Discrimination against Men

james finn

iptba wrote: »

I imagine her position might be (from memory) that the prostitutes would prefer the “act” took place in a more controlled environment like a massage parlour where women could look out for one another, etc.

its still no excuse for it and if these women took the want out of it, they would be safe

The Corinthian

cronin_j wrote: »

are we our own worst enemy in this kinda thing?

Yup. A lot of it comes down to men not wanting to be identified as victims. Additionally, we've had so much propaganda about how our great-grandfathers were penis-wielding oppressors and women are oppressed in counties like Saudi Arabia, et al, that we are almost shamed into not complaining. As a result, very few men take an interest in this area unless it affects them directly (typically when they are on the reviving end of family law).

I think this is beginning to change largely because the equality gap in much of the West has all but vanished - at least it is now so narrow that those 'advantageous prejudices' that Feminism was happy to leave alone are becoming glaringly obvious and men are beginning to ask if this double standard is right.

james finn wrote: »

the prostitutes should keep both legs in one sock if they dont want to be ambushed

Sounds like an S&M trick.

S.L.F

Just read this entire thread very depressing reading.

james finn

i used to think it was great to see women on tv demanding same rights as men until i went to family law court and found out i have no rights at all.

Dr Galen

Now I know this is supposed to be a joke advert, but it did get me thinking. Apparently there have been over 1000 complaints about it.

If the roles were reversed, I can only imagine the outcry. I'm far from the militant mens rights brigade, but seriously, even I don't like this sort of thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrnOqwXWJDA

james finn

yes if it was the other way around they would protest

spurious

citytillidie wrote: »

Hence the number of male bashing adverts or tv shows where guys are showing to be fools and cant think for themselves.

No guys will complain about or if they do its dismissed such as this billboard ad in Oz with a woman walking two naked males on a leash.

I'm not a guy, but I agree with you.
The proliferation of 'male-bashing' ads is ridiculous. They're not clever and they're not funny.

No, it's not 'edgy and modern' to effectively repackage the style of advert that was originally offensive to women, except this time make the men the 'foolish' ones. It's sexist and offensive.

Why though, don't men complain in large numbers?
The early women's groups who complained about non-access to various things were also seen as a bit of a joke, but you have to keep at it.

Do you know are the people who think up these moronic ads male or female?

enola/alone

Small thing, but I was watching Cheltenham over the week, and an ad was on at one point. A woman saying 'Women have it tough: Women have to put up with men.

Turn the tables and they'd be marching in the streets and all kinds of mad stuff. I'm all for equality, but it's tipped completely against men as of late. The father's rights issues being my chief grievance with the plight of men in modern society.

iptba

I don't actually watch that much TV (a few hours a week) but it'd be great if people highlighted ads on the GC that they were not happy about.

Not everyone might have the energy to complain at that time but some might.

I recently made a second complaint with the The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI) http://www.asai.ie/ (nothing to do with gender) and it looks like it was also successful as the ad has been taken down.

In both cases, these were complaints on my own. But possibly in gender matters, if a few people complained within a few weeks of each other, it might have a better chance of succeeding.

Word might spread in the Advertising industry - TV ads are expensive to make and they wouldn't want to scrap them. The ASAI also sends out a press release when it makes rulings which sometimes results in articles in national newspapers (again something advertisers won't like)

citytillidie

spurious wrote: »

I'm not a guy, but I agree with you.
The proliferation of 'male-bashing' ads is ridiculous. They're not clever and they're not funny.

No, it's not 'edgy and modern' to effectively repackage the style of advert that was originally offensive to women, except this time make the men the 'foolish' ones. It's sexist and offensive.

Why though, don't men complain in large numbers?
The early women's groups who complained about non-access to various things were also seen as a bit of a joke, but you have to keep at it.

Do you know are the people who think up these moronic ads male or female?

It may have been in Oz but you seen the number of complaints about that tights advert but they were dismissed.

