Bias against fathers

James Jones

The article HERE hi-lights the discrimination faced by fathers in todays society. We are all well aware of the discrimination faced by married and unmarried fathers in the so-called "Family" courts but this article indicates the societal bias faced by fathers.

Why is this allowed to happen?

Because not enough people really care. It doesn't touch them so its removed from reality. I appreciate the problems having seen some male friends face the problems, and I'm still quite removed from the situation. It still doesn't touch me.

Let me put it another way. Consider the economic crisis Ireland faced roughly two years ago... we were all baying for blood against those responsible for the mismanagement of the country and against those business people that acted so badly... has anyone ever been charged and prosecuted? (Hell, we haven't really done anything to prevent it from happening again)

In Ireland there needs to be serious backing for any change to occur. Honestly, I feel that Irish people are too lazy and apathetic towards long-term/long-lasting change to actually do it themselves. It needs to be forced on us. (Yes, I include myself in that assessment). If things could be changed in an instant, then perhaps change could occur, but lets face it, we get bored when facing a long process. And changing fathers rights from both a social and legal pov would be a very lengthy process.

Sleepy

Because there's no Masculist movement in Ireland and matters of "equality" are left to the Feminist lobbyists.

James Jones

Sleepy wrote: »

Because there's no Masculist movement in Ireland and matters of "equality" are left to the Feminist lobbyists.

But even when lobbied, the Government refuse to accept that men or fathers are discriminated against. See parliamentary question and answer HERE. The Equal Status decisions HERE were submitted to the Government HERE but the Government, in the report HERE, still views Women’s rights and gender equality as one issue.

Women’s rights and gender equality

137. Ireland has ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Despite the progress that has been made, inequalities on the gender ground still exist. Workplace gender discrimination continues to be reported annually, with on average, women being paid 17% less than men and ongoing occupational sex segregation. Childcare and eldercare responsibilities often hinder the advancement of women in their careers. Women continue to be under-represented in decision-making roles, particularly in the political arena and as company executives and members of corporate boards.

138. To address these areas, gender equality policy in Ireland consists of a number of components. The comprehensive National Women's Strategy 2007-2016 is an all-ofGovernment commitment to foster the advancement of women in all facets of their lives. The Strategy, which contains 20 key objectives and over 200 actions, aims to equalise socioeconomic opportunity for women, ensure their well-being and engage women as equal and active decision-makers. The Government and the European Social Fund have made funding available for a programme of positive actions to support gender equality. These include increasing women’s participation in employment, supporting women entrepreneurs and assisting those in employment to advance their careers.

139. The Government also has a social protection programme including maternity leave and other family-friendly initiatives to support women in reconciling work and family life. Irish maternity leave provisions compare favourably with EU averages. The Government has contributed significantly to the expansion of childcare services to support the childcare needs of women who are in employment, education or training, including the provision of a free preschool year for those aged under 4 years and 6 months. The Government has increased child benefit very significantly over the past ten years to make financial assistance available to parents to support the care of their children.

140. The Constitutional Convention will consider if there is a need to amend the clauses on women in the home and encourage greater participation of women in public life. Separately, the Government has announced reforms to electoral legislation in order to increase the participation of women in politics. Under these plans, political parties will see their State funding halved if they do not meet the new requirements to have at least 30% women and 30% men candidates at the next Dáil general election. This will rise to 40% after seven years. This initiative is intended to incentivise a shift towards gender balance in Irish politics.

Things won't be getting any better as long as Alan Shatter is Minister for Justice. Shatter recently said HERE

My personal experience prior to becoming Minister, as a lawyer dealing professionally with family law matters, was that one of the big difficulties in this area is that many fathers do not take responsibility for their children. Indeed, many of them do not seek to form and cement relationships with their children, or to involve themselves in their children’s lives

What about the thousands of fathers who try, through the courts, to maintain these relationships? The Annual Report of the Courts Service 2010 states that

Applications to the District Court for custody and access increased by 15% to 7,221 from 6,281 in 2009. Applications for custody only increased by 44% to 1,380 from 957 in 2009. Applications for access only increased by 10% to 4,784 from 4,348 in 2009

indicating that cases concerning custody and access to children numbered in excess of 13,000 last year alone. The majority of these would have been taken by fathers as previous reports HERE indicate that, during separation and divorce, mothers generally retain custody.

gargleblaster

Deleted User wrote: »

Because not enough people really care. It doesn't touch them so its removed from reality.

This. ^

The struggle for fair treatment is never easy, and progress is always slow. The more people you have helping to push for change, the more likely you are to see progress, but first you need lots of people advocating for change.

IPushButtons

James Jones wrote: »

Why is this allowed to happen?

Because you let it.

Ickle Magoo

gargleblaster wrote: »

This. ^

The struggle for fair treatment is never easy, and progress is always slow. The more people you have helping to push for change, the more likely you are to see progress, but first you need lots of people advocating for change.

And properly advocating change - not just bitching about the status quo...

James Jones

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And properly advocating change - not just bitching about the status quo...

But that's my point. Even when fathers advocate they are ignored.There were a number of public consultations recently to gathers views from the public in relation to the Universal Periodic Review of Irelands Human Rights record. The issues brought up were as follows:

St. Andrew’s Resource Centre, Pearse St., Dublin
Fathers’ rights
- Family court system: should adopt the same in camera rule in family cases as is used in rape trials, so details of cases and decisions would be in the public domain, while still protecting privacy of the parties.
- Consent issue on forms for medical permission, school trips, etc. One parent can consent without the other parent being consulted. Legislation should tackle this and protect the rights of the father


Douglas Hyde Theatre, Athlone Institute of Technology
Although it is illegal, in practice, enrolment in school can be done with only 1
parent‟s signature; in general, after a breakup, most schools deal solely with the mother.
- The legal system is flawed; there is no redress; judges are inconsistent and
arbitrary. In camera rule means there is no accountability or transparency.
- A person‟s home may be sold without his consent; judges remove an individual‟s right to consent.
- Barring orders can be made for life; they are issued by the District and Circuit Courts and there is no requirement for evidence and will be granted if one member of the couple says they are in fear.
- The Guardian Ad Litem service is illegal, according to a recent PQ answered by Minister Alan Shatter, but often ordered by judges. This is third party interference.
- In 2010 there was an 80% increase in Section 37 Reports (1996 Childcare Act?) whereby judges assess which parent should have custody/access. Used to deny fathers access to their children. Can be carried out without guidelines by social workers. Coercion by doctors to undergo mental assessment; medical profession facilitates this system.
- Suicide is up by 20% partly as a result of these issues. Men‟s rights are being violated and the State institutions do not protect them


