Sisters - 40 Years of Change for Irish Women

LittleBook

On Wednesday the Irish Times is publishing a 36-page magazine "celebrating 40 years of change for Irish women ... a look back at the changes brought about by the women's movement in Ireland and taking stock of what has not changed and what is still to be done ... with contributions from Maeve Binchy, Kathy Sheridan, Fintan O'Toole and Mary Robinson, plus mini-profiles of 40 women who made a significant difference over the last 40 years."

Sinall

Sounds interesting. We've come a long way. Still a way to go though, I think!

Xiney

oooh I'll definitely pick this up - something to read on the plane over to Boston!

ztoical

It will be interesting to see their list of 40 women though I've a horrible feeling they're going to list people like that muppet Cecelia Ahern.

LittleBook

There's a print ad for it in today's Irish Times. It shows the front cover (presumably) of the magazine which features a small photo of each of the 40 women ... I don't recognise Cecelia Ahern in any of them ... but they are small

But one of the women "pictured" is simply a black square with the words "Miss X".

I don't want to judge a book by the cover but I think this could very interesting.

ztoical

LittleBook wrote: »

But one of the women "pictured" is simply a black square with the words "Miss X".

Could be a reference to the abortion X case - that would make sense as abortion issues would be very tied to womens rights.

LittleBook

The X case led to two important amendments to the Irish Constitution so I'm fairly sure it is.

I remember marching for that poor girl.

Nervous Wreck

ztoical wrote: »

It will be interesting to see their list of 40 women though I've a horrible feeling they're going to list people like that muppet Cecelia Ahern.

Who?

Silverfish

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Who?

Oh wow I envy you.

Piste

I just read there, it's interesting, especially the bits about 2nd wave feminism in the 70s, I had no idea some of the stuff women were not allowed to do 40 years ago (like drink a pint, wtf? It may look a bit butch, but forbidding it's going a bit far). I thought the bits about modern inequality took it a bit far, a few issues were highlighted that, while they women, just simply aren't issues of equality.

ztoical

Piste wrote: »

I just read there, it's interesting, especially the bits about 2nd wave feminism in the 70s, I had no idea some of the stuff women were not allowed to do 40 years ago (like drink a pint, wtf? It may look a bit butch, but forbidding it's going a bit far).

My mums first year in college was the first year women were allowed wear pants rather then skirts to class. Her mum made her wear a skirt and she would change when she got to college. It sounds kinda of mad to hear about it now.

Madame Razz

I know a retired GP whose first job was working on an island off the coast in the 50s. The only way to the mainland was by rowboat; so she had to write home to her father to ask permission to buy a pair of trousers for the journeys back and forth as the wind made wearing a skirt 'immoral'.

Scarinae

I didn't get a chance to buy the paper, but I'm looking at some of it on the website

In 1979, in an infamous "Irish solution to an Irish problem", an Act was passed to allow doctors to prescribe contraceptives to married couples only. A 1985 Act allowed contraceptives to be sold to anyone over 18 but only in chemists. The IFPA and Virgin Megastore were prosecuted for selling condoms in 1991. Later that year, the sale of contraceptives was liberalised.

Wtf? I had no idea it took that long to get contraceptives legal in Ireland... That is ridiculous!

Piste

Yeah I was surprised at the 1991 thing myself. I was born in 1991...maybe I wouldn't have been if the law had come in sooner >_>

LittleBook

I'm still reading through it but there's some shocking/fascinating stuff there.

10 Things an Irish Woman Could Not Do in 1970 (and when it was legally changed)

1. Keep her job in the public service or a bank when she got married (1977)
2. Sit on a jury (1976 - by court decision)
3. Buy contraceptives (1985)
4. Drink a pint in a pub (2002 although I'm sure I was drinking pints before then )
5. Collect her children's allowance (1974)
6. Get a barring order against a violent partner (1976/1981)
7. Live securely in her family home (i.e. her husband could sell it without her consent (1976)
8. Refuse to have sex with her husband (1990!)
9. Choose her official place of domicile (1985)
10. Get the same rate for the same job as a man (1974/1977)

My Mum told me about how in the 70s her only way to get contraception was to go to "The Pill Doctor" ... a doctor miles from where she lived but whose name she heard from a friend and passed on to her friends.