I think men just cant be bothered to complain

james finn

its a fact fathers dont have rights so might be a good idea if they teach kids this in school. if the law thinks its ok then why should teaching kids this be a problem.

iptba

james finn wrote: »

its a fact fathers dont have rights so might be a good idea if they teach kids this in school. if the law thinks its ok then why should teaching kids this be a problem.

My sister did a women's studies course in Transition Year in her school (all girls). Don't know if these happen still but if they do, there's a precedent there.

james finn

schools should teach boys in school if you get a girl pregnant you will have no rights over the states child not your child.

metrovelvet

james finn wrote: »

schools should teach boys in school if you get a girl pregnant you will have no rights over the states child not your child.

Not all boys, just unmarried ones.

james finn

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not all boys, just unmarried ones.

boys cant marry underage.

sam34

james finn wrote: »

schools should teach boys in school if you get a girl pregnant you will have no rights over the states child not your child.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not all boys, just unmarried ones.

james finn wrote: »

boys cant marry underage.

way to miss her point!

boys shouldnt be having sex underage and impregnating someone either, as its illegal.

in any event, metrovelvets point was that the fathers who have no/less rights are the unmarried ones, not the married ones.

james finn

sam34 wrote: »

way to miss her point!

boys shouldnt be having sex underage and impregnating someone either, as its illegal.

in any event, metrovelvets point was that the fathers who have no/less rights are the unmarried ones, not the married ones.

boys have sex they shouldnt but they do, they cant get married full stop the law wont allow it.

The Corinthian

sam34 wrote: »

boys shouldnt be having sex underage and impregnating someone either, as its illegal.

Illegal for whom? Another area of discrimination against men can be found in the area of abuse and under-age sex. If the perpetrator is a woman, it is often trivialized (the boy is called 'lucky') and even if it actually gets to court, the woman faces - by law - more lenient sentience than a man in the same situation.

I would certainly agree with james finn's call for greater education in schools and elsewhere specifically targeting men or boys. There is a wide choice of information and schooling for girls and women about unplanned pregnancies and the options open to them when they occur. There is none whatsoever for men about unplanned pregnancies and the complete lack of options open to them when they occur.

Even when an unplanned pregnancy happens councilling for men simply does not exist - broadly, it is either pro-Life (in which case the child, mother and father are considered in that order) or pro-Choice (in which case the mother, child and father are considered in that order) - either way the father is only councilled in his future role as support and as a resource for mother (and child).

in any event, metrovelvets point was that the fathers who have no/less rights are the unmarried ones, not the married ones.

Married fathers have more rights than unmarried ones, but that does not equate as equal rights as the mothers. A negligible number of married fathers get primary custody, regardless of the mother's competence, to begin with.

Even with those rights (and guardianship is pretty much the only automatically extra right married men get) they are unenforceable. A father's wishes as to the child's upbringing can be easily ignored and even access can be blocked. That a court may rule otherwise is irrelevant as nothing will happen to enforce an order against a mother. Enforcement has only ever been applied against fathers (although even that is falling apart now).

Worse than that, if married, men often face a situation whereby they are hit with a financial double whammy as he is also liable for spousal maintainable.

Given that the only thing separating married and unmarried men, in terms of rights, is automatic guardianship, which can be won in court and is of dubious benefit anyway, unmarried men are probably far better off than their separated/divorced brothers.

sam34

The Corinthian wrote: »

Illegal for whom?

it is illegal to engage in underage sex. full stop.

james made the point in response to metrovelvet that boys cannot marry underage, due to legal restrictions. i responded to this by pointing out that there are legal restrictions on underage sex also.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Married fathers have more rights than unmarried ones, but that does not equate as equal rights as the mothers.

i'm aware of that, i never said otherwise.

The Corinthian

sam34 wrote: »

it is illegal to engage in underage sex. full stop.

Actually, not for girls. It is illegal for an under-age boy to engage in sex with an under-age girl, not the reverse. Even with adult women engaging with sex with under-age boys, while illegal, the legal consequences are far less than for men - a man may get up to life, a woman can get no more than seven years.

james made the point in response to metrovelvet that boys cannot marry underage, due to legal restrictions. i responded to this by pointing out that there are legal restrictions on underage sex also.

