The Statistics of Penis Wielding Oppressors

The Corinthian

This article was in the Irish Times today, based upon this CSO report.

What struck me was that issues such men being nearly twice as likely to leave school early as women were barely touched on, and really only to highlight the usual topic of how women earn less than men, even though the report readily admits that "In interpreting [comparative incomes], it should be borne in mind that no account has been taken of the number of hours being worked or of the occupations being performed by men and women".

Indeed, if you actually look at the figures men work on average 23% longer hours than women, and when you look at age as a factor, the hours of both sexes drops after age 40, but this is particularly pronounced in women - 44.8% drop (if single) up to 72.1% drop (if married).

Given pay scales tend to increase with age, had anyone thought of seeing if this might affect the figures somewhat? There's a thought.

Other trends that were completely ignored, such as men being far more likely to be either unemployed or even long term unemployed, were ignored. Or that the overpaid men are presumably the only breadwinners for the 531,800 Irish households where a woman is "looking after home/family", as opposed to the 6,700 where a man is "looking after home/family".

(Here's another fun statistic: Women make up 91.2% of loan parents, by age of the youngest child, yet are also 97.9% of the recipients of one-parent family payments, which seemingly points to men being several times less likely to be recipients of one-parent family payments when they are single parents.)

Is it just me or are other men kind of fed up that these reports are continually being trotted out with simplistic "Women are Paid Less Than Men" mantras, with the assumption that it is down to discrimination or oppression when it would appear that this has not been the case for a very long time? Or for that matter that statistics that point to men being disadvantaged in society are simply ignored or trivialized?

You see these statistics and claims being trotted out by groups every day, but why does no one seem to want to question their validity?

smk89

Nice how when statistics are really analysed the gender income gap doesn't really seem as great. Though womens wages are only 69% of mens and they only work 23% less hours

sKepTics_George

Agreed,

LostinBlanch

smk89 wrote: »

Nice how when statistics are really analysed the gender income gap doesn't really seem as great. Though womens wages are only 69% of mens and they only work 23% less hours

What did Mrs Disraeli say about statistics?

Lies, Damn Lies and articles like these?

Corinthian is right to point out glaring anomalies that are ignored in the article such as the ignoring of the fact that males are more likely to leave school without qualifications, are more likely to be unemployed or long term unemployed. Or that fact suggesting that men are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to one parent family payments.

How about the amount of money put into campaigns against breast cancer compared to prostate cancer? I'm not suggesting it's a zero sum game and that funding one campaign should mean that another is starved of funds. But it does point to the health of one sector being rated higher than the health of another sector. Or the appallingly high male suicide rate which is being ignored. If there was a similar suicide rate among women I am sure that we wouldn't hear the end of it ever . . . and rightly so. But it barely gets a mention. In fact the only commentator I have heard mention it consistently since the mid 90's is John Waters. I'm far from being a fan of his but he should get kudos for his efforts. But despite his championing this cause nothing has happened.

It could almost lead one to suggest that the prevailing attitide is "they're men, f**k 'em."

amacachi

LostinBlanch wrote: »

It could almost lead one to suggest that the prevailing attitide is "they're men, f**k 'em."

Pretty much.

The Corinthian

smk89 wrote: »

Nice how when statistics are really analysed the gender income gap doesn't really seem as great. Though womens wages are only 69% of mens and they only work 23% less hours

I did not want to suggest that simply because women work fewer hours on average and in general that this would explain the disparaty alone. What is equally, if not even more important, is that women appear to work significantly fewer hours later in their careers when salaries will be significantly higher, which in turn would affect the average.

Ultimately, I am not attempting to explain such statistical anomalies, only to point out that it is not as simple as we have been led to believe and that we have at this stage been fed a pack of dubious facts - if not out-and-out lies - so as to justify a specific political agenda.

For example, check this misandrist rant out. Some of the points raised are arguably valid, however many are purely speculative, and some are actually untrue (in the case of #8, it is regrettably the case that men are fare more likely to be attacked late at night than women, for example). Why is it acceptable to come out with such sexist propaganda - but only when the target is a man?

Personally, I've had enough of this BS.

Nevyn

I wonder how many of those women working 23% less hours in the career are the main carer on call for a dependent be it a child or an elderly parent.

And how many of those boys who leave school early ie before the leaving cert are doing so to take up apprenticeships.

Otis Driftwood

AFAIK the majority of apprecticeships nowadays require a pass leaving cert.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

I wonder how many of those women working 23% less hours in the career are the main carer on call for a dependent be it a child or an elderly parent.

Given the aforementioned disparity between male and female who are "looking after home/family" - of which 98.8% are female - I would think this is a strong hypothesis.

The problem is that this is not how such surveys are presented. Typically, the inference is that lower salaries are down to discrimination in the workplace. If on the other hand it is down to the attitude that only a woman can care for the home and children, then realistically we cannot put the blame on men for this.

Instead, practically no attempt at analysis is made before conclusions are inferred.