Parade Tower, Kilkenny Castle
There is a right to family unity, grounded in marriage between a man and a woman.
- Children have the right to know their parents; anonymous sperm donation should be banned

Mary Immaculate College, Limerick
Role of the family in the Constitution; protection for women working in the home. This discriminates against both women, who are stereotyped, and men, as it does not include the option of the man being the homemaker. Constitution should be amended to be gender-neutral in this area.
- Barr Judgment – (see Issues relating to dealing with State bodies below) – in case of family breakdown, a father is at the mercy of his partner, who can claim he is an abuser without needing to provide evidence.
- Men are discriminated against in the area of access to their children; rights are infringed by every arm of the State involved in family law; HSE, Courts, Gardaí etc.
System should be fair and consistent but access is granted purely on the discretion of judges.
- Supervision orders are used as a threatening device, not for the protection of children.
- „Tender years‟ rule that children under 12 may not live with fathers should be changed
- In camera rule must be amended; current system means no transparency or public awareness of what is happening in the family law system.
- Ombudsman cannot investigate family law cases for 3-5 years

Institute of Technology Sligo
According to international conventions, the family founded on marriage is fundamental to the well-being of society. Ireland is failing to protect family rights by not placing the family founded on the marriage between a man and a woman at the centre of policy decisions. There should be a dedicated Government Department dealing with protection of the family.
- One speaker highlighted a personal case where he felt that a judicial separation was forced on him; judicial separation should require the consent of both parties

University College Cork
Children have the right to know who their parents are; IVF companies deny children their identities.
- Ireland should protect the rights of the family, based on marriage between a man and a woman; the child is supported by the mother, the mother and wife is supported by the husband and the husband is supported by the State. That is the natural order


Axis Ballymun
- One speaker expressed the view that his role as a stay-at-home parent has come under attack by those who wish to change the provisions in the Constitution that defend the role of the mother in the home. That provision benefits all stay-at-home parents, fathers as well as mothers. This is important in a time of rising unemployment. The State and some NGOs seem to view homemakers as less worthy than other workers.
- Our Constitution is copied around the world and the protection for the family is second to none; Ireland is the envy of other countries. The Government does not adequately support the family based on marriage between a man and a woman; the family is the most discriminated-against group in Ireland. Where marriage is protected, society flourishes. NGOs that support anti-family agendas are funded by organisations outside the State.

I do not agree with each and every one of these points but the only one that managed to get on the National Report was the "In Camera" rule. This is despite the Government being made aware of discrimination against father through the written submission HERE.

Have fathers any chance at all when the Minister for Justice can state that

My personal experience prior to becoming Minister, as a lawyer dealing professionally with family law matters, was that one of the big difficulties in this area is that many fathers do not take responsibility for their children. Indeed, many of them do not seek to form and cement relationships with their children, or to involve themselves in their children’s lives.

even though the Annual Report of the Courts Service 2010 states that

“Applications to the District Court for custody and access increased by 15% to 7,221 from 6,281 in 2009. Applications for custody only increased by 44% to 1,380 from 957 in 2009. Applications for access only increased by 10% to 4,784 from 4,348 in 2009”

and so cases concerning custody and access to children numbered in excess of 13,000 last year alone (these cases were taken separate to over 5000 applications for separation and divorce). As custody is usually granted to mothers following separation or divorce (see HERE), we can take it for granted that the applications for access and custody were mainly made by fathers yet Alan Shatter can disparaged them as a group because of his own personal experiences. Imagine the outrage if a Government Minister made a similar remark about women, foreign nationals, Muslims, travellers or gays?
Yet the media are generally silent when it comes to discrimination against fathers. I still don't understand why this is.

Ickle Magoo

James Jones wrote: »

But that's my point. Even when fathers advocate they are ignored.There were a number of public consultations recently to gathers views from the public in relation to the Universal Periodic Review of Irelands Human Rights record. The issues brought up were as follows:

How many and how vociferously are they advocating? I am constantly amazed at the complete apathy shown by many in this country towards issues that effect them every day - I am not surprised that issues such as these do not get active support in the kind of numbers that are often required to cause sufficient pressure to trigger political change.

There seems to be many more armchair and bar-room moaners who would prefer to just complain about the status quo to people that have no power to change matters and blame other interest groups for not also ensuring whatever interests they hold are not also campaigned, lobbied and so on to save them the effort...

James Jones wrote: »

Imagine the outrage if a Government Minister made a similar remark about women, foreign nationals, Muslims, travellers or gays?
Yet the media are generally silent when it comes to discrimination against fathers. I still don't understand why this is.

See above - and I'd be willing to bet without much digging I could find articles about Irish politicians who have made controversial remarks about most things. There is an astoundingly annoying and frustrating climate of political apathy here. People vote politicians based on their family connections and because they and theirs have always voted for X party. People barely register policy change and bias beyond a bit of a bitch and moan even when policy directly affects them - never mind campaign just for the general good of society. There are an awful lot of Irish laws which are archaic and many which need a complete over-haul...but until such a time as the Irish people start voting en masse for politicians & parties based on their politics and get physically & vocally out there and start demanding change and that their political expectations are not constantly disappointed - it's not going to change.

James Jones

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How many and how vociferously are they advocating?

Did you not read the links I provided? Did you not see that fathers attended and contributed to seven separate meetings throughout the country but were still ignored, the result being that the report compiled following these meetings referred to Gender Equality as an issue solely for women? Can you find any other group who attended these meetings but whose input was ignorded?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

James Jones wrote: »

Imagine the outrage if a Government Minister made a similar remark about women, foreign nationals, Muslims, travellers or gays?
Yet the media are generally silent when it comes to discrimination against fathers. I still don't understand why this is.

