ladies
What is the writer's point in this article?
Ans: The discrimination against older woman (not only ageism but also sexism)
Does the local nightspot have a right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on ladies night? If yes, isn't this discrimination? If no, what can we do about it? Should there be laws against such discrimination?
Ans: No. They should provide free drinks for women who are over 35 too.. though they are over 35, but aren't they the same? they are still women. we should let the ladies know that now they are under 35..but what if a few years later?maybe one or two years or even ten or twenty years later. They will still reach the age of 35..then won't they be discriminating themselve? isn't it ironical? I think there should be a law against such discrimination
How true is it that older women face a "double whammy" on discrimination? Why don't older men face the same discrimination?
Ans: Yes, it is very true. Women in the olden days, were made to do housework and look after the children, they weren't given chance to study in school..though now the situation is better..and women started becoming career-minded they weren't considered to be as good as man...Man do not faced the same discrimination as the society regard older men more favourable, the society believes that older men are more money-wise and regarded as sexually potent.
Can you give examples that older women are "at the short end of the stick"?
Ans:Like the example in the article, older women was not given the priveledge of free drinks as they were above 35 years of age. Another example is when older women tried to make themselve younger by wearing more stylish or younger looking clothes..they would be discriminated against or laughed at.
Find 3 advertisements/articles/classified jobs which shows gender or age discrimination.
Ans:http://www.business-marketing.com/store/article-walmart.html
http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/05/12/29854/graduate-claims-sex-discrimination-against-ibm.html
http://www.discriminationattorney.com/article-age.shtml
Do you think age discrimination is more prevalent than gender discrimination in Singapore? Give examples or evidence to support your views.
Ans: No i think gender discrimination is more prevalent in singapore. Though times have change but women were still not regarded as equal in competency as men..they were considered not capable enough compared to men. Alot of women nowadays after giving birth to children stop working and went into the full time profession of a housewife requested by their husband as their husband do not think that they were capable of working and looking after the children but i think that if thats the case, the husband should also take up the responsibility to look after the children too.
What do you think we can do about (a) gender discrimination (b) age discrimination in Singapore? Should there be laws against such discrimination?
a) Let the men know that women is as capable as them.. Women can even be more capable then them.
b) Let the youngsters realise that eventhoguh their are young now, they may aged in time to come and would they want others to discriminate them like what they did?
I think there should be laws against such discrimination.
What would you do if a family member or relative tell you they could not get a job because they are too old or they preferred men, how would you respond?
Ans: I will go confront the company and demand an explanation as to why they preferred young workers and men instead.. old doesn't mean you will be slow in everything, and men doesn't means they are invincible and more capable then women. MAN AND WOMEN YOUNG OR OLD ARE EQUAL!!!
By: Josephine
~paiseh for the craps
When Ladies' night isnt for all Ladies
The writer feels that older women are now the subject of discrimation. Take for example, The nightspots do not have a right to refuse women over 35 free drinks on ladies' night. THe government should instill laws that women of any age are allowed free drinks on ladies night. Also, they can implement fining the nightspots should they fail to comply this.
It is absolutely true that women have a double whammy. Firstly, the women are old, which means that their productivity rate is slower than that of a young worker, same as men. However, women also reach menopause at this age, and can no longer bear children, while the men can simply get medication to increase their.. potency?
Take for example, older women do not have privileges at nightspots on ladies' night, like what the author had mentioned. Also, they are also discriminated in the workforce, like being restricted to jobs like cleaners, when the younger women can have better jobs.
In my opinion, age discrimination is more prevalant in Singapore. Firstly, gender doesn't really matter in the workforce anymore: Even cleaner jobs are equally avaliable to both genders. However, in jobs like office admin, companies usually favour younger workers, despite the fact that the older workers have more experience than their younger counterparts. Looking at the situation of Gender and age discrimination in Singapore, i'm afraid that the only way to solve this is through laws disallowing this in Singapore. Singaporeans usually fear punishment, but will still give that 'heck-care' attitute when no punishment is enforced on them.
It is absolutely true that women have a double whammy. Firstly, the women are old, which means that their productivity rate is slower than that of a young worker, same as men. However, women also reach menopause at this age, and can no longer bear children, while the men can simply get medication to increase their.. potency?