I noticed that "after adjusting for the longer hours worked by men, the report showed, women’s hourly earnings remained only about 87 per cent of men’s" has appeared in the article. I'm pretty certain that was not there yesterday - can anyone confirm if this was present in the print copy of yesterday's IT?

And how many of those boys who leave school early ie before the leaving cert are doing so to take up apprenticeships.

It's possible. I certainly believe that women are still discriminated in many of the trades (explaining in part, why they now outnumber men in the professions).

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

I noticed that "after adjusting for the longer hours worked by men, the report showed, women’s hourly earnings remained only about 87 per cent of men’s" has appeared in the article. I'm pretty certain that was not there yesterday - can anyone confirm if this was present in the print copy of yesterday's IT?

Not sure but it was always in the online one - I read it soon after it was published.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's possible. I certainly believe that women are still discriminated in many of the trades (explaining in part, why they now outnumber men in the professions).

I read somewhere that Ireland has a very gendered workforce, as in men and women both tend to stick to the traditional jobs for their gender. Of course this can work against both genders.

Snowie

Thaedydal wrote: »

And how many of those boys who leave school early ie before the leaving cert are doing so to take up apprenticeships.

yep but sure all 16 young men want are cars women and money and lack the ability to forcasting ability to see past there noise's which to a degree is why we have so many out of work trades men thats why the industry should be caped to protect againist things like the curent problems...
I left school but didnt do an apenticeship....

WindSock

The Corinthian wrote: »

The problem is that this is not how such surveys are presented. Typically, the inference is that lower salaries are down to discrimination in the workplace. If on the other hand it is down to the attitude that only a woman can care for the home and children, then realistically we cannot put the blame on men for this.

No one is blaming men for anything though.

Boston

Thaedydal wrote: »

And how many of those boys who leave school early ie before the leaving cert are doing so to take up apprenticeships.

Far less then would have been the case 15 yeas ago. Working as unskileld labour on a building site is not taking up an apprentice. Of all the lads in my brothers year who left early for "a trade" he was the only one to complete a full apprenticeship.

Nevyn

No and Yes.

No as in it's not all mens fault but Yes as in it's societies fault and men are a part of that and upholding the status quo and more so often in the world of business and work.

Boston

But so are women.

The Corinthian

WindSock wrote: »

No one is blaming men for anything though.

The above article, as with numerous articles, discussions and sound-bytes that permeate society do blame men - more correctly, they either infer or often claim that the reason women earn less is because of discrimination in the workplace.

For example, in the above article took a bunch of statistics, made no objective attempt at analysing them, and then led the reader (through soundbytes from the National Women’s Council of Ireland) that it's all down to discrimination, presumably in the workplace:

The Irish Times wrote:

Susan McKay, director of the National Women’s Council of Ireland, said the report puts Ireland to shame.

“Today’s figures are a sharp reminder that strategies to bring about equality for women cannot be treated as luxuries - we are half the population and the Government must recognise that we cannot continue to be treated as second-class citizens,” she said.

Who exactly is supposed to be treating women as "second-class citizens" then if no one is to blame? The tooth fairy?

I used to work with a woman who used to bitch and moan how she was underpaid for her job. And for her experience and qualifications, she was underpaid at 35k p.a. - or would have been if she did five and not two days per week. For two days, she was overpaid.

It really is time that people look at this and other myths of the Eternal Patriarchy and show them up for the BS they are.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote: »

No as in it's not all mens fault but Yes as in it's societies fault and men are a part of that and upholding the status quo and more so often in the world of business and work.

But the point is that it has nothing to do with the World of business and work.

The role of home-maker/child-carer remains one that belongs to women. The stigma against men taking up this role is significantly greater than that against women who try to do so and keep a full-time career.

Unless this changes, women will end up in the home and sacrificing their careers and salaries, because men who do are stigmatized and thus cannot. This change cannot take place in the World of business and work but in society as a whole.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unless this changes, women will end up in the home and sacrificing their careers and salaries, because men who do are stigmatized and thus cannot. This change cannot take place in the World of business and work but in society as a whole.

Using your own logic, it not only because men are stigmatised but also because of the attitude towards working mothers. And there is an attitude among employers with research in the UK showing many recruitment agencies being asked not to hire women of child-bearing age. Paternity leave (or rather a lack of it) is largely to blame for this, IMO.

I'd well believe the stigma against men working in the home is a significant deterrent. I have found that generally men attempting to engage in so-perceived female activities (even down to wearing a skirt) are derided and their masculinity is questioned. While we don't seem to have quite as strong an attitude towards women attempting male activities, because of course they're superior and who could blame them?

I heard a few interviews on Moncrief and the poor guys felt really excluded by the other mothers.

WindSock

The Corinthian wrote: »

Who exactly is supposed to be treating women as "second-class citizens" then if no one is to blame? The tooth fairy?

