"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.

vader65

Its reading stories like these that make me appreciate just how lucky I have been to come from a stable home.

The Corinthian

Babybuff wrote: »

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.

I do think it is important to underline that men probably are worse off than women nowadays, but mainly because there are still many who are in denial about this - so it's the only way to dispel this particular prejudice of theirs.

However I don't think it's a 'pìssing contest' ultimately because the nature of equality is one of balance - get that balance wrong and everyone ends up suffering.

For example, and as I've frequently argued, many of the inequality that women still face in the workplace are a direct result of the fact that women are still viewed as the natural carers and homemakers. If a couple have a child, it's the woman who's assumed to take time off her career, not the man, and this will naturally not only affect her but even women without children because it will be assumed that they will take time off if/when they have children.

This same presumption of role is also what creates inequality for men in the family, because it is assumed that it will be the woman who will have custody of any children and assumed that it is the man who will still provide for her in the case of a divorce.

Neither gender has been very good at dealing with this issue, largely because each wants to have their cake and eat it. Women don't want to give up their 'privileged' position as carers and homemakers, but they somehow want to be seen as equal in the provider role. Men want rights in the family, but shy away from actually adopting the primary carer and homemaker role - indeed both men and women have a very low opinion of male homemakers, for example.

It's left us with a bit of a clusterfùck of a situation where to compensate for remaining inequalities, we try to impose half-baked solutions rather than addressing the core issue.

Women need to give up on the carer/homemaker monopoly and men have to embrace the same role so that it becomes socially acceptable and normal for either gender to be either provider or carer. Without that, the situation will simply get worse as more half-baked solutions are employed in an attempt for people to get their cake and eat it and that is unsustainable in the long run.

As a prediction on half-baked solutions, I think it is likely that we will see gender quotas to bring up female representation in areas such as politics and business. Once the principle of gender quotas is accepted, you should expect similar quotas in custody cases in the future.

smallBiscuit

I read an excellent argument from a feminist (linked from tll I think) which said that until men have the same rights as women in regards to children and maternity leave, women would never be equal.

Babybuff

The Corinthian wrote: »

I do think it is important to underline that men probably are worse off than women nowadays, but mainly because there are still many who are in denial about this - so it's the only way to dispel this particular prejudice of theirs.

Which is why I'm willing to listen.

However I don't think it's a 'pìssing contest' ultimately because the nature of equality is one of balance - get that balance wrong and everyone ends up suffering.

If men are worse off nowadays do you believe it as a direct result of the strides women have made in gaining greater rights? (choices)

For example, and as I've frequently argued, many of the inequality that women still face in the workplace are a direct result of the fact that women are still viewed as the natural carers and homemakers. If a couple have a child, it's the woman who's assumed to take time off her career, not the man, and this will naturally not only affect her but even women without children because it will be assumed that they will take time off if/when they have children.

This same presumption of role is also what creates inequality for men in the family, because it is assumed that it will be the woman who will have custody of any children and assumed that it is the man who will still provide for her in the case of a divorce.

see I think this is where I disagree and in theory it sounds plausible but what creates inequality for men in the family is the law which has yet to be updated to accommodate these changes, and not the changes themselves.

The role of caretaker, aside from how it is stipulated in the constitution is a social construct born out of the nature of birthing a child. To use the word choice makes it sound like it's an easy one for a mother to make, to want to make a decision between working and nurturing a newborn. There's also the lack of choice when it comes to the actual birthing process, which most of us would willingly hand over to the male of the species in an act
In my own case I didn't especially have one as I was the sole breadwinner and relied on my income. Having to return to work was an extremely difficult thing to do but it was a necessity rather than the beligerent demand of a post-feminism feminist.
Had my child's father shown any desire to do either (work or offer to help caretaking) any input would have been appreciated but as it turned out I was earner and caretaker at once. So in reality my "right" to go out and work was nothing more than consent to make a living...while being a mother at the same time.

Neither gender has been very good at dealing with this issue, largely because each wants to have their cake and eat it. Women don't want to give up their 'privileged' position as carers and homemakers, but they somehow want to be seen as equal in the provider role. Men want rights in the family, but shy away from actually adopting the primary carer and homemaker role - indeed both men and women have a very low opinion of male homemakers, for example.