Kooli

LittleBook wrote: »

I'm still reading through it but there's some shocking/fascinating stuff there.

10 Things an Irish Woman Could Not Do in 1970 (and when it was legally changed)

1. Keep her job in the public service or a bank when she got married (1977)
2. Sit on a jury (1976 - by court decision)
3. Buy contraceptives (1985)
4. Drink a pint in a pub (2002 although I'm sure I was drinking pints before then )
5. Collect her children's allowance (1974)
6. Get a barring order against a violent partner (1976/1981)
7. Live securely in her family home (i.e. her husband could sell it without her consent (1976)
8. Refuse to have sex with her husband (1990!)
9. Choose her official place of domicile (1985)
10. Get the same rate for the same job as a man (1974/1977)

My Mum told me about how in the 70s her only way to get contraception was to go to "The Pill Doctor" ... a doctor miles from where she lived but whose name she heard from a friend and passed on to her friends.

I know isn't it unbelievable?

And, as I expected, there's a letter in the Irish times today from a man wondering when the 'Brothers' supplement will be published about the subjugation of the Irish male! Typical reactionary nonsense from someone who clearly did not read anything in the magazine.

Pythia

Kooli wrote: »

I know isn't it unbelievable?

And, as I expected, there's a letter in the Irish times today from a man wondering when the 'Brothers' supplement will be published about the subjugation of the Irish male! Typical reactionary nonsense from someone who clearly did not read anything in the magazine.

I agree with the man.

Chinafoot

Pythia wrote: »

I agree with the man.

Care to expand on that?

I think the guy might have had a point - there's so much about feminism and supplements like the Sisters one. Now don't get me wrong there's tons to do with women's rights everywhere, and I thought those articles were fascinating, but I can see how your average man could feel very slighted and discriminated against in this day and age.
It's odd how there needs to be more done for women's equality on the one hand, and yet sometimes it seems all very one-sided and overbearing instead of actual equality.
Maybe the pendulum needs to swing further to the other side before it finally rests in the middle.

I think a brothers supplement might be a good idea too.

ztoical

bluewolf wrote: »

I think a brothers supplement might be a good idea too.

focusing on what exactly? Other then gay rights and fathers rights I can't think of anything else for "Brothers" to feature. I'm sorry but it's still very much a male focus out there and I'm told time and again by male co-workers that I couldn't possibly understand the massive pressure and stress they feel to succeed in their careers cus after all if I try and fail I can go away and make babies but they don't have that 'option'.

ztoical

ztoical wrote: »

focusing on what exactly? Other then gay rights and fathers rights I can't think of anything else for "Brothers" to feature. I'm sorry but it's still very much a male focus out there and I'm told time and again by male co-workers that I couldn't possibly understand the massive pressure and stress they feel to succeed in their careers cus after all if I try and fail I can go away and make babies but they don't have that 'option'.

Well I'm appalled to hear such a thing, and that's one example of attitude adjustments that need to be made, but maybe it's worth just trying to identify and explore any issues that do arise from all this social change in the last x years. Fathers rights is definitely a big one, since they don't seem to have any. Another would be to look at why any woman thinks sending this letter into the times is ok:

Madam, – I loved Conor Murphy’s whinge about your Sisters supplement (May 26th) and his request for a supplement on the “subjugated” “brothers” (May 27th). Would some of those “subjugated” brothers include the fellows who have run the country into the ground in the nearly 90 per cent male Dáil, the fellows who bankrupted the economy through their abuse of power at the top of banks, the all-male Catholic hierarchy, who have hardly covered themselves in glory recently or the members of the drug gangs that hold whole areas of our cities to ransom? – Yours, etc,

I'm fairly certain if a man tried blaming women for all the woes of mankind these days, either it wouldn't get published or there'd be uproar.
He made a simple request on seeing a brothers supplement, and someone dismisses this as "whingeing". Now how many times has it happened to any women in work making a complaint or something similar and it's been dismissed as emotional or whingeing? We can't turn around and do the same thing - "be a man and get over it" is as bad as "oh typical woman".
It reminds me of an article on "cougar town" on the irish times a while back - saying what if a man did x,y,z as C. Cox does in the show - he'd probably be arrested several times over, but because it's a woman doing these things the guys just have to get over it/not have a problem with it/it's acceptable and empowering.
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. There's double standards and bad attitudes as you gave an example of, but it exists in reverse too.

