"No job, now no family" - man's letter to Sunday Independent

iptba

I just read a moving letter in the Sunday Independent. Men don't always open up like this in the media - I suppose it helps that the S. Independent allows anonymous letters.

Sir -- One day in September, a few months ago, I had a tragedy in my life. Without any warning my wife of 10 years left our home, taking our seven-year-old daughter from my life. As you can imagine, my heart is broken ever since.

We had our differences, and what couple hasn't, but there was no real good reason for my wife to leave forever and take my little princess away from me.

I'm not saying I'm without my own faults and that I am perfect, but I'm not a smoker, drinker, drug-taker, gambler, violent person in any way, a big spender or a lazy layabout.

My 'fault', as it were, is that I have been unemployed for the past three years after over 18 years working. My wife has a great job with a salary that is worth more than the joint salaries of many couples in Ireland.

continues at: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/no-job-now-no-family-2989281.html

It's an interesting time in Ireland in recent times, with unemployment being quite a bit higher for men than women and men and women often taking on new roles: him, as the house-husband/care-giver, her as the primary "breadwinner".

Well done to those couples who have managed to stay together.

MrStuffins

If she has a great job abd salary then it's not as if they're broke.

So this one doesn't sound as much a case of the recession killing families as the wife acting the goat and leaving because she thinks he's lazy or something!

Pembily

To me thats saying that men should be the bread winner thus saying we are inferior! If women want to be treated equally they have to act it :mad:

It is very had on couples, I've seen it, the men feel they have no purpose. Fair play to him for opening up!

She just sounds like a greedy cnut.

boobar

Fair play to him for opening up,

As a man, I can appreciate how difficult it can be.

But I think that old cliche, there are 2 sides to every story comes to mind.

Perhaps the break up wasn't related to Finances. Let me admit that I just read the first part of the article.

In dealing with uneomployment, I think the focus tends to be on the unemployed person and not so much on the partner working. Then there are difficulties when children are involved especially when there is a reversal of roles where the woman becomes the breadwinner a role traditionally taken by the man

Kevin Duffy

I had to put up with a daily tirade of abuse for not having a job.Soon it got even more personal, and the way I walked, talked and sat at the table was mocked in front of our daughter.

This is not a story about unemployment, it's really about an abusive, nasty woman.

boobar

boobar wrote: »

Fair play to him for opening up,

As a man, I can appreciate how difficult it can be.

But I think that old cliche, there are 2 sides to every story comes to mind.

Perhaps the break up wasn't related to Finances. Let me admit that I just read the first part of the article.

In dealing with uneomployment, I think the focus tends to be on the unemployed person and not so much on the partner working. Then there are difficulties when children are involved especially when there is a reversal of roles where the woman becomes the breadwinner a role traditionally taken by the man

Ok after reading Kevin's post I decided to read the full article.

The abuse his wife gave him especially in front of his daughter is totally uncalled for.

I think personally he's better off without a person like this putting him down. As a father, I couldn't imagine not being able to see my own child, this is the real tragedy of the story.

The Corinthian

I would be cautious about accepting the account given in that letter at face value. Especially in family law, people have a tendency to give skewed versions of events, if not blatantly falsify them.

Given this, presuming it is pretty accurate, he's in a bit of a pickle. Even if he's effectively been the child carer for the last year and she would have to put the child in care while she works, his chances of getting custody are slim because he's a man.

He may be entitled to maintenance from his wife (he would have to sue for this naturally) as she has a job and he has not, although this would be offset by the fact that she left him (so he's presumably in possession of the family home) and he would have to contribute towards the cost of the child (including care while she's working). Also, he's less likely to benefit from maintenance rulings because of his gender.

There are women who simply see their husbands out there as 'providers', and if they fail in this task they are of no utility to them, of course - I've seen it happen to male acquaintances in the past.

I'm not sure if this is the case here though as I just get the feeling that there is a gap in the story. As she's working, it's not as if they're broke (as has been mentioned) and she left him (giving him possession of the family home). He could be suffering from depression, which eventually got too much for her, or there could be another man on the scene. Whatever the details, my spidey senses tell me that there's probably more to this story than was told.