Perhaps it is an overall attitude in Irish society. Maybe it is the same attitude that percieves a womans work to be less than a mans therefore if a man were to take on a role that is traditionally a womans, he feels stigmatised.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

Using your own logic, it not only because men are stigmatised but also because of the attitude towards working mothers.

It's a factor, no doubt, but I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that a working mother is anywhere near as stigmatized as a stay-at-home man is.

WindSock wrote: »

Perhaps it is an overall attitude in Irish society. Maybe it is the same attitude that percieves a womans work to be less than a mans therefore if a man were to take on a role that is traditionally a womans, he feels stigmatised.

If that is the case, why do feminist groups routinely oppose fathers rights groups, for example?

I would contend that it comes largely down to cake-and-eat Feminism. Women want the choice, want the quality, but still want to maintain a monopoly on those advantages that came with the inequality. For example, in countries where there is obligatory military service for men, women will campaign to have the right to serve in the military, but not to be included in the obligatory military service.

So if you want both, you have to pay a price somewhere.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a factor, no doubt, but I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that a working mother is anywhere near as stigmatized as a stay-at-home man is.

No, I'd agree with you there. And then I'm sure the mother gets "but surely you're not leaving them alone with him...are you?" as if he will set the kids on fire or something.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If that is the case, why do feminist groups routinely oppose fathers rights groups, for example?

Do they? I think equal father rights are fundamental to women's working rights. But even if it wasn't, I'd still consider it incredibly important.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

Do they? I think equal father rights are fundamental to women's working rights.

You would think so, however many oppose father rights as some sort of misogynistic plot against women's rights:

http://feministblogs.org/tag/fathers-rights/
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/3/4/2/3/p234233_index.html
http://www.ecn.net.au/~mra/page24e.htm

As such the official line is that "women are paid less than men (for the same job)" due to discrimination in the workplace.

Even if it's ultimately not.

CDfm

I saw a report that men die 5 years younger than women -but you never hear campaigns for lowering the retirement ages for men.

A point that is often missed is experience and that if a woman takes time off bringing up children she needs to re-skill and and get up to date to reach the poiint she was at when she left.

Some women I know wont hire women managers simply because of the disruption caused by maternity leave etc.

I imagine that if you compare like with like you still get a skewed result and analysis probably because women enter the job market doing what they percieve as being jobs allowing time outs such as those in the public service etc.

Some jobs like teaching and nursing are now almost exclusively women. My daughter is in 5th year and I prefer her teachers to be men or women who already have their children as its least disruptive.

For women to compete with men they have to put the same hours and effort in. You cant be a part time entrepeneur or crisis manager or take time off cos your child is sick.

My GP is a woman in her 40s and she is great. I have recommended her to women friends ,however, I would be tempted to move practice if she was off constantly and I had to see a locum.

Now I am against barriers to women but analysis of statistics viewed and biased by gender goggles does no one any good and misses the point.My partner is a manager where she works -phonecalls on weekends and emails on holidays like senior guys get. Equality means equality of effort and taking a huge disruption to your personal life.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

No, I'd agree with you there. And then I'm sure the mother gets "but surely you're not leaving them alone with him...are you?" as if he will set the kids on fire or something.


Do they? I think equal father rights are fundamental to women's working rights. But even if it wasn't, I'd still consider it incredibly important.

You might think that but Irish law is structured to benefit women at the expense of men at family law.

So while you may be sympathetic you are probably not sympatheic enough to support change.

PopUp

If that is the case, why do feminist groups routinely oppose fathers rights groups, for example?

I would contend that it comes largely down to cake-and-eat Feminism. Women want the choice, want the quality, but still want to maintain a monopoly on those advantages that came with the inequality.

And yet it was Arch-Priestess of the Feminist Gynocracy Harriet Harman who spearheaded last week's significant increase in paternity leave in the UK.

Dads will be able to take up to six months' paternity leave while their child's mother returns to work, under government plans announced today.
Fathers will have a legal right to take the place of the mother at home for the last three months of her nine-month maternity leave.
During that time, they would be eligible for statutory government pay of £123 a week. [This is the same rate of pay as statutory maternity leave] They would then be allowed to take an additional unpaid three months off[This is the same as the final 3 months of maternity leave], which would effectively allow couples to have a total of 12 months' parental leave between them.

Now, this is still less than what women are entitled to. But I don't think one can really say that that's what's holding back parental equality, when one also considers this from the same article:

Ministers estimate that between 4% and 8% of those eligible for the new leave will take it

And that's not politicians eager to wriggle away from accusations that the economy can't sustain paternity leave. Because a couple of years ago when they introduced paternity leave to begin with, they said there would be 80% take-up. In actuality, 50% of new fathers don't take the mere two weeks they are currently entitled to.

I'm not saying this to demonise anyone. There's nothing wrong with being the working parent. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to be a stay at home parent. And I think that Harman's proposals don't go far enough. I think paternity and maternity leave should be entirely equal and paid at 90% of the parent's salary, not the statutory rate.