I never really thought about it before until I had a few conversations with my OH where I mention women's rights etc and while acknowledging observations as valid, he has a good few of his own as well on men's issues.
I don't know though - maybe any guys reading tLL can give their input??

Wibbs

Well I think there have been huge strides forward as the list shows. I remember when you couldnt get contraceptives, or a divorce and all that guff. When the church ran through Irish society like a stick of rock. Mad. Of my friends parents my mother was the only one I knew who kept working after marriage and having a kid.

Men do need to fight for extra rights. In particular when it comes to a balance in relationship breakup and access to children. In that area we are at a disadvantage. What I find interesting is that "women"(tm) may on the one hand claim a biological imperative over their reproductive rights(I get pregnant, I give birth etc), yet if one was to discriminate over same in say the job market all hell would break loose(You get pregnant, you give birth, so no way am I hiring you as it'll cost me).

I know its a cliche but human rights for the win. I think the media plays on this idea of gender war. It shifts units. It also filters down where people of both genders believe in this sex war nonsense and feed back into it. Over the years I've noted it's much more prevalent now than say 20 years ago.

Wibbs

I would add that yes often times men are at the top running things, but at grass roots level both genders are often in the poo.

Nevyn

And this is the way the current dicussion go about feministm and the womean liberation movement :rollseyes: It's a historical look back over the last 40 years for women's rights.

Yes men have issues too, but you know what thats not what the artical is about and on reading it and listening to the interviews men may decided to get themsleves organised and lobby.

That is always how it is done in this country, got something you want to change?
got a causes? get up and push and lobbby to make it happen.

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

And this is the way the current dicussion go about feministm and the womean liberation movement :rollseyes: It's a historical look back over the last 40 years for women's rights.

Yes men have issues too, but you know what thats not what the artical is about and on reading it and listening to the interviews men may decided to get themsleves organised and lobby.

Nobody said it's what the article is about. What we can do on the subject is stop calling them whingers for doing so. It IS related to the cause of feminism and social change because that "whingers" attitude is damaging it.

That is always how it is done in this country, got something you want to change?
got a causes? get up and push and lobbby to make it happen.

I couldn't agree more. Of course, that also goes for miss "90% male dail is all the men's fault" writer into the times under the heading of that supplement.

Anyway this may be a discussion for another thread. I just couldn't let that original post slide.

Nevyn

I never use the term whingers, don't infer that I did.

If you had listened to the interview up on the site beside the artical that was addressed.
its the workload and the culture of working in goverment and running for it.

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

I never use the term whingers, don't infer that I did.

I didn't say you did Don't infer that I did ;P

LittleBook

bluewolf wrote: »

there's so much about feminism and supplements like the Sisters one

Really? The reason I posted originally was because I remembered another thread here discussing why there had never been a grassroots feminist movement in Ireland. I've never seen a supplement like this before.

That thread rapidly (if not immediately) became a discussion on men's rights also.

The person who wrote to the Irish Times was back-handedly complaining about an excellent supplement, had clearly not bothered to read it and seemed to have no idea of the meaning of the word "subjugated" which is why it came across as a whinge to me too.

panda100

Anyone know where I can get a copy of this supplement? Im trying to find it on the IT website but I can't see it anywhere.

panda100

panda100 wrote: »

Anyone know where I can get a copy of this supplement? Im trying to find it on the IT website but I can't see it anywhere.

http://www.irishtimes.com/indepth/sisters/

Kooli

LittleBook wrote: »

Really? The reason I posted originally was because I remembered another thread here discussing why there had never been a grassroots feminist movement in Ireland. I've never seen a supplement like this before.

That thread rapidly (if not immediately) became a discussion on men's rights also.

The person who wrote to the Irish Times was back-handedly complaining about an excellent supplement, had clearly not bothered to read it and seemed to have no idea of the meaning of the word "subjugated" which is why it came across as a whinge to me too.

That may have been my fault, apologies for bringing in the 'men's rights' aspect of it, but that letter to the Irish Times really got my goat. (The woman who replied to him also got my goat!)

I agree that there's no way he read the supplement. Even just that list of 10 things a woman couldn't do in 1970 should have made him realise that it is fairly impossible to compare the 'subjugation' or Irish men in today's society to what Irish feminists have fought for and won.