Raekwon

I'm at the mercy of my ex-wife, who decides whether and when I can see our daughter. Men are treated like dirt in this country. Why did my wife stand up on the altar all those years ago and lie and then break her contract? She was supposed to stay with me, 'For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health,' like I would have done and was doing, and would still do, for her.

What an absolute weapon of a woman, he is well shot of her but I do feel for the guy in regards to not being able to see his daughter.

An ex colleague of mine who I still keep in contact with got made redundant last year and his wife left him shortly afterwards, so cases like this in the media really do hammer home the point of how losing a job can have such a detrimental knock on effect in every aspect of a persons life.

I think it's much worse in the case of men losing our jobs as we are traditionally seen as the breadwinners and this rescission has seen male dominated sectors like construction hit the worst in regards to job loses.

I'd even put my neck on the block and say that 9 times out of 10 a woman losing her job wouldn't have the same effect on a relationship as if the roles were reversed, especially if children were involved. That might sound harsh, but I'd like to see the statistics as I'd doubt I'd be exaggerating too much with that synopsis.

goat2

did they get on very well before he lost his job, if there were cracks before then it is possible that they just festered altogether,

G-Money

As the saying goes, there's two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in between.

I haven't read the full article but it seems tough on yer man that he's ended up in this boat. I'd like to think the number of women who'd drop a man just because he lost his job is in the minority.

boomkatalog

I've heard my mam make digs at my father since he was made redundant. Makes me sick.

That poor man has had an awful time, please god some day he'll meet someone who appreciates him for who he is, and not how much money he brings home.

The Corinthian

Raekwon wrote: »

I think it's much worse in the case of men losing our jobs as we are traditionally seen as the breadwinners and this rescission has seen male dominated sectors like construction hit the worst in regards to job loses.

I'd even put my neck on the block and say that 9 times out of 10 a woman losing her job wouldn't have the same effect on a relationship as if the roles were reversed, especially if children were involved. That might sound harsh, but I'd like to see the statistics as I'd doubt I'd be exaggerating too much with that synopsis.

The statistics for homemakers in Ireland are somewhere in the regions of 300k women and about 8k men, AFAIR, which would indicate you are on the right track.

The problem is that in while the career role has been opened up to women, the homemaker role is still pretty much closed to men, reinforcing the prejudice that a man who is not a provider is some sort of parasite. Even constitutionally, a woman's role as a homemaker is recognized, but not a man's:

"Article 41.2.1 In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved."

Until that imbalance is addressed, both legally and in terms of culture, men will still face pressure to be the provider and, ironically, women will still face pressure to quit their careers if they start families.

G-Money wrote: »

I haven't read the full article but it seems tough on yer man that he's ended up in this boat. I'd like to think the number of women who'd drop a man just because he lost his job is in the minority.

Thinking of the wives of many of my friends, a sizable minority I suspect unfortunately.

patwicklow

it really is a true about so called love its whats in your wallet and not your heart
i had a string of pubs once of course when i lost them she walked to love my arse theres no such thing ££££ thats the only love...

iptba

I decided to see was there any research on this.


http://newyorkdivorcenews.com/new-study-shows-surprising-correlation-between-unemployment-and-divorce/331058/

New Study Shows Surprising Correlation Between Unemployment and Divorce

NEW YORK, June 21, 2011 (NYDN) – A new study shows that while the employment status of men in a relationship greatly affects the rate of divorce the same was not true for women. Ohio State University’s Liana Slayer analyzed data on more than 3, 600 couples from the U.S. National Survey of Families and Households to determine if there was a direct link between employment status and men and women’s decisions to end a marriage. Needless to say she found some surprising results.

The study states that a women’s employment status has little to no effect on the decision to divorce yet it is a large determining factor when men are unemployed.

However the study also states that not only are women more likely to divorce a man who is not financially stable but surprisingly even unemployed men are more likely to file for divorce if they feel they cannot support a family. This even applies to cases where couples are happily married.

etc.