I am a big hippie liberal and nothing would make me happier than a world like the socialist Scandinavia of my dreams, where all parents share household and childrearing duties 50-50 and there is no stigma to being a woman builder or CEO or a male Montessori teacher or nurse. (And in all fairness I think in terms of the CEO and nurse that stigma is definitely disappearing and the other two jobs probably are as well).

But it doesn't matter what I or Harriet Harman think people's home lives should look like. People don't want to live like that. Introduce all the paternity leave you want but parents won't use it because it's not what they want for their families.

I don't think anyone can seriously suggest that a working mother is anywhere near as stigmatized as a stay-at-home man is.

Nowadays, definitely not. But when mothers first started to enter the workplace, there certainly was a stigma the equal of that which a stay-at-home-dad faces now. But women wanted to work, so they did. That's how social change happens - engineering can support it but you have to have people/families actually wanting to do it.

So yes there's a stigma but the only way to overcome it is the same way working mothers did - by just getting on with it.

The Corinthian

PopUp wrote: »

And yet it was Arch-Priestess of the Feminist Gynocracy Harriet Harman who spearheaded last week's significant increase in paternity leave in the UK.

This would be the same Harriet Harman who refused to speak with father's rights groups, then denied that she had done so.

Nonetheless, you really cannot deny that many feminists are openly hostile to father's rights - I supplied a few links above and a quick Google will return dozens more.

Even where there is some support on the part of feminists for fathers, it tends to be limited to those areas that would allow fathers to better share responsibility, such as paternity leave. Once one mentions rights, that support evaporates rapidly.

Nowadays, definitely not. But when mothers first started to enter the workplace, there certainly was a stigma the equal of that which a stay-at-home-dad faces now. But women wanted to work, so they did. That's how social change happens - engineering can support it but you have to have people/families actually wanting to do it.

So yes there's a stigma but the only way to overcome it is the same way working mothers did - by just getting on with it.

I would broadly agree with this, although the attitudes that society has at present would echo your "people don't want to live like that" - women just as much as men want to retain the traditional status quo where it comes to home maker and child carer roles. Problem is that career-wise, there is a price to this for women.

One of the first steps in "getting on with it" is finding the cause of a problem. Articles such as the Irish Times one I cited do not do this. They perpetuate a myth through inference that the salary gap is down to simple discrimination in the workplace, when even a small amount of analysis would show otherwise.

"Getting on with it" is going to mean changing victim culture of feminism, as well as the male culture that we cannot be victims. And ultimately, if it is equality that we are looking for, then some of those sexist privileges that women retain will have to be sacrificed.

CDfm

Lots of guys -me included naturally support equality and while there are different types of feminism its the more extreme elements that grab the headlines and unfortunately government funding.

My view is that if you are going to campaign for equality you cant cherrypick and you should embrace it as a culture and that means equality in all its forms.

The campaign for more women on death row or women demanding to be binmen or for frontline duties in the fighting in Afghanistan should be equally prominent with other campaigns.

the_syco

The Corinthian wrote: »

I noticed that "after adjusting for the longer hours worked by men, the report showed, women’s hourly earnings remained only about 87 per cent of men’s" has appeared in the article. I'm pretty certain that was not there yesterday - can anyone confirm if this was present in the print copy of yesterday's IT?

It was there on 10 Feb 2010 06:36:25 GMT according to Google cache.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If that is the case, why do feminist groups routinely oppose fathers rights groups, for example?

IMO, there are three sides. Mens rights, womens rights, and equality rights. Feminists march for women rights. Women who are feminists can march for mens rights as well. Men march for equality can be seen as a good thing, as marching for more rights for men is seen as a bad thing.

Although I don't have a link for it, I've read that some prodiment feminist activists from the 70's and 80's have swung around to supporting mens rights as the pendulum has swung too far back.

CDfm wrote: »

for frontline duties in the fighting in Afghanistan should be equally prominent with other campaigns.

There are a lot of men in combat that suffer from the amount that they must carry. If a weapon is made lighter, they're given more stuff to carry. Has always been that way. Also, men, for the most part, are genetically more able to lift heavier loads. Thus, the amount of women who apply for service AND can carry a heavy load will ensure this number stays low, IMO.

CDfm

the_syco wrote: »

IMO, there are three sides. Mens rights, womens rights, and equality rights. Feminists march for women rights. Women who are feminists can march for mens rights as well. Men march for equality can be seen as a good thing, as marching for more rights for men is seen as a bad thing.

Although I don't have a link for it, I've read that some prodiment feminist activists from the 70's and 80's have swung around to supporting mens rights as the pendulum has swung too far back.

Its a political thing.

However, you have to ask yourself if knowing its ideology if you would send a young lad who was abused by a woman to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre for Help.

They may advertise it to secure funding from government but it would be wholly inappropriate and you would want to be stark raving bonkers to let him anywhere near them knowing their reputation.

This is something that worries me greatly.

There are a lot of men in combat that suffer from the amount that they must carry. If a weapon is made lighter, they're given more stuff to carry. Has always been that way. Also, men, for the most part, are genetically more able to lift heavier loads. Thus, the amount of women who apply for service AND can carry a heavy load will ensure this number stays low, IMO.