It's left us with a bit of a clusterfùck of a situation where to compensate for remaining inequalities, we try to impose half-baked solutions rather than addressing the core issue.

Women need to give up on the carer/homemaker monopoly and men have to embrace the same role so that it becomes socially acceptable and normal for either gender to be either provider or carer. Without that, the situation will simply get worse as more half-baked solutions are employed in an attempt for people to get their cake and eat it and that is unsustainable in the long run.

In my experience women generally take lower paid jobs with less hours to "support" a household AND take care of the home. It's rarely a choice between both. I think it's fair to say most men have the same choice, where there are double income families this is practically the norm.

As a prediction on half-baked solutions, I think it is likely that we will see gender quotas to bring up female representation in areas such as politics and business. Once the principle of gender quotas is accepted, you should expect similar quotas in custody cases in the future.

Then again it may be a while before they are considered anything more than irrational, emotional and unreasonable in politics and offered the same degree of respect as their male counterparts.

HellFireClub

A heart breaking story, one that I'm sure is being played out in many homes up and down the country.

In that case though, I wouldn't be surprised if the wife had been having an affair with someone else and was using the circumstances of her husbands unemployment to call time on the marriage, rather than be seen to leave him for someone else. I know some couples where the woman is working and the man is at home minding the kids, but there is a common recognition that the work that he does at home in terms of housekeeping and minding the children, is every bit as valuable as the work that she does when she goes out the door every morning, everything they do is seen as a team effort and once they are both genuinely giving their best, there isn't a problem.

The Corinthian

Babybuff wrote: »

If men are worse off nowadays do you believe it as a direct result of the strides women have made in gaining greater rights? (choices)

That is only half of the story. A century ago gender roles were not simply defined in terms of men having privileges that women did not have. Women also had certain 'advantages' too, although once you added the pros and cons you had to concede that they were worse off.

The 'strides' that women made in the twentieth century concentrated really only on the former and ignored the latter; for example laws that acted against women were campaigned against, but those that benefited them (such as where women get more lenient sentences than men for the same crime) were not and thus remained.

This is where it ties into the other side of the story; men who are subconsciously caught in a time-warp and actually still partially live in the value system of a century ago, thus shying away from looking to share the traditional female role, even though now women are now sharing the male one.

The result of this - women redressing inequity against them, but not touching privilege for, and men sitting around with their fingers in their ears humming loudly - is that the pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction to a century ago.

see I think this is where I disagree and in theory it sounds plausible but what creates inequality for men in the family is the law which has yet to be updated to accommodate these changes, and not the changes themselves.

Actually that is exactly what I am saying.

This is why I cited half-baked solutions. Clearly the law, and social attitudes, need to be updated to accommodate these changes - the danger is that we make a mess of that update.

The role of caretaker, aside from how it is stipulated in the constitution is a social construct born out of the nature of birthing a child. To use the word choice makes it sound like it's an easy one for a mother to make, to want to make a decision between working and nurturing a newborn.

Of course it's not an easy choice. The problem is that you can't have your cake and eat it when you want to make a choice; men cannot expect rights to their children, yet still expect the mother to shoulder 99% percent of the burden of caring for them and women cannot expect men to share that burden, yet still expect to retain 99% of the rights.

Having to return to work was an extremely difficult thing to do but it was a necessity rather than the beligerent demand of a post-feminism feminist.
Had my child's father shown any desire to do either (work or offer to help caretaking) any input would have been appreciated but as it turned out I was earner and caretaker at once.

It's a vicious circle though. Men are told that it's not their job to care for children - as often by women as by other men - throughout society. If custody goes to the mother over 90% of the time and the father has no rights, what is the message you're sending?

Sure, your child's father may have been a lazy waste of space, but our society gave him plenty of justification to allow him to be one.

In my experience women generally take lower paid jobs with less hours to "support" a household AND take care of the home. It's rarely a choice between both. I think it's fair to say most men have the same choice, where there are double income families this is practically the norm.

