In what ways are men discriminated against?

The Corinthian

James Jones wrote: »

No, it's not true, technically or otherwise. It is a fallacy that has been perpetuated by feminists and is never challenged.

Technically it is true, but what this implies is not.

Statistically, you can easily show that women overall, earn less on average than men. But this does not mean that they earn less for the same job and the same hours, because it would include misleading data, such as part-time and a greater propensity for more junior jobs.

The fallacy in the past has been to use this overall figure (which is correct) to imply an incorrect conclusion, pushing a gender partisan agenda. Only in recent years has this been challenged. Do you understand?

Read the article HERE where you will see that "According to researchers Professor Colm Harmon, Dr Liam Delaney and Cathy Redmond, women's preference for studying humanities/arts counts against them because, typically, it leads to careers that pay less than engineering and computing, where men are to the fore".

There are various reasons, including this one you cite. However, most evidence points to women falling foul of motherhood; that is, they end up putting their careers on hold (when they would otherwise be going up in the ranks) and when or if they do return, often as not they do so part time. How can we say this? Because statistically childless women in their forties actually earn more than their male counterparts.

Is this 'motherhood trap' their choice? Yes and no; after all, one can hardly ignore the social and cultural pressure on women to become the primary child carer, because we still see it as their job. And the only way you're going to change that is to make it also a man's job, which realistically you cannot do as long as you discriminate against men who attempt to adopt this role.

I put highlighted question marks in your post that I quoted HERE.

The only grammatical error (re: 'demonstrably') was one that frankly could be understood anyway.

The other two 'errors' you highlighted are actually grammatically correct. Indeed, other posters "spoke for me" to point out that they had no problem understanding what I wrote.

So it's really only you who had a 'problem'.

iptba

Normally, in Ireland and Great Britain (and probably elsewhere), I think men find it hard to get much recompense if they have been the victims of paternity fraud.

---

In a break from the norm, I thought the following case was interesting:

The Supreme Court of Iowa has recognized a cause of action for paternity fraud by unmarried men. Read about it here (Des Moines Register, 6/1/12).

Although the article isn’t clear, here’s what appears to have happened: Joseph Dier and Cassandra Peters had a relationship in about 2008. They were never married, but she had a son in 2009 and Dier paid her child support, believing the boy was his. At some point, Dier decided the child would be better off with him and moved for custody. Peters, suspecting the boy had not been fathered by Dier, asked the family court for genetic testing that proved Dier was not the father.

I suppose Peters was pleased with that outcome since it meant Dier was out of the custody picture. What she didn’t count on was his lawsuit against her for paternity fraud claiming all monies he’d paid her in child support plus the cost of litigation. The trial court dismissed his suit, ruling correctly that, under Iowa law, she’d done nothing wrong.

But the Supreme Court disagreed, establishing a new civil cause of action for damages, saying Dier can sue Peters.

Continued at:
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/06/04/iowa-supreme-court-duped-man-may-sue-for-paternity-fraud

I think the whole article is worth a read. Basically, the argument is: we don't say mothers get an automatic right to avoid paying fines, etc. just because this might affect the child, so why should this happen if they have fraudulently gotten money from a man who they claimed was the father of a child.

DarraghCorrigan

iptba, while I agree whole heartedly with the eventual case, I feel that it has succeeded primarily because of Peters's reaction to the custody case.
In putting forward the motion that she did not fully believe Dier to be the father, she is calling into question the legitimacy of her accepting child support from him. I would imagine that if Dier himself had called into question his paternity, the outcome would be different, as Peters could then claim that she never suspected the child's parentage and so had accepted all payments in good faith, negating claims of fraud.

But by the fact that Peters waited to voice her concerns over parentage until she was in a position to gain, it becomes clear that she accepted paternity payments while not being sure of the Dier's responsibility to pay. Unless, in a similar case, the alleged father could prove that the mother had accepted payments while knowing, or at least suspecting, the assumed paternity to be false, I can imagine he would find it very difficult to prove fraud and hence make a claim for the money paid.
I wonder if an exception to this would be where there was suspicion of another father, who could then be proven to be the real father. In this case could Dier then take a case against the real father for the money which had been paid to his child? Assuming that there evidence that the real father had reasonable suspicion that the child might be his?