My girlfriend can lift me and if you saw the amount of small guys in the US infantry etc you would change your point of view on that.

I would not want to go to afganistan either.

My point is though women should be equal to men before the lawv on matters of crime , murder and family law and have the same responsibilities and suffer the same punishments.

On the CSO figures -does it also make any adjustment for years of service. Probably not and does it take into account pension benefits that women disproportionately benefit from as they live 5 years longer than men.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

You would think so, however many oppose father rights as some sort of misogynistic plot against women's rights:

Indeed, but they are in the minority. The third link comes across as very anti-feminist. I don't think that sort of us/them rhetoric helps anyone.

The Corinthian wrote: »

As such the official line is that "women are paid less than men (for the same job)" due to discrimination in the workplace.

Even if it's ultimately not.

You have yet to prove that it is not.

There are many small subtle ways for a woman to experience discrimination in the work place. For example, I am a policy intern and in my office I answer the phones, buzz people in, make coffee for my boss and for meetings, file papers, act as receptionist, deal with couriers and am often asked to type up hand-written documents. My male counterpart is never asked to do any of these things and so can devote more time and effort to research and producing impressive papers. Moreover, at meetings and conferences the vast majority assume that I am my boss's PA. But I'm not going to kick up a fuss because a) I'm lucky to have the job and b) I don't think it comes across well.

Having said all that, I don't think discrimination against women in the workforce is the major discrimination issue of our day - class is a much bigger factor in earning power.

CDfm wrote: »

You might think that but Irish law is structured to benefit women at the expense of men at family law.

In some ways yes, in other ways no.

CDfm wrote: »

So while you may be sympathetic you are probably not sympatheic enough to support change.

CDfm, you are very much mistaken. I'm a feminist but that doesn't mean I don't care about men's issues.

CDfm wrote: »

The campaign for more women on death row or women demanding to be binmen or for frontline duties in the fighting in Afghanistan should be equally prominent with other campaigns.

What nonsense. Should we also be campaigning for men to be equally persecuted for their appearance? Should we be campaigning for men to have more eating disorders?

Nevyn

CDfm wrote: »

Its a political thing.

However, you have to ask yourself if knowing its ideology if you would send a young lad who was abused by a woman to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre for Help.

They may advertise it to secure funding from government but it would be wholly inappropriate and you would want to be stark raving bonkers to let him anywhere near them knowing their reputation.

This is something that worries me greatly.

I have done several times and two men I know personally got treatment there and it made a huge difference to them in dealing with what happened to them so that they could get on with their lives.

I also know of a man who has volunteered on the rape crisses help line.

There is also 1 in 4 if you don't wish to refer people to the rape crises center.

The Corinthian

the_syco wrote: »

It was there on 10 Feb 2010 06:36:25 GMT according to Google cache.

I posted the day before this. Either way does not change that the entire tone of the article retained the aforementioned bias.

IMO, there are three sides. Mens rights, womens rights, and equality rights.

I agree.

Feminists march for women rights. Women who are feminists can march for mens rights as well. Men march for equality can be seen as a good thing, as marching for more rights for men is seen as a bad thing.

Hold on - marching for more rights for women is good, but marching for more rights for men is bad?

If we accept that men are disadvantaged in terms of rights in some areas, then marching to redress those areas is a good thing. Unless the status quo is in your favour, that is.

Although I don't have a link for it, I've read that some prodiment feminist activists from the 70's and 80's have swung around to supporting mens rights as the pendulum has swung too far back.

I don't think it's as simple as a pendulum, per say.

The 'traditional' system may have favoured men, but that does not mean that women did not have 'special rights' too. Women thus naturally campaigned to redress the disadvantages, but left the advantages alone. Men on the other hand sat on their collective arses until one day we started noticing that things were not quite right.

This is why men marching for more rights, to redress the privileges that women retained, is good and not bad.

taconnol wrote: »

Indeed, but they are in the minority. The third link comes across as very anti-feminist. I don't think that sort of us/them rhetoric helps anyone.

I think those who are vocally against father's rights are probably a minorty, however tacitly the number is far larger. For example, there is broad support from most feminist groups for paternity leave, however when things such as the right to automatic guardianship for fathers or equal rights to custody are added to the mix support quickly vanishes.

Why? Because paternity leave suits women - they get to better share the burden, while not sacrificing any of their monopoly on reproductive rights.

You have yet to prove that it is not.

Nobody can 'prove' anything with statistics. However, I have even without writing a major research thesis on the subject, have demonstrated that there is more than enough evidence to point towards women sacrificing career for home and family as the cause rather than anything inherently discriminatory in the workplace.