Here's the abstract. Decided as I had a little free time, I'd see what it said but can't find a free copy online, unfortunately.

She left, he left: how employment and satisfaction affect women's and men's decisions to leave marriages.

AJS. 2011 May;116(6):1982-2018.

Sayer LC, England P, Allison PD, Kangas N.

Source
Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. sayer.12@sociology.osu.edu

Abstract

Studies examining determinants of divorce have largely ignored differences between factors that elevate wives' and husbands' initiation of divorce.

The authors use longitudinal data and a latent class model embedded in a competing-risks event history model to assess distinct predictors of wives and husbands leaving marriages.

They find that when men are not employed, either spouse is more likely to leave.

When wives report better-than-average marital satisfaction, their employment affects neither spouse's exit.

However, when wives report below-average marital satisfaction, their employment makes it more likely they will leave.

The authors' findings suggest that theories of divorce require "gendering" to reflect asymmetric gender change.

PMID: 21932472 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

kate.m

My family are kind of on the other side of this.

My dad has been unemployed since the 1990s. Between that time he was preoccupied with projects that weren't going anywhere and random courses so even when I was small he was still doing things, anything to avoid the domestic role. Which was understandable.

He did mind me and my brother so we weren't at home alone. He never cooked, *never* cleaned and really complained if my mum ever asked him to do anything else. Most days were spend on the computer, in front of the t.v. And my mum put up with that, probably hoping it would change. It didn't. She works long enough hours and still acts like the housewife too.

She doesn't want the marriage to end and my dad has in the last few years started drinking a lot more. He's really bitter and resentful. He hates being around the family and blames my mother for everything despite the fact that he's pretty much living off her. If he had somewhere to go, he'd leave. She's desperately trying to help him, but he refuses to do any work that he feels is beneath him. Volunteering included here.

The woman in this case sounds horrible. She seems rude and demeaning. Granted. But I don't think most women are like that, or I hope they're not. Usually it's way more complicated than is outlined in the article. Hope it works out for him in some way.

wolf moon

Poor guy...

ToxicPaddy

That woman reminds me of an ex of mine was like this, good job, very well paid, obsessed about money and having the best of everything, except she didn't want to pay for it. She would expect me to cough up a small fortune on holidays, presents for her etc, needless to say I copped on very fast and rid myself of her. However, I could see her turning into someone like that.

I know we are only hearing on side of the story but the fact that the guy really seemed to be putting in an effort to keeping things running in the home, looking after his daughter and doing what he could to get work seems yet had to get abuse for it especially in front of his daughter is terrible.

myflipflops

Not sure why the Indo is posting an anonymous letter telling one side of the personal break up of a marriage family but the guy loses a lot of credibility when stating:

Men are treated like dirt in this country.

How does 'my life left me with my daughter' turn into 'men are treated like dirt'. Can we also generalise that because some men have abandoned their wives and kids that women are also treated like dirt? So basically, we are all dirt!

Of course inqualities exist against men in Ireland, especially where rights of single/unmarried fathers are concerned. These issues should be dealt with but we should not kid ourselves. If you are born a white, Irish male and not born into poverty then you have come close to clicking the social and genetic lottery at birth. Too much 'woe is us' crap coming out from men. There is a need to focus on the important stuff with the rights of fathers top of the list in my book.

The Corinthian

myflipflops wrote: »

Can we also generalise that because some men have abandoned their wives and kids that women are also treated like dirt? So basically, we are all dirt!

No we can't because the difference is that the legal and social discrimination against men is completely institutionalized, which is what makes such generalizations possible, and unless you can say the same thing of men have abandoned their wives and kids you cannot make a similar generalization.

If you are born a white, Irish male and not born into poverty then you have come close to clicking the social and genetic lottery at birth. Too much 'woe is us' crap coming out from men.

Be happy you're a second class citizen in Ireland and not a first class citizen in Somalia? Perhaps women should not complain about any discrimination they still suffer from because at least they don't live in Saudi Arabia by the same logic?

There is a need to focus on the important stuff with the rights of fathers top of the list in my book.