I do admit that the feminist movement has raised difficult questions for both men AND women about the changing nature of femininity and masculinity, and the changing gender roles and expectations. But surely reading a list like the one above makes it clear why there is a more defined and active 'feminist' movement than a men's rights one, and why it has been absolutely necessary that that was the case?

LittleBook

Kooli wrote: »

That may have been my fault, apologies for bringing in the 'men's rights' aspect of it, but that letter to the Irish Times really got my goat. (The woman who replied to him also got my goat!)

Not at all, he got my goat too!!

Chinafoot

Wibbs wrote: »

Men do need to fight for extra rights. In particular when it comes to a balance in relationship breakup and access to children. In that area we are at a disadvantage.

And unfortunately the attitude of "the child's place is with the mother" is still alive and well because it was something that was so bet into society's conciousness by the Church and the Government and fathers and mothers and husbands. Does it need to change? Abso-fúcking-lutely. Does it even come anywhere close to the issues women faced in employment, marriage, rape, contraception, etc? No. It doesn't.

This bullshít reaction of "oh, oh, what about us men!!" really pisses me off. The article was acknowledging the advances made in women's rights over the last 40 years. Why can't people just accept that for what it is instead of making it into some ridiculous competition? Its stupid and the most stupid thing about it is, if the men want to make it a competition of who had/has it harder...they certainly won't be winning.

Piste

There were a good few references in the supplement about inequalities that persist today. Has anyone experienced any? Personally I haven't, I feel as equal and am treated as equal as any of the guys I know. By equal I don't mean "the same", as both genders are different and acts differently, I mean I think I am treated with the same level of respect as my male peers.

Silverfish

Well, personally, I was refused service of a pint, the barman said 'Is it for yourself?' When I said yes, he took it back off the counter, and poured it into two half pint glasses. Considering that does not make for the best guinness in the world, I refused it, and was asked to leave the pub. This was eight years ago, so not exactly the 70's.

I'm also on about 9k less than my male predecessor in my current job, who I was more qualified than, and in my previous jobs, I was on 5/6k less. I'm working on that at the moment, but it has been ongoing for 2 years now and doesn't look like it will get anywhere.

I'm glad that things have moved on from situations like that, but for me, it's still pretty recent.

It's easy for forget that all the things listed above still continued, and while they might have been abolished, the mindset of the people enforcing them did not, and lasted well into the 80's, 90's, 00's in some places.

I remember in one job I had in the early 00's, a girl was sent home from work for wearing trousers instead of a skirt. She kicked up a fuss and we were then permitted to wear trousers if we preferred. The newer employees after this didn't even realise that if she hadn't kicked up, they'd never be allowed wear trousers.

Only 4 years ago I was called into my boss's office for a review, and was marked down for appearance. I asked him what was wrong with my appearance, and he said I could look more 'feminine. You know, a skirt or a bit more makeup and jewellery or whatever'. I went out raging, turns out all the other female employees had gotten the same spiel, and just didn't know how to react.

I appreciate these things arent as commonplace as they once were, and are much less likely to happen to anyone any more, however, I don't think we should forget those that paved the way for the changes to happen from the situations listed in the 70's. I only challenged the smaller things, and I can tell you, it took a lot of courage to do so, so I can only imagine the courage it took to challenge things like keeping your job after you get married, getting a barring order, refusing sex, or sitting on a jury.

Chinafoot

Chinafoot wrote: »

And unfortunately the attitude of "the child's place is with the mother" is still alive and well because it was something that was so bet into society's conciousness by the Church and the Government and fathers and mothers and husbands. Does it need to change? Abso-fúcking-lutely.

Out of curiosity, how did we get the children in the first place? I'm pretty sure only 100 years ago any custody would be automatically granted to the father as the breadwinner (presumably)? Was it something fought for or what?

edit: looks like it varied
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~kbirks/history/custody.htm

I wonder if it became "place is with the mother" as you said, to keep women busy at home and not out

Wibbs

bluewolf wrote: »

I wonder if it became "place is with the mother" as you said, to keep women busy at home and not out

I suspect that's a lot of it. Especially in olde Ireland with its Devalera/McQuaids notion of comely catholics dancing at the crossroads. I think and am open to correction that elsewhere like the US and the UK it was a little more to do with swinging the pendulum back to women's rights t compensate for past stupidity and in some cases the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

Ireland is a little different in this. As far as gender relations go across the board, we're playing serious catchup. What women(and men) expect in other european countries came late or not at all. Divorce(barely made it through), contraception, decriminalisation of same sex relationships, abortion which we dont have, medical treatment of women, good sex education, maternity leave(paternity leave is a long way off). The list is very long.