There are many small subtle ways for a woman to experience discrimination in the work place. For example, I am a policy intern and in my office I answer the phones, buzz people in, make coffee for my boss and for meetings, file papers, act as receptionist, deal with couriers and am often asked to type up hand-written documents. My male counterpart is never asked to do any of these things and so can devote more time and effort to research and producing impressive papers. Moreover, at meetings and conferences the vast majority assume that I am my boss's PA. But I'm not going to kick up a fuss because a) I'm lucky to have the job and b) I don't think it comes across well.

You'll always get discrimination in workplaces of one type or other. Sometimes it's ageist (the eldest is assumed to be the most senior at a meeting) or sexist (men, typically the younger ones, are always called upon to do any kind of physical work, even though women are more than physically capable of doing it).

The question is not whether these petty little presumptions are what cause women to earn significantly less than men. They're not.

What nonsense. Should we also be campaigning for men to be equally persecuted for their appearance? Should we be campaigning for men to have more eating disorders?

Speaking as a man, I can only say that it is a matter of unending mystery why women are so critical of each other's (and their own) appearance.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think those who are vocally against father's rights are probably a minorty, however tacitly the number is far larger. For example, there is broad support from most feminist groups for paternity leave, however when things such as the right to automatic guardianship for fathers or equal rights to custody are added to the mix support quickly vanishes.

Can you show widespread evidence of this?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nobody can 'prove' anything with statistics. However, I have even without writing a major research thesis on the subject, have demonstrated that there is more than enough evidence to point towards women sacrificing career for home and family as the cause rather than anything inherently discriminatory in the workplace.

Of course home and family are large factors - what exactly do you define as discrimination?

The Corinthian wrote: »

men, typically the younger ones, are always called upon to do any kind of physical work, even though women are more than physically capable of doing it.

Indeed, I am told not to worry about carrying boxes of paper etc up even when I am perfectly capable. It's a bit galling.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The question is not whether these petty little presumptions are what cause women to earn significantly less than men. They're not.

Really? Proof?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Speaking as a man, I can only say that it is a matter of unending mystery why women are so critical of each other's (and their own) appearance.

It is no a mystery at all. When your main route to power and influence for thousands of years has been based on the men in your life i.e. attracting a powerful and influential partner, and society tells you that you are the "fairer sex" and the hundreds of thousands of messages that every person receives every year telling them that women are and should be judged by their appearance more than men (and what your appearance should and should not be) - what do you expect?

I saw similarly bitchy comments in a recent Guardian debate on Ronaldo's latest underwear photo shoot. Men are not immune to feeling threatened about their appearance.

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

There are many small subtle ways for a woman to experience discrimination in the work place.

There is -but I often found myself in that position early in my career in the UK being Irish and my g/f often gets that even as a senior manager. Listen ,grasshopper as you may get more of an insight to the business you are in than those who dont.

Having said all that, I don't think discrimination against women in the workforce is the major discrimination issue of our day - class is a much bigger factor in earning power.

I don't know really -but on education maybe but then access to things like public authority housing and public healthcare is class based and in some ways gender based in the opposite direction.

CDfm, you are very much mistaken. I'm a feminist but that doesn't mean I don't care about men's issues.

I think the acid test is whether someone will promote equality at the expense of their gender and I would like to think I would.

What nonsense. Should we also be campaigning for men to be equally persecuted for their appearance? Should we be campaigning for men to have more eating disorders?

I wouldn't be me if I didnt post a little rant now would I

There are many small subtle ways for a woman to experience discrimination

I wish Id added that to the rant:D

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

I have done several times and two men I know personally got treatment there and it made a huge difference to them in dealing with what happened to them so that they could get on with their lives.

Its an honest comment, maybe there are certain individuals if you know them you could refer them on to but I would have huge reservations based on what I have seen on TV etc.

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

I think the acid test is whether someone will promote equality at the expense of their gender and I would like to think I would.

I personally try not to see these things as a zero-sum game but yes of course if it means reducing women's maternity leave then that's what should happen.

Personally, I think the state should just say to a couple: right, here's 9 months (or whatever), you're both grown adults - figure it out between the two of you.

CDfm wrote: »

I wouldn't be me if I didnt post a little rant now would I

Hah, of course not, CDfm!

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

Hah, of course not, CDfm!

Challenge you to a toilet seat up or down thread:D

Nevyn

CDfm wrote: »

Its an honest comment, maybe there are certain individuals if you know them you could refer them on to but I would have huge reservations based on what I have seen on TV etc.

Cos the media never presents a skewed take on anything, and society doesn't already have a skewed notion on rape. I know the work they do, I've held a rape victims hand for most of the 24 hours after a rape while she was processed by the garda and attended the crises clinic and I have refereed friends and family and strangers there over the years to support groups and services when they were coming to terms with something which had happened
and they have always found the help they have needed.

So frankly your talking out of your hat with your assumptions based on what you have seen briefly on the T.V.

CDfm

Thaedydal wrote: »

So frankly your talking out of your hat with your assumptions based on what you have seen briefly on the T.V.

From what I have seen on TV or read in the Media attributed to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre I would not think they would be sympathetic to a man. I am talking about male victims.

