Gender Equality

just had to write some stuff after reading this on Garota's blog:
there are many people around who are working for women to have equal rights. they tell us that women are just as capable as men are, that women are not the "weaker" gender. but this cuts both ways. while it means that women should not be disadvantaged when seeking employment and renumerations, or the right to vote, the right to be in top level positions and so on, it also means that they should not be unfairly protected by any legislation.

for example, why is it that it is always the man that must pay maintenance after divorce? what what if the divorce was due to the woman's unfaithfulness? that she was the one who was sleeping around? does the woman have to pay the man any maintenance? no. the law in singapore only provides for women to seek maintenance. why is that so?

and as the quoted article has very rightly pointed out, the Singapore Legal System does not provide for cases where a woman rapes a man, even though that might actually happen. why is that the case? because the woman is deemed to be weaker and hence cannot possibly force a man to do something against his will? at this point, i am reminded of the line in "Indecent Proposal": "Rape is not about sex! It is about power." and women are just as capable of being powerful as men aren't they? so isn't it fair to think that they are just as capable of rape? if that is the case, then why don't we have laws that prosecute women for rape? why is it still that the burden of proof in rape cases is still on the defendant rather than the prosecution?

another example that i've heard, though i've not confirmed. apparently, in singapore, if you are a qualified lifeguard, you have a duty to save a drowning person. this includes performing CPR and all. and this is even if you are not actually working as a lifeguard. so say you are a guy thus trained, but not working as a lifeguard, and you see a girl drowning, you save her, perform CPR. she can then sue you for outrage of modesty. and the burden of proof is on you to show that what you did was absolutely necessary.

and i'm sure that some conniving women will exploit these laws for their own benefit, blackmailing and all.

my main 'gripe' of feminism is that while feminists continue to say that women are just as good as men, they forget that on so many counts, women are just as horrid as men, capable of the same atrocities as men. hence if they seek to have equality, then the certain privileges accorded to them due to their gender should go as well. that then is true equality.

do not get me wrong. i am not a mysoginist. i will still gladly send a girl home if it is late at night, open doors for her, carry her bags if she wants me to, wait for the ladies to start on their meals first, etc. and there are many fine ladies whose company i delight in. what i am against are feminists who clamour for all the rights but none of the responsibilities.

let's accept that there are some areas where men need to be protected, and some areas where women need to be protected. let's be fair in seeking for equality.