On a different topic, I am not overly versed on family law, but I would like to know two things:
1) If a couple splits up and the father has to pay paternity to the mother, is the amount paid relative to both of their incomes, so that the money being used to raise the child is proportional to what it would have been had the pair stayed together, assuming(admittedly incorrectly) that their career trajectories would have been unaffected had they stayed together to raise the child?
What I mean by this is that, if the mother is better paid than the estranged father, does he still have to pay? Is it taken into account that more of the mother's income (numerically more, proportionally the same) should be being used to raised the child?

2) If a divorce settlement is reached where the father is given custody and chosen to be the more capable care giver (however unlikely this turn-out is), is their a responsibility on the mother to pay the father an equivalent amount as he would have had to pay her, had the court decision been reversed?

iptba

DarraghCorrigan wrote: »

iptba, while I agree whole heartedly with the eventual case, I feel that it has succeeded primarily because of Peters's reaction to the custody case.
In putting forward the motion that she did not fully believe Dier to be the father, she is calling into question the legitimacy of her accepting child support from him. I would imagine that if Dier himself had called into question his paternity, the outcome would be different, as Peters could then claim that she never suspected the child's parentage and so had accepted all payments in good faith, negating claims of fraud.

But by the fact that Peters waited to voice her concerns over parentage until she was in a position to gain, it becomes clear that she accepted paternity payments while not being sure of the Dier's responsibility to pay. Unless, in a similar case, the alleged father could prove that the mother had accepted payments while knowing, or at least suspecting, the assumed paternity to be false, I can imagine he would find it very difficult to prove fraud and hence make a claim for the money paid.
I wonder if an exception to this would be where there was suspicion of another father, who could then be proven to be the real father. In this case could Dier then take a case against the real father for the money which had been paid to his child? Assuming that there evidence that the real father had reasonable suspicion that the child might be his?

I agree this case is unusual for the reason you state.

However, in general, if another man turns out to be the father, the mother should have had the suspicion this could be the case, given she must have slept with him. So I'm not sure women should get an automatic get-out-of-jail-free excuse (for want of a better phrase), in other situations.

Don't know enough to answer your other questions.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

However, in general, if another man turns out to be the father, the mother should have had the suspicion this could be the case, given she must have slept with him. So I'm not sure women should get an automatic get-out-of-jail-free excuse (for want of a better phrase), in other situations.

I would certainly imagine that there are cases where even if the mother has slept with another man that she genuinely believes the named father is indeed the father - female fertility is not an exact science, after all, and this can be deemed to be reasonable doubt in a case of paternity fraud.

Unfortunately, it appears that all too often unreasonable doubt is accepted by a judge, largely because of the consequences to the child(ren) in the event of a guilty verdict. There's a long history of a mother using a child to avoid legal consequences; most notably where they could plead the belly in the past and this perpetuated attitude is probably the reason that practically no mothers are ever given custodial sentences for breaches of court orders while fathers are on a regular basis.

DarraghCorrigan wrote: »

1) If a couple splits up and the father has to pay paternity to the mother, is the amount paid relative to both of their incomes, so that the money being used to raise the child is proportional to what it would have been had the pair stayed together, assuming(admittedly incorrectly) that their career trajectories would have been unaffected had they stayed together to raise the child?
What I mean by this is that, if the mother is better paid than the estranged father, does he still have to pay? Is it taken into account that more of the mother's income (numerically more, proportionally the same) should be being used to raised the child?

My understanding is that in theory each parent are equally responsible to the financial upkeep of the child (i.e. if a father contributes €80 p.w., then the other €80 is the mother's responsibility) to a reasonable level. In practice it comes down to how much each parent can afford, taking into account income, non-child related expenditure, assets, debts, and so on. As a result, the bulk of costs will tend to be paid by the father as he is expected to work while Irish law, social welfare, child care costs and society actually encourages mothers not to.

Also a child is expected to benefit from the wealth of his or her parents (i.e. the non-custodial father). This means, in practical terms, the more you earn the more you pay; if you're on the Dole, then runners from Dunnes are all that are realistically expected, for example. If you're on €85k p.a. then the child should benefit from this and have the budget to get branded (Nike) runners.