Men don't have the same choice though. If men did, 97% of homemakers in Ireland would not be women. And this is hardly down to men alone either; ask a few single female friends, would they prefer to marry a homemaker or a provider and see what happens.

Then again it may be a while before they are considered anything more than irrational, emotional and unreasonable in politics.

I've no idea where that comes from as I certainly would not think that of female politicians. Unreasonable upon occasion, maybe, but that is hardly a female monopoly.

Babybuff

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course it's not an easy choice. The problem is that you can't have your cake and eat it when you want to make a choice; men cannot expect rights to their children, yet still expect the mother to shoulder 99% percent of the burden of caring for them and women cannot expect men to share that burden, yet still expect to retain 99% of the rights.

you use the word choice so liberally, it kind of suggests one or the other. Homemaker vs breadwinner. In reality the third option is the one more commonly followed, where both partners work and share care of the home equally. The only flaw is where the law fails to acknowledge this new "equality". Don't give me the cake adage, I get it, but in this sense I think there is some kind of satisfaction for both men and women..and all that remains to tie up is the bureaucratic end of it. *brushes off crumbs

It's a vicious circle though. Men are told that it's not their job to care for children - as often by women as by other men - throughout society. If custody goes to the mother over 90% of the time and the father has no rights, what is the message you're sending?

I'm going to be a bit controversial here and suggest it's not so much what men are told but how they genuinely feel. I know men want to retain contact with and have relationship with their children and be a part of their lives. Shared custody is fairly straight forward and is relatively a safe bet in such cases. Most separated couples I know share custody arrangements where the kids stay over with dad during the week or on weekends and that is enough for them. (him) Sometimes they pick the kids up from school if mam is working late and entertain them for the day. I think as long as mam and dad make the effort to be amicable and put the kids first everyone's happy. Ultimately that should be a parents goal.

Sure, your child's father may have been a lazy waste of space, but our society gave him plenty of justification to allow him to be one.

Men don't have the same choice though. If men did, 97% of homemakers in Ireland would not be women. And this is hardly down to men alone either; ask a few single female friends, would they prefer to marry a homemaker or a provider and see what happens.

ah but they do, they just choose not to.
(as for friends, I think as long as he was wiling to contribute they would be happy sharing roles)

The Corinthian

Babybuff wrote: »

you use the word choice so liberally, it kind of suggests one or the other. Homemaker vs breadwinner. In reality the third option is the one more commonly followed, where both partners work and share care of the home equally.

There's no two, three or thousand choices - it's really just a compromise solution between the two polls I put forward that suits the circumstances of the people involved. My point is that this compromise is not freely available to either gender due to social and legal discrimination.

I'm going to be a bit controversial here and suggest it's not so much what men are told but how they genuinely feel.

And of course what people feel is never influenced or shaped by what they are 'told'.

I know men want to retain contact with and have relationship with their children and be a part of their lives.

Bit condescending. Why did you not suggest that they want to care for and raise their children or be more than some form of passive part of their lives secondary to the mother?

ah but they do, they just choose not to.

Just like women choose to give up their careers and stay at home to take care of the kids?

(as for friends, I think as long as he was wiling to contribute they would be happy sharing roles)

I have no doubt that everyone is happy 'sharing' roles. But what happens when practical necessity means that someone is going to have to take a few years out until a child is going to school? How many would be happy that the man does this? Quite a few would not be.

Babybuff

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's no two, three or thousand choices - it's really just a compromise solution between the two polls I put forward that suits the circumstances of the people involved. My point is that this compromise is not freely available to either gender due to social and legal discrimination.

k you've lost me because that's the compromise that works in homes all over Ireland every day. Are you referring to when couples divorce?

And of course what people feel is never influenced or shaped by what they are 'told'.

I see where you are going, women take the blame for this too right.

Bit condescending. Why did you not suggest that they want to care for and raise their children or be more than some form of passive part of their lives secondary to the mother?

that's how you choose to perceive it. The point I was making is because that is the role the father has chosen

Just like women choose to give up their careers and stay at home to take care of the kids?

In this day and age they are lucky if they can afford to.