Take for example, older women do not have privileges at nightspots on ladies' night, like what the author had mentioned. Also, they are also discriminated in the workforce, like being restricted to jobs like cleaners, when the younger women can have better jobs.
In my opinion, age discrimination is more prevalant in Singapore. Firstly, gender doesn't really matter in the workforce anymore: Even cleaner jobs are equally avaliable to both genders. However, in jobs like office admin, companies usually favour younger workers, despite the fact that the older workers have more experience than their younger counterparts. Looking at the situation of Gender and age discrimination in Singapore, i'm afraid that the only way to solve this is through laws disallowing this in Singapore. Singaporeans usually fear punishment, but will still give that 'heck-care' attitute when no punishment is enforced on them.
When good wombs bear bad sons...
For most part, I agree with the statement of having a parental responsibility law. There are many benefits to this law.
We have to agree with the fact that all children are of the same nature. However, we know that many people are of different personalities, and hence have to then assume that habits and the environment are the cause of the difference in character between people.
Parents probably hold a large influence on the environment of growing children. They impart values and guide them on their path of life. Unless their children have some sort of personality or mental disorder (eg. Down’s syndrome, autism etc.), you have to then agree with me that parents are the main cause of children’s behaviour.
Therefore based on this line of reasoning, a parental responsibility law should be then enforced, at least until the child is 12, in my personal opinion.
Also, for minor cases, I would suggest that parents and children both take time to do community service together if their child has broken the law.
For more severe cases however, I think a thorough investigation should take place to evaluate if the parent has tried their best to take their children in hand. If parents have done so, then these parents should not take any blame but rather compensate the victim or his/her family if necessary.
The child then should go through various psychiatric tests to check his moral standing, IQ etc. and if he/she has been influenced by various violent media and so on. If that is so, then parents would then have to take some of the blame as they did not restrict the type of media their child has been exposed to.
Again, for the 16 year old boy, I believe that his parents should not be held responsible. A 16 year old (unless he suffers from low IQ etc.) should know what he is doing. He has been educated for at least 10 years. To put the blame entirely on his parents would also mean that our education system is a failure as it has not been able to instil in the boy moral values.
I believe that the boy should be imprisoned for around 20 years.
We have to agree with the fact that all children are of the same nature. However, we know that many people are of different personalities, and hence have to then assume that habits and the environment are the cause of the difference in character between people.
Parents probably hold a large influence on the environment of growing children. They impart values and guide them on their path of life. Unless their children have some sort of personality or mental disorder (eg. Down’s syndrome, autism etc.), you have to then agree with me that parents are the main cause of children’s behaviour.
Therefore based on this line of reasoning, a parental responsibility law should be then enforced, at least until the child is 12, in my personal opinion.
Also, for minor cases, I would suggest that parents and children both take time to do community service together if their child has broken the law.
For more severe cases however, I think a thorough investigation should take place to evaluate if the parent has tried their best to take their children in hand. If parents have done so, then these parents should not take any blame but rather compensate the victim or his/her family if necessary.
The child then should go through various psychiatric tests to check his moral standing, IQ etc. and if he/she has been influenced by various violent media and so on. If that is so, then parents would then have to take some of the blame as they did not restrict the type of media their child has been exposed to.
Again, for the 16 year old boy, I believe that his parents should not be held responsible. A 16 year old (unless he suffers from low IQ etc.) should know what he is doing. He has been educated for at least 10 years. To put the blame entirely on his parents would also mean that our education system is a failure as it has not been able to instil in the boy moral values.
I believe that the boy should be imprisoned for around 20 years.
Re: When good wombs bear bad sons
I think that the parental responsibilty law is rather absurd. I agree with the criminologists. There are other factors that affect a child's development thus it is logical to think that other factors, other than bad upbringing, can affect a child's likelihood of becoming delinquent. Especially for the child mentioned in the article. He is in his adolescent years, meaning he is in his rebellious stage. Teenagers usually do not listen to their parents at this stage so there is a high possibility that the parents DID teach their children good morals but they just did not heed their advice.
For juveniles who commit criminal offences like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson, and other violent crimes, I think they should be sent to the boys home and be counselled. People who commit crimes like that tend to be people who have immense hatred in their hearts so I think it is not a very efficient method to put them behind bars as their resentment and hatred may grow, resulting in serial crimes.