Unfortunately in Ireland, much of the above is decided upon by judges, with few, if any, guidelines. As a result it is not unusual for one judge to award €100 p.w. and another €25 p.w. for cases that are virtually identical.

Another problem is that that while there is a sliding scale depending upon the wealth of the father, there's absolutely no policing of this and as long as the care of the child is sufficient in the judges eyes, any additional maintenance may be spent as the mother wishes - one story a family solicitor once told me was of a judge telling a father than once the child was taken care of, he didn't care if the other three quarters of the maintenance were spent on bottles of wine in Leeson street.

2) If a divorce settlement is reached where the father is given custody and chosen to be the more capable care giver (however unlikely this turn-out is), is their a responsibility on the mother to pay the father an equivalent amount as he would have had to pay her, had the court decision been reversed?

I think what I wrote above about the relative financial circumstances of the parents would still apply. I believe however (it's been posted here before) that the percentage of non-custodial mothers who pay any child maintenance is embarrassingly tiny, compared to fathers.

NegativeCreep

The_Minister wrote: »

I'd also be willing to bet that men get longer sentences than women for the same violent crimes.

Not only that but have you seen the women's MountJoy compared to the male one? It's like a holiday home!

Pawwed Rig

NegativeCreep wrote: »

Not only that but have you seen the women's MountJoy compared to the male one? It's like a holiday home!

Both points were dealt with earlier in the thread. A female in mountjoy is not allowed be called a prisoner or an inmate. She is a resident.

Sentencing has also be well discussed where even government members have tabled the idea that women should not be given custodial sentences. Beware who you are voting for

Priori

I know of an extremely nasty and dangerous female individual who makes life a living hell for a man she barely knows. She stalks him, has threatened him and his young family, and has actually attacked him in public in a frenzied rage, biting him and drawing blood. She is allowed to repeat these things over and over again, because she is mentally ill.

I know for a fact that if a man did any such thing, mentally ill or not, he wouldn't be given the same chances to repeatedly re-offend. More than likely, he would end up in Mountjoy, medical diagnosis notwithstanding.

[edit: this is more a case of female positive discrimination, rather than male discrimination)

NegativeCreep

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Both points were dealt with earlier in the thread. A female in mountjoy is not allowed be called a prisoner or an inmate. She is a resident.

Sentencing has also be well discussed where even government members have tabled the idea that women should not be given custodial sentences. Beware who you are voting for

Seriously? So even if they kill someone they wouldn't get a sentence? What party has put that idea forward? :L

iptba

NegativeCreep wrote: »

Seriously? So even if they kill someone they wouldn't get a sentence?

I think they wouldn't say that for murder. However, sometimes if women kill they are given a manslaughter conviction - they were driven to it by some factor. Then sometimes that can lead to a suspended sentence.

Here's an extract from the Seanad from a few years ago:

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0189/S.0189.200805200002.html

Senator Ivana Bacik:

[..]

This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of L[817]ords who produced a very radical report last year on women in prison and who recommended, after a very thorough review, that prison places for women should essentially be abolished and that there should just be a small number of small detention units for women. Otherwise, alternative sanctions should be used. We could very much learn from the lessons of that report.

I am happy to say that Baroness Corston will be visiting Leinster House on Thursday. Deputy Mary O’Rourke and I are hosting a meeting with her for all women Members of the Oireachtas. I am sorry that we cannot invite any male colleagues interested in this issue to the briefing with Baroness Corston.

Senator David Norris: Why not?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I would be happy to meet them to discuss the issues at another time. The Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice will also host a seminar on Thursday evening on the future of women’s imprisonment.

Pawwed Rig

iptba wrote: »

Here's an extract from the Seanad from a few years ago:

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0189/S.0189.200805200002.html

Thanks iptba that is the one. TC posted it a few pages back. It is an astounding position for an educated person to take

As I said be careful who you vote for Ivana

iptba

I think the gender quota legislation will lead to discrimination against men.