See above - and I'd be willing to bet without much digging I could find articles about Irish politicians who have made controversial remarks about most things.

Controversial? Of course, loads of politicians say things that are "controversial" but I now challenge you to come up with a link to a Government minister who said anything as discriminatory against any groups such as women, foreign nationals, Muslims, travellers or gays in the Dail as the remark by Alan Shatter who said HERE

One of the big difficulties in this area is that many fathers do not take responsibility for their children. Indeed, many of them do not seek to form and cement relationships with their children, or to involve themselves in their children’s lives.

I should point out that when asked HERE

In relation to Ireland’s national report in advance of the UN Universal Periodic Review, there is reference only to women’s rights and gender equality and that discrimination against men who are fathers is not considered, despite certain cases at the Equality Tribunal (details supplied HERE), which indicated such discrimination.

he claimed that there wasn't enough room in the report!!!

Ickle Magoo

Fathers attending seven meetings is not quite the degree of wide-spread public pressure I was referring to...regardless, you are preaching to the converted.

You say it's discriminatory - but in reality do many fathers "not take responsibility for their children. Indeed, many of them do not seek to form and cement relationships with their children, or to involve themselves in their children’s lives"? I think, unfortunately, public perception would wholeheartedly agree with his sentiments, hence the lack of media furore and general uproar...a perception that I would think makes much of campaigning for fathers rights an uphill battle.

I appreciate this is clearly a sensitive issue for many - and that Family law is always going to be emotive and contentious by virtue of what it is and that is also going to mean that one or both parties are not going to be unhappy at legislation/political sway/public opinion but I agree with you, suggesting you don't have room in a report to even document those who have taken the time/effort to attend and participate in consultation meetings sounds like woeful carpet sweeping to me...but again, that's hardly novel.

Ireland as a country is still very much involved in parochial politics - the politicians feel safe and content that they can ignore the massive debates that need to be had about abortion, or the school system or changes to family law. It all needs to be overhauled and dragged into the 21st century - my point isn't that that shouldn't happen - it should happen ASAP as far as I'm concerned - but rather that in reality it isn't going to happen until there are significant changes in public opinion and much bigger nationwide vocal support for legal change.

You asked why it is allowed to happen, I don't agree with it but I have a fair idea why it happens.

James Jones

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Fathers attending seven meetings is not quite the degree of wide-spread public pressure I was referring to.

Meetings set up nationwide, fathers attend nationwide and then their views were ignored. Were they not "properly advocating" as you suggested earlier?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You say it's discriminatory - but in reality do many fathers "not take responsibility for their children. Indeed, many of them do not seek to form and cement relationships with their children, or to involve themselves in their children’s lives"?

If over 13,000 fathers went to Court in one year alone, does that not reflect that a lot of them seek to take responsibility for their children?

I appreciate your views but I still can't understand how this abuse can continue, given that we supposedly live in a patriarchal society where men are in charge of everything!

James Jones

James Jones wrote: »

Meetings set up nationwide, fathers attend nationwide and then their views were ignored. Were they not "properly advocating" as you suggested earlier?

It doesn't matter. How long did it take for the marriage bar to be removed for women? ie. having to stop working when getting pregnant. Entry into the EU assured the change, but how long did women campaign for the change prior to that?

Face it. Mens rights will always be harder to achieve than women's equality, simply because regardless of when we were born, we (men) are all guilty of holding women down. So naturally we must work harder to be treated the same.

It will be a long, painful, expensive, and ultimately exhausting campaign to change opinions about this subject. Don't expect much to change for another 10-20 years. Simply put, there are more immediate concerns to people than this. Actually you would have more chance of change if the economy was doing well... then people would have time to "waste" considering the problem.

Also you probably need a better person at media packaging... frankly, the manner in which this problem has been presented to the people is rather limp.

If over 13,000 fathers went to Court in one year alone, does that not reflect that a lot of them seek to take responsibility for their children?

Not really... the figures does nothing to show what they were there for. The common perception is still that the men were forced to go. Until, that perception is changed you're unlikely to receive much public support.

appreciate your views but I still can't understand how this abuse can continue, given that we supposedly live in a patriarchal society where men are in charge of everything!

Because its convenient for women to allow these little misperceptions to continue. Its has been a rather long since men were the dominent sex in Ireland. (Although i think its been a long since it was that way anywhere... women as a species are just more subtle about displaying actual power/influence)

Ickle Magoo

James Jones wrote: »

Meetings set up nationwide, fathers attend nationwide and then their views were ignored. Were they not "properly advocating" as you suggested earlier?

"They" were - how many others just moan and bitch and aren't out there campaigning for change? Students that campaign about fees, those complaining about the education system, NAMA, etc, all get ignored to a greater or lesser degree - there often needs to be huge numbers putting unavoidable pressure on to trigger political change.

James Jones wrote: »

If over 13,000 fathers went to Court in one year alone, does that not reflect that a lot of them seek to take responsibility for their children?

That depends on comparing with the numbers that don't. Alan Shatter says many aren't - you say a lot are - both those statements can be true.

James Jones wrote: »

I appreciate your views but I still can't understand how this abuse can continue, given that we supposedly live in a patriarchal society where men are in charge of everything!

Because it's also a patriarchal society which still has very close ties to the church and as such many of the pervading attitudes from the plethora of male politicians and judges who debate and set law are old fashioned by modern standards. Motivation to promote marriage and the traditional family unit is greater than that to reform family law, paternal leave and the other inequalities & issues that other countries tackled years ago.

Add that to the embittered armchair blame game that is often publicly displayed in lieu of any kind of coherent national movement to make those specific political changes and you have a recipe for public apathy and eye rolling...ie a PR disaster.

The Corinthian

As has been said, there's no Masculist movement in Ireland, or really anywhere else. What does exist is a small number of single issue groups, typically running out of bedrooms and run by men personally effected by those single issues. For the vast majority of men, these issues do not affect them and thus it's very much a case of 'I'm all right Jack".

As to the groups that exist, they tend to be amateurish, with little understanding of how public relations or politics works and often they're fractured; groups don't cooperate because of personal politics or because of differing agendas.