Family law (and not simply father's rights) is almost certainly the most blatant and obvious area where anti-male gender inequality exists today and certainly should be treated as a priority, however it is important to educate people that the problem is not simply localized to one area, but also permeates numerous other facets of our society.

Why? Because you will still get numerous people who will ignorantly claim that men don't suffer any discrimination, that we still somehow live in a nineteenth century patriarchy, or that we should otherwise be happy with our lot.

It is only by educating people on the reality of the situation that you will ever see momentum on changing it, in family law or elsewhere.

Feeona

myflipflops wrote: »

Not sure why the Indo is posting an anonymous letter telling one side of the personal break up of a marriage family but the guy loses a lot of credibility when stating:


How does 'my life left me with my daughter' turn into 'men are treated like dirt'.

Of course inqualities exist against men in Ireland, especially where rights of single/unmarried fathers are concerned. There is a need to focus on the important stuff with the rights of fathers top of the list in my book.

I was surprised by that bit in bold too. It'll just make it harder for him to dig himself out of the awful situation he's in at the moment. He'd be better off realising that his wife is an out and out wagon, and doing his utmost to get access to his daughter. Comments like the one in bold will not help his case.

+1 for the last line of your post. Now that's an inequality that seriously needs to be addressed. It's ridiculous in this day and age that an unsuitable mother would have automatic rights with regard to children, especially when the father would do a far better job rearing them.

Dudess

A man is a second class citizen in Ireland - now that sh1t is some comedy gold! :pac:

You're a second class citizen if who you are affects you in EVERY walk of life. Yes, men put up with shyte for their gender in some contexts and it is very wrong. That does not make them second class citizens though. Women are not second class citizens either.

Fear Uladh

Dudess wrote: »

A man is a second class citizen in Ireland - now that sh1t is some comedy gold! :pac:

You're a second class citizen if who you are affects you in EVERY walk of life. Yes, men put up with shyte for their gender in some contexts and it is very wrong. That does not make them second class citizens though. Women are not second class citizens either.

When a woman can dictate whether you can or cannot see your children, then that treatment is 2nd class.

The Corinthian

Dudess wrote: »

You're a second class citizen if who you are affects you in EVERY walk of life. Yes, men put up with shyte for their gender in some contexts and it is very wrong. That does not make them second class citizens though. Women are not second class citizens either.

When your demographic of citizenship has fewer rights, protections and/or privileges in law to another then you are essentially a second class citizen.

Now, if you would like to quote me any such laws that affect women negatively, I am all ears and will happily reply with two that affect men negatively for every one you quote.

iptba

Talks about men losing their job 0:40 on (only a small part of the clip)

Warning: This would be an 18s video due to content and langauge (but no problems visually)

Dudess

The Corinthian wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

You're a second class citizen if who you are affects you in EVERY walk of life. Yes, men put up with shyte for their gender in some contexts and it is very wrong. That does not make them second class citizens though. Women are not second class citizens either.

When your demographic of citizenship has fewer rights, protections and/or privileges in law to another then you are essentially a second class citizen.

Now, if you would like to quote me any such laws that affect women negatively, I am all ears and will happily reply with two that affect men negatively for every one you quote.

Fair enough, as long as you're not implying men have it really hard in every aspect of life and suffer discrimination in every possible way - because obviously that's just really dumb. Yet some folks claim that, while ironically bitching about how feminists get worked up over non existent issues.

BarackPyjama

Dudess wrote: »

Fair enough, as long as you're not implying men have it really hard in every aspect of life and suffer discrimination in every possible way - because obviously that's just really dumb. Yet some folks claim that, while ironically bitching about how feminists get worked up over non existent issues.

Men are discriminated against by the state. Women, feminists agree, are discriminated against by men. Which is worse do you think?

Babybuff

The little bit of irony in it all is that it was men who drew up those laws initially, men who conceived of our (woman's) place in the constitution, when it was right for the very same men to believe it was a woman's place to raise the childers while they stayed at home and practised the art of home making and looking after their husbands needs.