It is their problem how they choose to portray themselves in the media and not mine.

Its a pity thats the way it is but its the reality.

Agree to disagree but not everyone is as fair minded as you.

WindSock

CDfm wrote: »

I saw a report that men die 5 years younger than women -but you never hear campaigns for lowering the retirement ages for men.

As far as I know there are talks to increase the retirement age for women, perhaps in the UK, not sure about here. However no one is stopping you from campaigning for retirement age equality here.

A point that is often missed is experience and that if a woman takes time off bringing up children she needs to re-skill and and get up to date to reach the poiint she was at when she left.

Some women I know wont hire women managers simply because of the disruption caused by maternity leave etc.

A problem with the system, imo.

For women to compete with men they have to put the same hours and effort in. You cant be a part time entrepeneur or crisis manager or take time off cos your child is sick.

Are you suggesting that we don't? :eek:
It is most often the woman who takes the time off to look after the sick child. What do you suggest happens instead?

Equality means equality of effort and taking a huge disruption to your personal life.

Again....that to me looks like you are suggesting we only want to share the burden of responsability when it suits us...?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nonetheless, you really cannot deny that many feminists are openly hostile to father's rights - I supplied a few links above and a quick Google will return dozens more.

Whenever the topic of rights for a particular gender pop up, you can be assured there are voices of dissent from groups of the opposite gender. Do you not think women have had to face it when they fought for rights over the last century?
Just because there is opposition doesn't mean you should 'stop'.

"Getting on with it" is going to mean changing victim culture of feminism, as well as the male culture that we cannot be victims. And ultimately, if it is equality that we are looking for, then some of those sexist privileges that women retain will have to be sacrificed.

What other sexist privilages do women retain, bar child rearing?

WindSock

CDfm wrote: »

From what I have seen on TV or read in the Media attributed to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre I would not think they would be sympathetic to a man. I am talking about male victims.

It is their problem how they choose to portray themselves in the media and not mine.

What about Amen.ie? Every bus in Dublin had an ad for it.
As for portraying sexual abuse in the media, I barely heard a breath of a mention of female victims when the Ryan & Murphy reports were published.

Boston

The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has an idealogy now? I don't think thats accurate.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

Can you show widespread evidence of this?

I've already done so and you have simply attempted to dismiss it as a vocal minority. How about you show me widespread evidence to the contrary?

Really? Proof?

I responded to this in my last post.

WindSock wrote: »

A problem with the system, imo.

I agree, but suspect our reasons would differ.

Just because there is opposition doesn't mean you should 'stop'.

I don't think men have ever started is the problem. I think we are only beginning to see men realize that something is wrong.

What other sexist privilages do women retain, bar child rearing?

Off the top of my head, and based on women in the West, unless otherwise stated:

• Where conscription exists women are exempt (except for Israel).
• Emergency housing in Ireland is only supplied for women. Men are directed to hostels/shelters.
• Family law in cases of divorce or separation greatly favours women.
• Women have post-conceptual reproductive choice. Men do not.
• Women are either immune or subject to more lenient treatment in law for a range of sexual offences or crimes such as paternity fraud.
• Women pay less for car insurance and a range of other services.
• Society takes far more seriously women's health and violence issues against them women, while often ignoring or trivializing this issue for men.
• Violent behaviour is condoned in Women - a woman slapping a man is even humorous, while a man slapping another man (let alone a woman) is treated as assault.
• Women may become home-makers, men may not and are effectively considered parasitic losers by society if they do.

There are plenty of other specific cultural and legal examples to various countries, but the above is a start.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've already done so and you have simply attempted to dismiss it as a vocal minority. How about you show me widespread evidence to the contrary?

No, it's your job to provide evidence of your own claims. And you haven't provided evidence of your claim that "when things such as the right to automatic guardianship for fathers or equal rights to custody are added to the mix support quickly vanishes."

The Corinthian wrote: »

I responded to this in my last post.

Er, no you didn't, you just stated that they are not the cause of the pay gap. You haven't demonstrated that they aren't a contributor to the gender pay gap at all.

I mean look, I'm guilty of assuming the woman is the PA myself and I'm a feminist! I don't think it's part of some big conspiracy and I do agree that it's basic practical stuff like taking time out to look after kids and parental leave that contributes to the majority of the pay gap.

WindSock

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree, but suspect our reasons would differ.

What are your supposed differing reasons?

Off the top of my head, and based on women in the West, unless otherwise stated:

• Where conscription exists women are exempt (except for Israel).
• Emergency housing in Ireland is only supplied for women. Men are directed to hostels/shelters.

There is no conscription here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service

There is emergency housing for men:

http://www.respond.ie/Projects.aspx?categoryid=134465

Family law in cases of divorce or separation greatly favours women.

Family law is skewed in the favour of the primary care giver. Irish society and previous laws and the constitution have re-inforced that it is the woman's job.

CDfm

WindSock wrote: »

As far as I know there are talks to increase the retirement age for women, perhaps in the UK, not sure about here. However no one is stopping you from campaigning for retirement age equality here.