And this is before one considers the sheer magnitude of opposition and prejudice that they would have to overcome; that men are oppressors and not oppressed, that the government bodies supposedly representing equality are packed with feminist groups either indifferent or even hostile to men's rights. And a plethora of women's rights lobby groups that are staffed by full-time, professional staff who have been activists since university.

As to what could be done to improve this, here's a few ideas off the top of my head:

• Become more professional. Agree upon some basic positions with a number of the presently disparate group of kitchen committee men's rights groups in Ireland and agree to share resources and coordinate. Raise some money. Rent an office, get some branding designed and even if you cannot afford full-time staff, you will be able to target volunteers who are experts in the fields of law, PR, media and politics to lend their expertise.
• Educate, educate, educate. The single biggest problem is one of apathy and the prejudice that men somehow cannot be discriminated against. As such people have to be educated to be aware that discrimination against men does exist, that even if it does not affect them at present they have a stake in changing this because it could and to show what areas are discriminatory and how they can be changed.
• Identify both friendly and unfriendly assets in the media. Build up personal relationships with the friendly ones. Get feedback from them on what stories they would like to write on and they feel would have the best impact. Feed them stories on a regular basis. With some luck an 'X Case' will crop up eventually, that will turn public opinion in favour of men's rights.
• Compile a list of laws that blatantly discriminate against men solely on gender. Publish it. Raise money and legal support and challenge those cases in the courts, up to the European Court of Human Rights.
• Monitor all anti-male legislation currently being drafted. Highlight the issues and send a series of questions regarding these issues to every TD and senator. Then publish their responses (or refusal to respond) on-line and their eventual vote on the law. Rank sitting TD's in terms of how pro or anti male rights they are from their history of responses and votes and advertise the site at election time.
• Know your enemy. Women are not your enemy. Even Women that identify as feminists are not necessarily your enemy. Increasingly many 'feminists' are becomingly increasingly disillusioned with where feminism has gone and at the hypocrisy that has emerged and so are actually natural allies.

discus

James Jones wrote: »

Why is this allowed to happen?

Because women who consider themselves educated, wordly and open minded express [and shockingly enough, believe] view like this one

You say it's discriminatory - but in reality do many fathers "not take responsibility for their children. Indeed, many of them do not seek to form and cement relationships with their children, or to involve themselves in their children’s lives"? I think, unfortunately, public perception would wholeheartedly agree with his sentiments, hence the lack of media furore and general uproar...a perception that I would think makes much of campaigning for fathers rights an uphill battle.

Ickle Magoo

discus wrote: »

Because women who consider themselves educated, wordly and open minded express [and shockingly enough, believe] view like this one

What? Comment on widely publicised public perceptions?

The ability to read would help your cause exponentially. :rolleyes:

James Jones

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The ability to read would help your cause exponentially. :rolleyes:

Are you having a swipe at every unmarried, separated and divorced father just because someone without any known involvement pointed out that your post was ambiguous? You did ask, after all, if

in reality do many fathers "not take responsibility for their children. Indeed, many of them do not seek to form and cement relationships with their children, or to involve themselves in their children’s lives"?

gargleblaster

discus wrote: »

Because women who consider themselves educated, wordly and open minded express [and shockingly enough, believe] view like this one

She was quoting a man there, actually. Not sure why you're choosing to single out women for having that view. As for the view itself, it isn't exactly an unpopular one. Are you saying that it's only because some types of women believe and express the view that the bias is still there? That seems more than slightly silly to me.

The bias is still there against fathers in part, not because whatever particular type of women hold that view, but because many if not most people do (both men and women).



This is interesting. From the source:

"In the absence of agreement between the unmarried father and mother of a child, the father may apply to the court to be appointed a guardian of his child under section 6A of the 1964 Act, as amended by the Status of Children Act 1987. The law is protective of the rights of the child to the society of both his or her father and mother. Section 11D of the 1964 Act, which was inserted by the Children Act 1997, obliges the court in proceedings relating to the welfare of a child to consider whether the child’s best interests would be served by maintaining personal relations and direct contact with both his or her father and mother on a regular basis. In this context, it is worth noting that the majority of guardianship applications are granted. In 2009, the most recent year for which final figures are available, over 95% of applicant fathers were awarded guardianship, excluding cases which were withdrawn or struck out. My personal experience prior to becoming Minister, as a lawyer dealing professionally with family law matters, was that one of the big difficulties in this area is that many fathers do not take responsibility for their children. Indeed, many of them do not seek to form and cement relationships with their children, or to involve themselves in their children’s lives."

Ickle Magoo

James Jones wrote: »

Are you having a swipe at every unmarried, separated and divorced father just because someone without any known involvement pointed out that your post was ambiguous?

Hardly - tho ironically perhaps, the inability of others to read or function without the blinkered vitriolic bitterness aimed at an entire gender does go a long way towards explaining the reticence of many to get involved. The eagerness to blame women for the statements that male politicians make and the laws that successions of male-dominated governments have enacted and protected is a prime example of energy being wasted, blame directed at the wrong people and how best to make a cause look unattractive to a large chunk of the population whose support could really help.

James Jones wrote: »

You did ask, after all, if

There is no ambiguity, it's quite clear from reading the thread properly where I stand on this topic. Far from expressing MY views or believing the politician that I quoted; I was rhetorically using your own source to explain why I think such a comment does not elicit the cries of prejudice that you expected. In a nutshell: until we as a society can state with confidence that few fathers "do not take responsibility for their children", etc, etc then such sentiments are not going to be viewed as prejudicial, they are going to be viewed as accurate.

That clearly sucks for the dads that DO take responsibility but I don't see it changing until A) the political landscape changes significantly or you manage to convince the general public (male AND female) that relationship breakdowns where kids are involved shouldn't automatically be viewed as poor single mom's Vs dead-beat dads...and that doesn't get done by lashing out randomly at anyone who happens to share a gender with whomever [generic] "you" are having issues with.

James Jones

gargleblaster wrote: »

This is interesting. From the source:

In this context, it is worth noting that the majority of guardianship applications are granted. In 2009, the most recent year for which final figures are available, over 95% of applicant fathers were awarded guardianship, excluding cases which were withdrawn or struck out.