This list is important. Especially for younger women(and men) to read. It's so so recent this stuff. Like I said I grew up in a time when these basic rights and considerations were not in place.

Funny though. Ireland was unusual in one way. We were one of the first nations on earth to have women in the police force.

Chinafoot

bluewolf wrote: »

I wonder if it became "place is with the mother" as you said, to keep women busy at home and not out

Oh absolutely. I mean we're talking about a country that made women quit their job in the civil service when they became married! Now you're a wife you have a new job, looking after your husband and your home and your children when you inevitably have them.

Like I already said, I fully support men's rights when it comes to access to their kids and also paternity leave. I think where I work men get something like 3 days which is disgraceful. Thats just enough time to get your baby home from the hospital before you're back into work. Parental rights is also a joke for men in this country and court cases need to be judged on a case by case basis instead of it simply being thrown out because its the man looking for custody. I do know one man with full custody of his son. Nobody was more surprised than him when he got it. He had a female judge who actually looked at what was happening and how unstable the mother was and thankfully she made the right call.

As for instances where I have felt discriminated against because of my gender..

well like silverfish I have been refused a pint in a pub, I have been asked to leave the bar and go to the lounge as that is "where you belong".

I have had taxi drivers refuse to acknowledge me and only speak to my male partner, to the extent that one refused to take the money I handed him for payment, waiting instead for my boyfriend to get his money out.

I have no issues with wages in my present job because I work in the public service and the salaries are transparent and based on length of service. In my previous job I was getting less than 2 male employees that I trained in having been there 3 years longer. I have also had a colleague refuse to be trained in by me due to my gender. This was openly said by him, "I'm not having some woman tell me what to do."

In my current job I have had members of the public refuse to deal with me and only speak to my male colleague as they "wanted a manager". The male colleague is not only not a manager but also very obviously younger than me.

Now perhaps you can argue that these are just sexist men that I've had the misfortune of encountering and maybe you're right, but it still scares and sickens me that those attitudes are still alive and well in this day and age. But then, when you see that spousal rape was only made a crime 20 years ago, its not all that surprising.

Chinafoot

Chinafoot wrote: »

I have had taxi drivers refuse to acknowledge me and only speak to my male partner, to the extent that one refused to take the money I handed him for payment, waiting instead for my boyfriend to get his money out.

lolwut? When did that happen? :eek:

I have also had a colleague refuse to be trained in by me due to my gender. This was openly said by him, "I'm not having some woman tell me what to do."

What happened then ??

Piste

Jesus yours and Silverfish's stories are awful, I wouldn't have thought those attitudes still persisted these days. Did you kick up a fuss when people refused to deal with you because you're a woman?

Chinafoot

bluewolf wrote: »

lolwut? When did that happen? :eek:

The money situation was about 8 years ago and the driver wasn't exactly an old fogey. There have been plenty of more recent occasions though where taxi drivers will only acknowledge my current boyfriend in conversation during the trip.

bluewolf wrote: »

What happened then ??

Well, you have to remember that this was while working for an man who happily paid the males more than the females regardless of experience. I told him what was said and he simply moved the guy to a different shift where he could be trained in by a bloke. I didn't last too much longer after that.

Piste wrote: »

Jesus yours and Silverfish's stories are awful, I wouldn't have thought those attitudes still persisted these days. Did you kick up a fuss when people refused to deal with you because you're a woman?