You just need fairness really.

Are you suggesting that we don't? :eek:
It is most often the woman who takes the time off to look after the sick child. What do you suggest happens instead?


Again....that to me looks like you are suggesting we only want to share the burden of responsability when it suits us...?

One thing that always amazes me is that these initiatives have economic costs that Ireland as a country cant nescessarily afford it. So as a country it adds to our labour costs and is especially true when other countries do not operate as we do. It also adds to the costs of providing services such as health etc like taking qualified doctors etc out of the labour force who are trained at our expense.

During the boom years we had imported foreign labour.This meant a huge outflow of money from our economy.There is lots of money spent on the welfare on women -what other countries do is handle this by way of subsidised childcare rather than by the welfare system.

So the economic/benefits model used is a bit of a mess.

Whenever the topic of rights for a particular gender pop up, you can be assured there are voices of dissent from groups of the opposite gender. Do you not think women have had to face it when they fought for rights over the last century?
Just because there is opposition doesn't mean you should 'stop'.


What other sexist privilages do women retain, bar child rearing?

There are quite a lot of privelages guaranteed by law and you can see just some of them here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055694680

WindSock wrote: »

What about Amen.ie? Every bus in Dublin had an ad for it.
As for portraying sexual abuse in the media, I barely heard a breath of a mention of female victims when the Ryan & Murphy reports were published.

I totally agree - I disagree with the gender based model but its what is there now. The reason its like this is that until recently 100% of the domestic violence budget has been spent totally on female victims of male partner abuse.As it is they get 99% of the budget.

So you also have elder abuse, child abuse etc same sex abuse all excluded from this on the basis that the group with the funding is a womens advocacy group.So the model has male -female heterosexual partner abuse where the male is the perpetrator and woman the victim. No other model.

Amen as a group say society should not discriminate along gender lines.

Stheno

The Corinthian wrote: »

I
[*]Family law in cases of divorce or separation greatly favours women.

From an Irish Family law point of view, the differentiation is more so where the woman is a mother, and there is constitutional protection of that role.

Where a marriage results in divorce/seperation and there are no children, there is no differentiation between men and women in terms of their rights arising out of the dissolution of the marriage.

Outside of the West, there are several countries in Asia/Africa and Southern America who have conscription for women as well as men.

Edited to add: Missed Windsock's post, her point in relation to family law is essentially what I am saying

CDfm

Boston wrote: »

The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has an idealogy now? I don't think thats accurate.

In context what I am saying is that senior figures at the Center have been involved in high profile media campaigns and I think the term is "gender feminism" or are what John Waters calls extremists

translation feminazis

.

So as a group it has a culture.

Life for the nun who raped a child, Irish Independent, 24 July 1999 (Extract)

Welcoming the imposition of a maximum sentence, Dublin Rape Crisis Centre director Olive Braiden said it would ensure Nora Wall would be monitored for the rest of her life to prevent any recurrence.

Richard Greene, 20 January 2000

On Friday's "Today at 5" on RTE, Ms. Olive Braiden of the Rape Crisis Centre was given the opportunity of welcoming a landmark case in the North of a man convicted of raping his wife. There was little discussion on alternatives to this approach to the problem, or on the implications of the case.

It is interesting that Ms. Braiden should be returning to the spotlight after such a long absence. During that time we have had one of the most serious miscarriages of justice in the history of the State ie the Nora Wall/Paul McCabe case. It was a case based on a false accusation of rape.

Ms. Braiden, following the Cyprus case **, told RTE's Gerry Ryan that she had not had experience of false claims of rape, and that no one would make a false accusation of rape to her, because there would be nothing in it for them.

Miss Wall and Mr McCabe were freed on appeal on the grounds of false allegations by a person with a mental illness and a history of making false allegations.

Stheno

CDfm wrote: »

In context what I am saying is that senior figures at the Center have been involved in high profile media campaigns and I think the term is "gender feminism" or are what John Waters calls extremists

translation feminazis

.

So as a group it has a culture.
.

The home page of the DRCC makes it cler that they are there for both male and female victims of rape.

http://www.drcc.ie/

If you have been raped, sexually assaulted, sexually harassed or sexually abused you are not on your own. Many women and men of all ages have had similar experiences.

Taking individual examples of people's experiences as opposed to the objective of an organisation is not a balanced view.

Boston

How come everytime this topic comes up I end up angry and confused? What on earth is your point CDfm? Is it honestly that because some "senior" person involved with the dublin rape crisis center had/has blinkered support for rape victium, she (and by assoication all of the DRCC) have a feminist hatred of male rape victiums. This somehow explains what?

CDfm

I was at a conference years ago where I heard a senior official of DRCC say "women dont lie" as an organisation where the personal beliefs of its leaders hold enormous influence then they must be taken into account.

Its the culture innit.

In no way would I support an organisation orv support group for men that would not acknowledge female victims. Thats my point.

I dont think you can change the culture.