That looks really good in principle but few people are aware of the lack of recognition of Guardianship rights, which are defined in S.I. No. 5/1998 as follows:

Guardianship is the collection of rights and duties which a parent has in respect of his or her child. It encompasses the duty to maintain and properly care for the child and the right to make decisions about a child's religious and secular education, health requirements and other matters affecting the welfare of the child.

YET
school enrollment forms generally only require the consent of one parent,
surgery can be performed with the consent of one parent only
and
Religious ceremonies can take place with the consent of one parent only

SO
Guardianship for fathers who are unmarried, separated, divorced OR HAPPILY MARRIED isn't worth a fiddlers as its generally ignored. That's why 95% of applicants get it cause the Judges know it really doesn't matter!

discus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What? Comment on widely publicised public perceptions?

The ability to read would help your cause exponentially. :rolleyes:

No, an improved ability to use the bold option where I want to would probably help. In any case, I was meant to have highlighted this:

"not take responsibility for their children. Indeed, many of them do not seek to form and cement relationships with their children, or to involve themselves in their children’s lives"

Which was something that you had quoted, but not something that you had written yourself. Thanks for your lovely attitude towards the cause of inequality for parents, though.

sophia25

As a woman, I think fathers come at this from the wrong angle. They fight for their rights and pit the battle as between men v feminists. This type of attitude is confrontational and gets people's backs up, especially as many women have been primary care givers and have sacrificed careers to fulfill this role. No rational person would argue against a child's right to have a fulfilling relationship with two parents and if fathers wanted to really move on the cause, I would suggest this is the angle to come from;).

Memnoch

sophia25 wrote: »

As a woman, I think fathers come at this from the wrong angle. They fight for their rights and pit the battle as between men v feminists. This type of attitude is confrontational and gets people's backs up, especially as many women have been primary care givers and have sacrificed careers to fulfill this role. No rational person would argue against a child's right to have a fulfilling relationship with two parents and if fathers wanted to really move on the cause, I would suggest this is the angle to come from;).

So your suggestion is that to campaign for father's rights we should not actually campaign for them but campaign for children's rights to two parents instead? Nevermind the fact that such a campaign would easily be confused with campaigns against homosexual parents and other such typical 'family rights campaigns,' but, with respect, it is precisely these kinds of attitudes that need to be challenged, i.e. father's rights are somehow less legitimate, and that simply advocating for them is confrontational or gets people's backs up.

Can you imagine if I was to say, 'as a man,' that campaigning for equal pay (or any other issue of women's rights) was confrontational and got my back up and that perhaps the campaigners should not actually mention the issue but come at it from a more seemingly sympathetic tangent in order to further their agenda?

sophia25

Memnoch wrote: »

So your suggestion is that to campaign for father's rights we should not actually campaign for them but campaign for children's rights to two parents instead? Nevermind the fact that such a campaign would easily be confused with campaigns against homosexual parents and other such typical 'family rights campaigns,' but, with respect, it is precisely these kinds of attitudes that need to be challenged, i.e. father's rights are somehow less legitimate, and that simply advocating for them is confrontational or gets people's backs up.

Can you imagine if I was to say, 'as a man,' that campaigning for equal pay (or any other issue of women's rights) was confrontational and got my back up and that perhaps the campaigners should not actually mention the issue but come at it from a more seemingly sympathetic tangent in order to further their agenda?

I think any issue involving children should be about the children. Children are people and their best interests should always be paramount. In an ideal world when parents split, the ideal would be 50:50 custody however splitting children like this ignores their best interest for stability, continuation, schooling etc. Once you become a parent you automatically start putting your needs secondary to children and therefore when a parent starts insisting on their 'right'over their children it is counter-intuitive to what people expect to hear. If however, a campaign came from the angle of a child's right I think most people would support it.

And to be fair to bring up about campaigning for wages in the same manner is an example of what I'm talking about is exactly what would annoy most people. Seeking a fair distribution of a 'good' is not the same as divvying up a human being with their own needs and emotions and by even trying to compare the two, indicates you are overlooking the needs of the child and treating them as a right of ownership. I'm sure that is not how you feel about children, but............

The Corinthian

sophia25 wrote: »

I think any issue involving children should be about the children.

In reality that does not happen.

For example, the right of a mother to keep a child (or put it up for adoption) really has nothing to do with the child. There is a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child, based upon the 'mother knows best' stereotype, but in reality it's about the mother's rights.

Children are people and their best interests should always be paramount.

I do have a problem with this because you are essentially saying that adults should have fewer rights than children. Certainly children should have provisions protecting them because they are not in a position to voice, let alone exercise their rights, but that's not to say that their rights should trump everyone else's.

And then you have to ask how children's rights are actually exercised, and the answer is through the mother. So essentially and de facto, it's really the mother's rights that are paramount, in the child's name.

Once you become a parent you automatically start putting your needs secondary to children and therefore when a parent starts insisting on their 'right'over their children it is counter-intuitive to what people expect to hear.

Actually that's not true. The very fact that many mothers deny access to the fathers, often for personal reasons, demonstrates that they do not put their needs secondary to children - they put theirs first and then rationalize it.

If however, a campaign came from the angle of a child's right I think most people would support it.

If you want to approach it from the point of view of PR, then you may have a point. Given that, feminism managed to sell abortion without this approach - making it purely a human (women's) rights issue. So such an approach may not be required.

However, I would agree that not all issues can be approached with the same strategy.

sophia25

sophia25 wrote: »

If however, a campaign came from the angle of a child's right I think most people would support it.

TBH i think its a pipedream to believe that. What does support actually signify? that they will actually do something beyond agreeing in the pub?

Ultimately it is the law that needs changing and gaining "support" from the public can only be a small part of the process. Instead there is a definite need to get key politicians and policy makers on board. Typically our governments do what they want with regards to the law (as long as they're not constitutional changes), and it is them that are needed for any changes to be made.