As for less violent crimes like vandalism, burglary, outrage of modesty, etc, the parents can be informed and taught how to deal with children who do that. As I have said, it is not entirely their fault that their children commit crimes like that. All of us know that humans are not perfect creatures thus they do make mistakes. It is part and parcel of life.
Society can reduce juvenile delinquency by letting everyone have the chance to get a good education, encouraging and as people who are more educated will tend to think twice before commiting crimes. They also know good moral values so they will teach their children to behave well by setting a good example for them.
In the case of the 16 year old boy who was charged with murder, I think he should see a psycharist. He may have a valid reason to do so, seeing a psycharist may help him clear things up in his mind and most importantly learn how to forgive himself. One should learn how to forgive themselves as living with guilt will not end up well. As for his (step)parents, they can see a counseller to learn how to deal with a son like that.
In conclusion, things can be solved in better and maybe more efficient ways so there is no need to introduce a parental responsibilty law in Singapore. :)
For juveniles who commit criminal offences like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson, and other violent crimes, I think they should be sent to the boys home and be counselled. People who commit crimes like that tend to be people who have immense hatred in their hearts so I think it is not a very efficient method to put them behind bars as their resentment and hatred may grow, resulting in serial crimes.
As for less violent crimes like vandalism, burglary, outrage of modesty, etc, the parents can be informed and taught how to deal with children who do that. As I have said, it is not entirely their fault that their children commit crimes like that. All of us know that humans are not perfect creatures thus they do make mistakes. It is part and parcel of life.
Society can reduce juvenile delinquency by letting everyone have the chance to get a good education, encouraging and as people who are more educated will tend to think twice before commiting crimes. They also know good moral values so they will teach their children to behave well by setting a good example for them.
In the case of the 16 year old boy who was charged with murder, I think he should see a psycharist. He may have a valid reason to do so, seeing a psycharist may help him clear things up in his mind and most importantly learn how to forgive himself. One should learn how to forgive themselves as living with guilt will not end up well. As for his (step)parents, they can see a counseller to learn how to deal with a son like that.
In conclusion, things can be solved in better and maybe more efficient ways so there is no need to introduce a parental responsibilty law in Singapore. :)
comments on the discrimination article
1) The rising of discrimination of both the age and gender, in this case the old women.
2) No, I don't think so. Both old women and young ladies are customers, therefore I believe they should receive the same treatment in order to be fair. Also, I don't think there is any difference between women of different ages - the young ladies too will grow old in the future. Is the local nightspot going to refuse them of the goodies just because they have a few more wrinkles a few years later?
However, I don't find it a must to have laws against such discrimination as this is an opinion among the people. Singapore is a free country, people have the rights to voice out their opinions.
3) Yes. Even though times have changed and women now have more rights, they are still being discriminated because of their physical and mental abilities, that is too weak to do manual chores or even too emotional. And in this society, when people gets older, they are often being 'termed' as weak people too, unable to contribute much to the society as compared to the youngesters. Since the old women are women and also old, they fall into both catergories, facing both the age and gender discrimination.
For old men, although they are also old, they are males. Opinions passed down from generations to generations are not able to be changed in a short time. Since men are known as a stronger and better in doing things in the past, they are not discriminated as badly as the old women.
4) Taking fashion as an example, when old women tends to wear more 'fashionable' or even sexier, others often find it weird or even disgusting due to the old women's skins, which may be flabby or wrinkled etc.
Working old women may even get discriminated by the young women in their workplaces as they may find their working abilities are slow.
5) Ads:
- http://www.business-marketing.com/store/article-walmart.html
- http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/05/12/29854/graduate-claims-sex-discrimination-against-ibm.html
- http://www.discriminationattorney.com/article-age.shtml
6) Yes. Taking the Cabinet of the government as an example, in the past it was used to be all males, but now there are also women working as important posts. In job advertisements, the companies often have age limits set; older people find it hard to find jobs nowadays, even finding jobs like cleaners.
7a) No comments, It's hard to change their opinions about the gender discrimination as this opinions may have been passed down since in the past.
7b) It's unfair as older people may be even better at certain fields, although they may be slower in learning or doing their tasks.
I don't think so.