I have no doubt that everyone is happy 'sharing' roles. But what happens when practical necessity means that someone is going to have to take a few years out until a child is going to school? How many would be happy that the man does this? Quite a few would not be.

It's not a necessity, where day care and preschool are available to take care of those things.. if you can afford them in this country. If the man could do it I'd think the biggest issue would be the loss of earnings and not the fact that "the man is doing it".

The Corinthian

Babybuff wrote: »

k you've lost me because that's the compromise that works in homes all over Ireland every day. Are you referring to when couples divorce?

No, I'm simply pointing out that it's not simply two or three options - the third option of shared roles is not a defined one, in that the division of responsibility can in theory be anywhere along those two polls I cited.

I see where you are going, women take the blame for this too right.

Seriously, get over yourself. I've been saying all along that the values and laws that create this situation are a product of both genders; so of course women are to blame, but so are men. You're being way too defensive.

that's how you choose to perceive it. The point I was making is because that is the role the father has chosen

Grand so. Should women then stop complaining that they get paid less, due to the burden of childcare being left to them? After all, women choose this too, just as much as men do - or are you suggesting that men are choosing this for them now?

In this day and age they are lucky if they can afford to.

Yet of those who are 'lucky' enough to have a full time carer, it appears to be a woman 97% of the time. I presume they choose this, by your logic?

It's not a necessity, where day care and preschool are available to take care of those things.. if you can afford them in this country. If the man could do it I'd think the biggest issue would be the loss of earnings and not the fact that "the man is doing it".

Unfortunately the ratio of men versus women who 'choose' to stay at home points rather glaringly at there being far more deep rooted issues than simply loss of earnings.

Babybuff

The Corinthian wrote: »

Seriously, get over yourself. I've been saying all along that the values and laws that create this situation are a product of both genders; so of course women are to blame, but so are men. You're being way too defensive.

I just want to get to the root of the problem. Some women choose to stick their boobs out,some women think this is because they have been "told" this is what is expected of them as women have long been held as "objects" and that is their bounty. Those women will tell you it's because they want to. Who am I to argue, nobody is holding a gun to their head and if that's what makes them happy let them prop their boobs up. In the past women would have stood on pedestals shouting about the objectification of women, by men. But if it is about choice then who am I to take it away.

Grand so. Should women then stop complaining that they get paid less, due to the burden of childcare being left to them? After all, women choose this too, just as much as men do - or are you suggesting that men are choosing this for them now?

women get paid less because they get pregnant in the first place. *shrugs*

Yet of those who are 'lucky' enough to have a full time carer, it appears to be a woman 97% of the time. I presume they choose this, by your logic?

Unfortunately the ratio of men versus women who 'choose' to stay at home points rather glaringly at there being far more deep rooted issues than simply loss of earnings.

ok, of this 97% how many of those women work part time? I know the internet is full of statistics but personally speaking I have 4 sisters and two brothers all of whom are married with kids and all of whom both work and both share the care of the family and house. In the majority of those cases the men earn more than the women and it wouldn't be financially possible for the male to give up his job to care for the family. In one instance, my brother, has been on short time and has more input at home than the others.

I have a feeling the deep rooted issues are never going to see the light of day.

The Corinthian

Babybuff wrote: »

I just want to get to the root of the problem. Some women choose to stick their boobs out,some women think this is because they have been "told" this is what is expected of them as women have long been held as "objects" and that is their bounty. Those women will tell you it's because they want to. Who am I to argue, nobody is holding a gun to their head and if that's what makes them happy let them prop their boobs up. In the past women would have stood on pedestals shouting about the objectification of women, by men. But if it is about choice then who am I to take it away.

The reality is probably more akin to 'influenced' choice. Those women certainly choose to stick their boobs out, but that choice is also influenced by how society justifies it.

That's why I suggested earlier that your child's father may have been a lazy waste of space, but our society gave him plenty of justification to allow him to be one. It may have ultimately been his choice, but it was a much easier one to make than the opposite.

women get paid less because they get pregnant in the first place. *shrugs*

Actually no. Women get paid less because of what follows pregnancies. Many end up putting their careers on hiatus for months or years, thus severely damaging them and thus their longer term earning capabilities. Even if they return, they are more likely to do so part time, or because they have adopted the carer role will sacrifice career to pick up the children from the creche or stay with them when ill - it is all this and not the actual pregnancy that results in the pay gap.