Personally I think its the lack of reality that is the problem here. You're campaigning towards the wrong people. The general population is highly unlikely to build up enough steam to demand changes and better yet maintain that steam to hold the course. You might say i have a rather low opinion of our population as a whole regarding issues such as these, and you would be right. Although I feel the same about most countries. Its only the minority that cares.

be fair to bring up about campaigning for wages in the same manner is an example of what I'm talking about is exactly what would annoy most people. Seeking a fair distribution of a 'good' is not the same as divvying up a human being with their own needs and emotions and by even trying to compare the two, indicates you are overlooking the needs of the child and treating them as a right of ownership. I'm sure that is not how you feel about children, but............

Its a good example for a bulletin board since it gets the point across. Actually it would probably be a good point to use with politicians too. Fathers don't really have to convince the general population that they should have equal rights.... after all many of us can look to our own fathers and know them to be superb human beings despite their various flaws. They have to convice those with the power to change the law. Its that simple.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, (mainly) yes and no. I'd certainly agree that it is not a men vs. women issue, but men vs. feminist is a bit more fuzzy.

Ask "even ardent feminists" about such injustice, and they'll certainly agree that it's both discriminatory and wrong. However, to rectify it would involve a degree of evening out the imbalance of rights between men and women in this area; effectively women would have to lose some of their (unilateral) rights.

And that's when the support of your ardent feminist will begin to evaporate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fair enough, but your response is not actually related to my post whatsoever.

gargleblaster

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, (mainly) yes and no. I'd certainly agree that it is not a men vs. women issue, but men vs. feminist is a bit more fuzzy.

Ask "even ardent feminists" about such injustice, and they'll certainly agree that it's both discriminatory and wrong. However, to rectify it would involve a degree of evening out the imbalance of rights between men and women in this area; effectively women would have to lose some of their (unilateral) rights.

And that's when the support of your ardent feminist will begin to evaporate.

It would involve correcting the laws so that they are more fair, which involves no loss of any rights at all, that I can see anyway.

I'm not sure which feminist you have in mind when you predict that their support would evaporate at whatever point, but I am curious to know.

Positively identifying the main source of conflict and providing an easily-understood and concise description of the problem would help to attract more attention, and hopefully more supporters for the cause.

The Corinthian

gargleblaster wrote: »

It would involve correcting the laws so that they are more fair, which involves no loss of any rights at all, that I can see anyway.

Custody, for example. Presently the mother has automatic custody where the father is not a guardian and effectively automatic custody even where the father is. A child, even an infant, may well have its interests better served if in the custody of the father, rather than the mother and this would also equalize the rights of both parents. This would involve the loss of a present 'right' by women.

I'm not sure which feminist you have in mind when you predict that their support would evaporate at whatever point, but I am curious to know.

The above example, I'd imagine, would be gain a luke warm reception or even opposed by many feminists.

Positively identifying the main source of conflict and providing an easily-understood and concise description of the problem would help to attract more attention, and hopefully more supporters for the cause.

The main sources of conflict are typically where there is a disagreement on having/keeping a child and relationship conflict in general.

The former is obvious, in the father does not want to be a father and the mother does. Of course, the reverse is presently never seen and that too is something that requires examination in terms of equality.

The latter is essentially everything else, but generally involving grievances around the failed relationship between the parents, and either or both can end up using the child as a weapon in such turf wars.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

gargleblaster

The Corinthian wrote: »

Custody, for example. Presently the mother has automatic custody where the father is not a guardian and effectively automatic custody even where the father is. A child, even an infant, may well have its interests better served if in the custody of the father, rather than the mother and this would also equalize the rights of both parents. This would involve the loss of a present 'right' by women.

The above example, I'd imagine, would be gain a luke warm reception or even opposed by many feminists.

Yes, this is another case where our personally preferred definitions of 'right' and 'privilege' are causing confusion. I view that as a privilege and and unfair one. That being the case, its removal IMO is not the loss of any right, but the removal of unfair and harmful privilege.

I'd be shocked and disgusted by any feminist who claimed that having such privilege was fair or right at all. I'd like to think they'd only be fringe extremists who would have that view.

The Corinthian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think I may not have properly explained myself when I cited 'unilateral' rights. By this I did not simply mean unilateral rights, but absolute unilateral right, whereby they are both automatic and immutable. Certainly there are circumstances in which one parent should legitimately enjoy unilateral rights over a child, but they should not be immune from challenge, and this is what I was citing.

gargleblaster wrote: »

Yes, this is another case where our personally preferred definitions of 'right' and 'privilege' are causing confusion. I view that as a privilege and and unfair one. That being the case, its removal IMO is not the loss of any right, but the removal of unfair and harmful privilege.

The difference between privilege and right is a fuzzy one. Your definition is based on whether such a 'right' is just or not, which is fine, but you have to concede that some will consider their privileges just rights, even when you may not. Side point really, as I otherwise agree with you.

I'd be shocked and disgusted by any feminist who claimed that having such privilege was fair or right at all. I'd like to think they'd only be fringe extremists who would have that view.

Whether their fringe extremists or not, they do exist and their view is at the very least condoned by more mainstream feminism.

Why do I say this? Because mainstream feminism rarely speaks on the subject outside of the most vague platitudes and certainly never shows any active support for any campaign that would seek to reverse them. The few father's rights issues that they do publicly support in any concrete way are cleverly chosen never threaten these privileges.

As I said before, I do not believe that all feminists are like this, but to pretend that the overall movement's rather selective pursuit of 'equality' has done anything other than help maintain this status quo, would be a little disillusional.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

James Jones

sophia25 wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The issues in the article were not fathers against women, feminists or mothers but fathers legal position as guardians being ignored.

“Schools, hospitals and the HSE in particular continue to act as if the consent of one parent, generally the mother, is adequate for state intervention with children”.

See references HERE.

sophia25 wrote: »

In an ideal world when parents split, the ideal would be 50:50 custody however splitting children like this ignores their best interest for stability, continuation, schooling etc.