It's being angry at the women who after first being "put in their place" by the patriarchy are now at fault for towing the line. For following the dogma set out for them (by men) and being what was expected of them (by men) . It does make me puke in my mouth a little.
By all means, fight to change the constitution just stop blaming women for making it that way.


I think the letter is coming from someone who is depressed and probably needs help, in that sense I wish him well and hope life gets better.

BarackPyjama

Babybuff wrote: »

By all means, fight to change the constitution just stop blaming women for making it that way.

Where is anyone blaming women? Clearly everyone discussing this topic is blaming the government.

Babybuff

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Where is anyone blaming women? Clearly everyone discussing this topic is blaming the government.

when it turns into an us versus them discussion, when the words feminist are used to highlight how unfair it is that men don't have such privileges, is no different than placing the onus on women to take responsibility for the situation.

for example.

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Men are discriminated against by the state. Women, feminists agree, are discriminated against by men. Which is worse do you think?

So which is it, which is worse?

The Corinthian

Dudess wrote: »

Fair enough, as long as you're not implying men have it really hard in every aspect of life and suffer discrimination in every possible way - because obviously that's just really dumb. Yet some folks claim that, while ironically bitching about how feminists get worked up over non existent issues.

While there is, at this stage, a ridiculous number of areas where men are discriminated against compared to women, of course no one can suggest that "men have it really hard in every aspect of life and suffer discrimination in every possible way" any more than one could to suggest the same of women living a century ago.

But neither can one then dismiss such reverences, simply because they are not "in every possible way", which is all too often what happens.

Babybuff wrote: »

when it turns into an us versus them discussion, when the words feminist are used to highlight how unfair it is that men don't have such privileges, is no different than placing the onus on women to take responsibility for the situation.

It's not an us versus them issue though - it's a lot more complex than that. Where we are now is the product of a century of poorly implemented equality.

Feminism, or more correctly post-Feminism, now emphasizes choice over rights for women and thus is at best lukewarm on the issue of equality if it means that those choices may have to be sacrificed.

The remnants of Chauvinism, on the other hand, still cling to the fantasy that we are still living in a Patriarchy - that the majority of those who 'argued' in favour of chivalrous etiquette in this thread are most likely male is an example of this.

Both ended up being self defeating because you can't have your cake and eat it; you can't retain your privileged position in the home and then complain when people don't hire you because you're a woman of child baring age or think that it is should be a woman's place to be in the home and then complain that you have no rights to your children.

So it's not simply a case of men or women who have created this mess, but the historical culmination of a mess created and still perpetuated by both men and women.

So which is it, which is worse?

Objectively men probably have it worse on balance now. While women have an imperfect choice between provider and carer role in Society, they still have more choice than men. And legally, as I pointed out earlier, men have fewer rights, protections and privileges than women.

Babybuff

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not an us versus them issue though - it's a lot more complex than that. Where we are now is the product of a century of poorly implemented equality.

Feminism, or more correctly post-Feminism, now emphasizes choice over rights for women and thus is at best lukewarm on the issue of equality if it means that those choices may have to be sacrificed.

The remnants of Chauvinism, on the other hand, still cling to the fantasy that we are still living in a Patriarchy - that the majority of those who 'argued' in favour of chivalrous etiquette in this thread are most likely male is an example of this.

Both ended up being self defeating because you can't have your cake and eat it; you can't retain your privileged position in the home and then complain when people don't hire you because you're a woman of child baring age or think that it is should be a woman's place to be in the home and then complain that you have no rights to your children.

So it's not simply a case of men or women who have created this mess, but the historical culmination of a mess created and still perpetuated by both men and women.

Objectively men probably have it worse on balance now. While women have an imperfect choice between provider and carer role in Society, they still have more choice than men. And legally, as I pointed out earlier, men have fewer rights, protections and privileges than women.

I have always read your posts and I have the utmost respect for your opinion and the only reason I invested my own two cent in this thread is because I thought there was enough reasonable discussion to make it worthwhile.
It could very easily turn into a pis%ing contest with regard to female vs male privilge..and by all means a discussion on female privilege from male pov would make for an interesting read, I'm sure it would be educational at the least.