I've known women who have not done this, have minimized their time away from work during and following pregnancy and did not suffer in terms of income at all, in the long term.

ok, of this 97% how many of those women work part time?

The same percentage of homemaking men who work part time?

I have a feeling the deep rooted issues are never going to see the light of day.

What do you mean?

Babybuff

The Corinthian wrote: »

What do you mean?

I think I'm going to marry a woman and let her have my babies

The Corinthian

Babybuff wrote: »

I think I'm going to marry a woman and let her have my babies

Good luck when she leaves you and takes them with her.

Babybuff

The Corinthian wrote: »

Good luck when she leaves you and takes them with her.

That's the part I can do..

The Corinthian

Babybuff wrote: »

That's the part I can do..

Nope, once you decided to take on the 'male' role, you pretty abdicated that option.

At least you'll know where they live though, as it'll be your former home...

Gordy6040

I dont want to turn this into a battle of the sexes here.. espicially in the face of the point made by kate m. every situation is different etc.

As a dad that guy has my full sympathy, mostly because i'd be gutted if i couldnt see my kids when i wanted to. From what i can see the dads in this country are at the mercy of out dated laws that take no account of what a moden family looks like. On top of that the law is administered by judges who also seem to have a very narrow view on what a father brings to the table in terms of parenting. Anyway, hope it works out for that guy and he gets what ever access he wants.

just as an aside, does anyone think we are battleing against some stone age thing when men were providers and women were the baby makers / carers and we havent really moved on all that much for that , no matter how many plasma tv's and iphones we have ?

Babybuff

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nope, once you decided to take on the 'male' role, you pretty abdicated that option.

At least you'll know where they live though, as it'll be your former home...

ok I laughed.

(but I suppose I'd have to be allowed to marry first and as it stands currently I'd have no legal right to "our" children anyway.) Thing is though, it's a decision either of us could take, both of us being women we could chose which of us could do the getting pregnant part and all the other issues it raises with regard to working, supporting and caring responsibilities. if you can see where I'm going with my very off tangent point. It would be so much easier if we could all get pregnant then one of us could opt to be the biggest loser

The Corinthian

Babybuff wrote: »

It would be so much easier if we could all get pregnant then one of us could opt to be the biggest loser

It would, but I do think that claiming that it's all down to pregnancy is a bit of an oversimplification. After all, Oedipus complexes aside, we're not inside our mothers for the vast bulk of our pre-adult existences.

I just think that we, both men and women, have made a bit of a mess at the whole equality thing and as a result we're kind of caught in a fix where either we're going to try to solve things cooperatively (in which case both will have to compromise) or belligerently (in which case we will see a never ending serious of tit-for-tat checks and balances as the pendulum continues swinging).

nkay1985

smallBiscuit wrote: »

I read an excellent argument from a feminist (linked from tll I think) which said that until men have the same rights as women in regards to children and maternity leave, women would never be equal.

I think that's a really excellent point. How can men ever be expected to share the burden of parenthood equally if everything in society says differently.

A male friend of mine and his wife had their first child before Christmas. He took no holidays all last year so that he could take a month off. He returned to work this week.

A female friend of mine had her third child last February and returned to work last week. Obviously, some of that was unpaid maternity leave, but the fact remains that she got to spend the best part of the baby's first year at home with it. I'm not for a second saying she had it easy but it's insane that this disparity still exists.

Surely, maternity leave (calling it that for the sake of ease) should be able to be split between a couple or something?

My wife and I will be in a very unique position when we have a child. I work a full-time PAYE job. She is self-employed and works full-time. When she has a baby, she will receive no maternity benefit from the state and I, obviously, won't either. The law is set up in a way that assumes the woman is either working a PAYE job or not working. So we'll end up getting screwed both ways. If the law was setup that maternity leave could be split between a couple, this wouldn't happen.

Does anyone know if there are any plans for reform in the works?