The article and therefore the thread is about Guardianship, which is the legal relationship between a parent and child who are supposed to act Jointly. Custody is a separate matter altogether. Even a happily married father living with his wife and children is ignored as a Legal Guardian in most instances.

sophia25 wrote: »

Once you become a parent you automatically start putting your needs secondary to children and therefore when a parent starts insisting on their 'right ‘over their children it is counter-intuitive to what people expect to hear. If however, a campaign came from the angle of a child's right I think most people would support it

This simply isn’t true. The best example I can think of is the instruction we get every time we fly. We are told that we must don our own oxygen masks before that of the children in our care. If we constantly put our child’s needs before our own, the child may eventually lose out.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ultimately it is the law that needs changing. They have to convince those with the power to change the law. It’s that simple.

Actually, the law is grand. The law (Section 6.-(1) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964) states that

The father and mother of an infant shall be guardians of the infant jointly.

Its just that this is ignored. Unfortunately, the only change that is being proposed is that unmarried father get Guardianship automatically. All commentators welcomed this proposal but none hi-lighted the recommendation that Guardianship be weakened before granting it to unmarried fathers. The Law Reform Commission report HERE made the following recommendation:

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
4.05 The Commission recommends that a general statutory requirement
to consult should not be included in legislation concerning parental
responsibility

Permabear wrote: »

It's actually a battle with the state's narrow, socially conservative definition of the family.

Although I can only sympathise with the situation of unmarried fathers, the fact that “the state's narrow, socially conservative definition of the family" is ignored does not just undermine the position of fathers like you but the lack of adherence to the actual definition undermines married fathers. So, even if the Law Reform Commission recommendation on automatic Guardianship is implemented, it will be ignored anyway.

Permabear wrote: »

This is not a men vs. women issue; it's part of an ongoing battle to reclaim our natural rights from a conservative state that has ridden roughshod over them for far too long .

+1

gargleblaster wrote: »

It would involve correcting the laws so that they are more fair, which involves no loss of any rights at all, that I can see anyway.

AS I said above, the law is ok but the fact that it is generally ignored by state authorities has to be challenged.

gargleblaster

The Corinthian wrote: »

Whether their fringe extremists or not, they do exist and their view is at the very least condoned by more mainstream feminism.

Sorry, that's too vague for me to accept as anything but your personal opinion.

Why do I say this? Because mainstream feminism rarely speaks on the subject outside of the most vague platitudes and certainly never shows any active support for any campaign that would seek to reverse them. The few father's rights issues that they do publicly support in any concrete way are cleverly chosen never threaten these privileges.

As I said before, I do not believe that all feminists are like this, but to pretend that the overall movement's rather selective pursuit of 'equality' has done anything other than help maintain this status quo, would be a little disillusional.

I would just point out again that these organizations exist to serve the people who make up its members. Not those who demonize them and blame them for whatever hardships they may face at the hands of the state. IMO it's like expecting the NAACP to crusade for white people's causes - unreasonable.

James Jones wrote: »

AS I said above, the law is ok but the fact that it is generally ignored by state authorities has to be challenged.

That was the impression I had as well, however other comments on this thread had blurred the issue. Is the problem with the state, or with some bureaucracies which are resistant to change? If it's the bureaucracies, a few class-action lawsuits might do a lot to sort those issues out.

The Corinthian

gargleblaster wrote: »

Sorry, that's too vague for me to accept as anything but your personal opinion.

If you want to simply assess arguments on the basis of how they're introduced, I suspect most would be vague. Otherwise, I suggest you assess them on the basis of the arguments that follow the introduction.

I would just point out again that these organizations exist to serve the people who make up its members. Not those who demonize them and blame them for whatever hardships they may face at the hands of the state. IMO it's like expecting the NAACP to crusade for white people's causes - unreasonable.

Then by all means these organizations should serve the people who make up its members and stop claiming to be serving equality of all.

Consider a simple example whereby a society composed of gibbons and chimps are fraught with inequalities. Gibbons each have a right to three bananas and one orange. Meanwhile chimps, having the better end of the deal, have a right to two bananas and five oranges. The gibbons organize and demand equality with the chimps, and through their efforts are able to secure an equal three oranges for both gibbons and chimps.

Yet, now the chimps still have only two bananas to the gibbons' three, but the latter have remained silent or even hostile to changing the banana status quo, because they ultimately serve the apes who make up its members.

Do they serve the equality? No, naturally not - they serve only those who make up their membership.

Yet that is the claim feminism continues to push, and in doing so has developed a suffocating grip on those organs of the state that are presumably designed to safeguard equality, by de-prioritizing or even opposing any measure that would not serve only those who make up its members.

So by all means feminism should serve only those who make up its members, but it's time that they come clean about it too, and stop pretending that they represent equality any more than the Klu Klux Klan does.

gargleblaster

Where in this thread has the claim been made that feminist groups serve both men and women equally? I think I might have seen one or two posts make the claim. Did I miss some?

James Jones

gargleblaster wrote: »

James Jones wrote: »

the law is ok but the fact that it is generally ignored by state authorities has to be challenged.

That was the impression I had as well, however other comments on this thread had blurred the issue. Is the problem with the state, or with some bureaucracies which are resistant to change? If it's the bureaucracies, a few class-action lawsuits might do a lot to sort those issues out.

Section 6.-(1) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 states that "The father and mother of an infant shall be guardians of the infant jointly" yet the majority of forms where parental consent is sought requires ONE signature only. Most children are enrolled in schools with the consent of ONE parent only and most medical procedures are carried out with the consent of ONE parent only.
Take a look at the case HERE which resulted in these guidelines HERE but these have been ignored since their introduction.
Unfortunately, to take a class action would require the assistance of some Legal experts and I doubt ANY of them would be willing to undermine the lucrative gravy train that the Family Law Courts have become.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So by all means feminism should serve only those who make up its members, but it's time that they come clean about it too, and stop pretending that they represent equality any more than the Klu Klux Klan does.

I believe that feminisim can and does support the responsibility of childcare being shared with fathers due to the fact that this will allow greater participation by women in the work place. For example, if fathers got paternity leave, they would be viewed the same way as women when seeking employment, i.e., if they are of an age when they might well have children, a prospective employer would have to consider the male getting paternity leave 3 or four times in as many years and so the mythical glass ceiling dissolves. That is why Bacik calls for right to paternity leave for men and why the National Womens Council have done likewise HERE.