8) Console them. Tell them they will be able to find jobs sooner or later.
huimei (:
3Integrity
2) No, I don't think so. Both old women and young ladies are customers, therefore I believe they should receive the same treatment in order to be fair. Also, I don't think there is any difference between women of different ages - the young ladies too will grow old in the future. Is the local nightspot going to refuse them of the goodies just because they have a few more wrinkles a few years later?
However, I don't find it a must to have laws against such discrimination as this is an opinion among the people. Singapore is a free country, people have the rights to voice out their opinions.
3) Yes. Even though times have changed and women now have more rights, they are still being discriminated because of their physical and mental abilities, that is too weak to do manual chores or even too emotional. And in this society, when people gets older, they are often being 'termed' as weak people too, unable to contribute much to the society as compared to the youngesters. Since the old women are women and also old, they fall into both catergories, facing both the age and gender discrimination.
For old men, although they are also old, they are males. Opinions passed down from generations to generations are not able to be changed in a short time. Since men are known as a stronger and better in doing things in the past, they are not discriminated as badly as the old women.
4) Taking fashion as an example, when old women tends to wear more 'fashionable' or even sexier, others often find it weird or even disgusting due to the old women's skins, which may be flabby or wrinkled etc.
Working old women may even get discriminated by the young women in their workplaces as they may find their working abilities are slow.
5) Ads:
- http://www.business-marketing.com/store/article-walmart.html
- http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/05/12/29854/graduate-claims-sex-discrimination-against-ibm.html
- http://www.discriminationattorney.com/article-age.shtml
6) Yes. Taking the Cabinet of the government as an example, in the past it was used to be all males, but now there are also women working as important posts. In job advertisements, the companies often have age limits set; older people find it hard to find jobs nowadays, even finding jobs like cleaners.
7a) No comments, It's hard to change their opinions about the gender discrimination as this opinions may have been passed down since in the past.
7b) It's unfair as older people may be even better at certain fields, although they may be slower in learning or doing their tasks.
I don't think so.
8) Console them. Tell them they will be able to find jobs sooner or later.
huimei (:
3Integrity
When ladies' night isn't for all ladies
Read the article (ST, 11 July 2007)
In your blog, please respond to the questions below (you can choose to answer all or some of them). You can also share any other thoughts you have on the article. Please support your answers with evidence or examples. You can link to online articles/blogs/reports.
In your blog, please respond to the questions below (you can choose to answer all or some of them). You can also share any other thoughts you have on the article. Please support your answers with evidence or examples. You can link to online articles/blogs/reports.
- What is the writer's point in this article?
- Does the local nightspot have a right to refuse women over 35 the free drinks on ladies night? If yes, isn't this discrimination? If no, what can we do about it? Should there be laws against such discrimination?
- How true is it that older women face a "double whammy" on discrimination? Why don't older men face the same discrimination?
- Can you give examples that older women are "at the short end of the stick"?
- Find 3 advertisements/articles/classified jobs which shows gender or age discrimination.
- Do you think age discrimination is more prevalent than gender discrimination in Singapore? Give examples or evidence to support your views.
- What do you think we can do about (a) gender discrimination (b) age discrimination in Singapore? Should there be laws against such discrimination?
- What would you do if a family member or relative tell you they could not get a job because they are too old or they preferred men, how would you respond?
Monday, July 23, 2007
When good wombs bear bad sons
Read the given article (ST, 9 July 2007).
In your blog, respond to these questions, and share any other thoughts you have with regard to the article. As with making good arguments, please give evidence and support your position with logical thinking and and proper justification.
- What are your thoughts on having a parental responsibility law?
- If you support such a law, how can the law be enforced? What are the suggested punishments (counselling, jail, fines, pay for damages, community work, etc.)? What kinds of violations or offences require which type or level of penalties and why? Will such laws help to reduce juvenile deliquency?
- If not, what should we do with juveniles who commit criminal offences like manslaughter, murder, rape, arson, and other violent crimes? What about less violent crimes like vandalism, burglary, outrage of modesty, etc. How do we hold the parents accountable for their children's crimes? If the parents are not accountable, then what are the parental roles and responsibility with regard to raising children? How can society reduce juvenile delinquency then?
- In the case of the 16 year old boy who was charged with murder, what do you think the law should do to him? To his (step)parents?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)