James suggested teaching schoolboys about this, to which Metro responded only the unmarried ones need be taught. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that does not make much sense to me.

i'm aware of that, i never said otherwise.

Actually you did:

sam34 wrote: »

the fathers who have no/less rights are the unmarried ones, not the married ones.

You implied that married fathers do are not the ones with less rights, which is incorrect. Regardless of married status fathers have fewer rights than mothers, both de jure and de facto.

sam34

The Corinthian wrote: »

James suggested teaching schoolboys about this, to which Metro responded only the unmarried ones need be taught. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that does not make much sense to me.

i read metro's point to mean that boys need to be taught that it is only the unmarried ones who have no rights, not that it is only unmarried ones who need to be taught anything.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually you did:

You implied that married fathers do are not the ones with less rights, which is incorrect. Regardless of married status fathers have fewer rights than mothers, both de jure and de facto.

apologies, you're right on that count

The Corinthian

sam34 wrote: »

i read metro's point to mean that boys need to be taught that it is only the unmarried ones who have no rights, not that it is only unmarried ones who need to be taught anything.

In reality boys need to be taught that they have no rights if unmarried and very few if they have.

Additionally, and more importantly, they need to be taught that they have absolutely no options available to them in the case of an unplanned pregnancy - boys are hardly taught anything on the subject, let alone this.

james finn

The Corinthian wrote: »

In reality boys need to be taught that they have no rights if unmarried and very few if they have.

Additionally, and more importantly, they need to be taught that they have absolutely no options available to them in the case of an unplanned pregnancy - boys are hardly taught anything on the subject, let alone this.

Thank you, thats my point, boys should be told in school you have no rights to your child if your unmarried, i wounder why they dont teach this in school as it would be a good help to boys to know the law is not equal.

iptba

james finn wrote: »

Thank you, thats my point, boys should be told in school you have no rights to your child if your unmarried, i wounder why they dont teach this in school as it would be a good help to boys to know the law is not equal.

Point of information: last time I saw data, the "gender equality unit" (3 staff) in the Dept of Education was all female. And the approach was more focused on girls (can't remember the details now - might have been that not enough girls choosing technical subjects).

james finn

iptba wrote: »

Point of information: last time I saw data, the "gender equality unit" (3 staff) in the Dept of Education was all female. And the approach was more focused on girls (can't remember the details now - might have been that not enough girls choosing technical subjects).

could teach that in school, but more important to teach boys they dont have any rights if unmarried, this is a road they might take and 3 staff in an office isnt going to help them.

metrovelvet

james finn wrote: »

could teach that in school, but more important to teach boys they dont have any rights if unmarried, this is a road they might take and 3 staff in an office isnt going to help them.

It was not too long ago that unmarried women didnt have rights to their children either. But they were sent off to laundries to get beated and their children were sent somewhere else never to be seen again.

james finn

metrovelvet wrote: »

It was not too long ago that unmarried women didnt have rights to their children either. But they were sent off to laundries to get beated and their children were sent somewhere else never to be seen again.

That was a long time ago, im not ere to bash womens rights, im ere to say we should warn young boys in school they dont have any rights to their kids unmarried. why would telling the truth be a problem

metrovelvet

james finn wrote: »

That was a long time ago, im not ere to bash womens rights, im ere to say we should warn young boys in school they dont have any rights to their kids unmarried. why would telling the truth be a problem

No its not a problem. TBH both young girls and boys should be taught to keep it in their pants.

A friend of mine used to teach in a catholic high school in NYC and they were having their baby showers during lunch break inbetween alegbra and geography.

james finn

metrovelvet wrote: »

No its not a problem. TBH both young girls and boys should be taught to keep it in their pants.

A friend of mine used to teach in a catholic high school in NYC and they were having their baby showers during lunch break inbetween alegbra and geography.

If the law thinks its ok for unmarried fathers to have no rights we should teach kids this.

I bet the law would have a problem with that as in teaching the truth

Dr Galen

james finn wrote: »

I bet the law would have a problem with that as in teaching the truth

what makes you say that?