The Corinthian

gargleblaster wrote: »

Does your crusade to push your view that feminists serve solely women's interests have any real bearing on the topic of this thread? Where in this thread has the claim been made? I think I might have seen one or two posts make the claim. Did I miss some?

You might actually address my argument rather than try to dismiss it.

I have seen both men and women state that feminist causes serve both women and men, and I agree with them.

This is a complete contradiction of your previous claim that:

I would just point out again that these organizations exist to serve the people who make up its members.

Which one is it?

However, as far as I'm concerned it's simply not worth getting into another discussion with you about it. If you wish to have a discussion about that topic, perhaps you should give it its own thread somewhere, and leave this one to be about fathers' rights.

But this is very much related to father's rights. There are many problems facing fathers rights (and men's rights in general): lack of organization, professionalism and focus. Prevailing gender-based prejudices and stereotypes ingrained within government and society in general.

However, another problem that cannot be ignored is that presently feminism does have a monopoly on 'equality' and given that they represent a group that could well suffer if men were to have their equality issues addressed, then you gave to ask if they can truly act as an arbitrator of 'equality' in the organs of the state. Because where I stand, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that some of these groups act as yet another obstacle to any movement on fathers or men's rights.

Now you can ignore or dismiss such an issue, but frankly if you do, you are effectively doing what a lot of mainstream feminism does, which is dismiss or downplay men's issues.

James Jones wrote: »

I believe that feminisim can and does support the responsibility of childcare being shared with fathers due to the fact that this will allow greater participation by women in the work place.

I've repeatedly pointed out in the past that feminism can and does support the responsibility of childcare being shared with fathers. It's just the rights that it has a problem with.

So it becomes a case of "you're free to care for the child, but not have any rights over it", which no doubt suits mothers, but frankly doesn't really do a lot for fathers in the long term.

Brilliant move for fathers - you get to care for your child as long as the mother allows you to!

That's why misadrists like Bacik support such measures, because they don't actually threaten the status quo and they serve feminisms constituents. If you don't believe me, give me a single example of Bacik ever supporting a male or father's issue which did afford men actual rights (not 'responsibilities', not the illusion of a right, but an actual right), let alone cause women to sacrifice theirs?

gargleblaster

The Corinthian wrote: »

You might actually address my argument rather than try to dismiss it.

Not an attempt to dismiss it. Just an attempt to understand what it has to do with the thread.

This is a complete contradiction of your previous claim that:

Which one is it?

It's the lack of desire to go round in round in circles with you, is what it is. I am ceding the point for the sake of argument.

But this is very much related to father's rights. There are many problems facing fathers rights (and men's rights in general): lack of organization, professionalism and focus. Prevailing gender-based prejudices and stereotypes ingrained within government and society in general.

Pardon me? How is the fact that you disagree with the claim that feminism benefits both sexes related to father's rights? Could you please point to some feminist group (not a government organization) which is arguing that fathers should not have rights?

However, another problem that cannot be ignored is that presently feminism does have a monopoly on 'equality' and given that they represent a group that could well suffer if men were to have their equality issues addressed,

???

All of that is your opinion. What you think might happen if a significant number of men ever bothered to get organized and act for change is simply speculation. The important thing, if one takes this issue seriously, is not to whinge about how hard it might be because of however many feminists one expects may try to stand in one's way, but to just roll one's sleeves up and get busy working for change.

It's hard not to see such claims as simply excuse-making.

Fromthetrees

I've posted a thread for unmarried fathers (could also be for separated fathers) in the forum request section. If you support this idea or think you would contribute to a forum, sub forum or even a sticky then give it a +1. Thanks.

Dudess

Sleepy wrote: »

Because there's no Masculist movement in Ireland and matters of "equality" are left to the Feminist lobbyists.

discus wrote: »

Because women who consider themselves educated, wordly and open minded express [and shockingly enough, believe] view like this one

Yes, that's why what's described in the OP is allowed to happen...

As Ickle says, why not do something about it so?

But of course it's much easier to blame "the feminists" (derp)...

Fathers get treated absolutely abysmally I think by the way - signed, a woman who's considered by the Boards dumb-**** brigade to be a feminazi...

James Jones

Dudess wrote: »

why not do something about it so?

The article in the Op HERE refers to a number of things that actually were done, such as the referral of a number of cases to the Equality Tribunal.
Hopefully THIS SUBMISSION to the United Nations Periodic Review will have some effect.

However, although the complaint against the HSE HERE resulted in THESE GUIDELINES being introduced, they are ignored. The question posed in the Op is "Why is this allowed to happen"? How can the HSE be informed of the fact that both parents are Guardians to a child BY THE SOLICITOR and still fail to follow the Legal advice for years? The Guidelines that were introduced following a report that cost €27,500 are now being ignored!
Also, what can be done when the Minister for Justice is willing to mislead the Dáil in an answer to a Parliamentary Question?

Dudess

I was referring to the whinge that there's no masculist movement in Ireland, as if that's the fault of feminists, rather than being the fault of those who don't bother their arses doing anything to change the status quo and actually help bring about a masculist movement.

It's not the first time by a long shot that I've seen that particular ironic phenomenon on Boards.ie - and it's a bit cringey from intelligent men to be honest. Do you not SEE the irony...?

I'm not even a feminist but the unbridled and lazy hostility towards feminists here (as if they're all the same) is rather tiresome.

James Jones

Dudess wrote: »

why not do something about it so?

But of course it's much easier to blame "the feminists" (derp)...

Here's a story where men stood up against the societal bias and did not blame the feminists: CASE REPORT from the Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland. Although the ASAI ruled that

"The advertisement must not appear in its current format again".

the ISPCC refuse to accept the spirit of the ruling by informing visitors to their website HERE that the ad is atill available on Youtube.com.

However, following the ASAI Press Release regarding the ISPCC, I reckon this battle has just begun.




PS: Before anyone replies about the good work that the ISPCC does, just remember the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse which found that

The NSPCC/ISPCC played an important role in committing children to Industrial Schools. The extent of this involvement cannot be accurately ascertained because of a lack of documentation, but it can be stated as being significant.