As above, in the job situation the sexist colleague was working for a sexist boss so no amount of kicking up a fuss would have done anything there. I said my piece and left soon after as I couldn't take it anymore. I had all the responsibilty as a senior staff member, yet my vagina somehow meant I wasn't worthy of decent pay. :rolleyes:

In my current job, when it happens theres not a whole lot I can do about it while remaining polite and courteous. It absolutely boils my fúcking blood and I usually make a point of saying "I'll happily go and get the librarian for you, SHE'S just upstairs." It tends to shut them up but I know there's very little you can do to change that kind of attitude. Some in my job even think there is an unfair bias towards males for promotion due to it being a female dominated profession and the want for some sort of "balance". In my opinion, gender should have feck all to do with it. If a promotion is given it should be because the candidate has the experience and the ability to do the job, not because he's a bloke and it'lll look better if we have more men higher up. If men want the jobs they'll apply for them ffs.

Piste

Yeah that's exactly what i thought when i read the piece in the magazine about so few CEOs being women, it would be ridiculous to promote women just for balance (not that the supplement suggested it, the tone just seemed quite bitter that there are so few women in high positions). What i didn't like about the tone of the supplememt was the strong implication that women aren't in elevated positions in companies because of their gender, without examining the other reasons why that might be the case.

Piste

In the Weekend review in the IT this weekend there was a small article on 10 Things Men Couldn't do in the 1970s. It was all stuff like "talk about relationships while watching football" "cry" etc. Y'know, stuff that was socially just not done but men weren't actively prevented from doing. I'm between minds about whether it was written as a light-hearted piece to highlight to change of men in society, or whether it was one of those "you women didn't have it so bad, look what men couldn't do!" articles.

I'm pretty sure from the "buying his own underwear" bit it was tongue in cheek!
Bit of a laugh all in all.

Piste

Yeah I thought it was funny, I hope it was tongue in cheek anyway, and the journalist wasn't just being petty.

Orla K

I found this today it's the text of a booklet from the 2010 feminist walking tour. It talks about some of the things women and men did in certain places in dublin (the first one I don't know what the connection to fleet street is) It talks about some of the same people 'sisters' does but if different enough to it too.

It is on the choice Ireland website so if you don't agree with that be warned.

Wacker

Piste wrote: »

Yeah I thought it was funny, I hope it was tongue in cheek anyway, and the journalist wasn't just being petty.

I'd bet a dollar against a dime that it was the former. It was written by Frank McNally, who writes the Irishman's Diary in the paper about four days a week, which is always very light-hearted. I mean, number 3 on the list was find the G-spot; what does that tell you?

Here's the complete list:

1. Buy his own underwear.
2. Cry.
3. Find the G-spot.
4. Hug another man (thank god they changed that one! Wacker needs man-lovin').
5. Attend the births of his children.
6. Retain his waistline after marriage.
7. Live as long as the Irish woman.
8. Move his hips while dancing.
9. Discuss relationship issues during a football match.
10. Blame a string of one-night stands with porn stands on sex addiction (WTF?!?)

mollymuffs

Thanks to all who posted i have had some laughs reading

Kooli

Piste wrote: »

Yeah that's exactly what i thought when i read the piece in the magazine about so few CEOs being women, it would be ridiculous to promote women just for balance (not that the supplement suggested it, the tone just seemed quite bitter that there are so few women in high positions). What i didn't like about the tone of the supplememt was the strong implication that women aren't in elevated positions in companies because of their gender, without examining the other reasons why that might be the case.

I actually thought that Kathy Sheridan's article raised some interesting points about this very issue (which is something I agree is often missing from the debate).

Here's a snippet, but she had more to say:

"So is that it ? A toss-up between biology and culture? Given that the workplace culture we inhabit was designed by men for men, does it follow that women have failed when they balk at the anti-family and therefore anti-social nature of the set-up? Are women inclined to the road of least resistance? Or do they simply see things more clearly?

The culture of “presenteeism” (being seen to be at your desk for long hours), the macho office politics, the notion that it’s suspect for a man to take family leave, the fact that part-timers and people who work from home are taken less seriously, are all traits of the male-centred workplace. No small thing when the benchmarks for success remain intensely male."

Ms.Odgeynist

Hi all,
I would be very curious about your views on the changes that need to be made (if any) to protect the weaker sex (I speak of men of course) in light of the rebalancing that has occurred in recent years in the public sphere (employment, courts etc.)
Do you have any concerns that this rebalancing of the public sphere has not been counteracted by a rebalancing within the private sphere (guardianship, divorce arrangements etc)

Ms.Odgeynist

Scratch that last post by me. Hadn't read the rest of the thread. Apologies for bringing men's rights into it - Again