It's about to be passed into law:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0720/1224320450882.html

MARY MINIHAN

The Irish Times - Friday, July 20, 2012

GENDER QUOTAS are set to become law after the Electoral Amendment (Political Funding) Bill 2011 passed all stages in the Dáil yesterday.

The legislation, which has yet to be signed by the President, will halve State funding to parties unless 30 per cent of their candidates at the next general election are women. This figure will rise to 40 per cent at subsequent general elections.

Pawwed Rig

I was browsing the thread in TGC about this but will not get time to read all the posts so not much point in wading in at post 260:D

I have no real objection as such to gender quotas in this regard though as if the person is good enough to gather votes then they will be elected. If 30% of the candidates are female will 30% of the Dail be female? It remains to be seen.
I do think the larger parties will suffer from this the expense of Independents where the bigger parties will be forced to put forward 'weaker' candidates.
I also think that a constitutional challenge will overturn this law fairly lively if anyone decides to take it.

TBH any system that would stop hereditary title in Ireland would be more welcome than this initiative.

iptba

It's a 40% quota. 30% is only for the first few years.

Pawwed Rig

Yeah ok point still stands though, it is one thing being nominated and another being elected.

Little unfair to the male offspring of Lenihans, Aherns, Kennys, Enrights, Cowens, McCreevys etc where the daughters will be pushed forward from now on rather than Jnr

Another point is should x% of candidates be Chinese/Polish/Working class/aged 18-30/Protestant/Muslim/Atheist? Focussing on the female issue seems a little simplistic and populist.

The Corinthian

Just a cross/double post from this thread on the Metrosexual forum.

I just did a quick tot-up (so I may be out by a wee bit) of the independent candidates that ran for election in 2011. According to this there were 174 male candidates listed as independent and 17 female candidates, similarly listed as independent.

Certainly there is a stark divide in gender where it comes to candidates running, there is absolutely no denying this. However, I do have to ask, what would gender quotas (that only apply to political parties) do to rectify this inequality where it comes to independent candidates? Nothing is the answer.

Indeed, the thing that I find odd about the entire gender quotas debate is that everyone seems to agree that they're not actually a solution to the problem of why so few women run, yet I've heard little or nothing suggested as to what might actually be a solution to the problem. I don't think there is any plan to deal with this, just this curious stop gap measure of quotas and nothing else.

Call me cynical, but I get the feeling that the whole quotas initiative is the brainchild of female party political hacks who are looking to get an unfair advantage in the selection process within their parties, and has absolutely nothing to do with gender equality in politics.

If it did, the proposed quotas system would not conveniently only benefit those women already in party politics and there might actually be some discussion on addressing why women are so poorly represented overall in the first place.

iptba

People have lots of ideas about how the political system could be improved.

There are plenty of underrepresented groups.

Yet, all we get is a quota "against" men. They're/we're a "soft" group that way.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

People have lots of ideas about how the political system could be improved.

How is this quota system improving the system? I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever to the vast majority of women who may wish to get involved in politics; the reasons for why they tend not to would remain and such quotas may even serve to turn some against voting for women's candidates ("she probably just quota'd her way to the top").

From what I can see the entire concept only really benefits party political hacks who happen to be women.

Look, I have a good friend who's wife ran, and lost, for the Dail last year through one of the main parties. She supports the whole quotas bit, and I can see why she can, because while she did have a good showing, there's no guarantee she'll get the ticket next time round. Quotas would guarantee it for her; she only has to watch out for other women going for the ticket.

Pawwed Rig

I pretty much agree with you despite my other points. I think the best person for the job should be in the government regardless of gender/race etc however I do not think that it is case now or will it be with 40% quotas. Our whole election system is wrong and maybe it is a fundamental flaw with democracy.

TC agreed re Independents. Meant to include that as part of my post. I think the larger parties will lose seats whereas independents will greatly benefit from the quota system ikn that a marginal Independent candidate (M or F) will get in ahead of the (perceived) weaker party candidate.

A bigger fear would be quotas at a boardroom level which would put Ireland economically at a competitive disadvantage to our competitor countries.

The Corinthian

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I pretty much agree with you despite my other points. I think the best person for the job should be in the government regardless of gender/race etc however I do not think that it is case now or will it be with 40% quotas. Our whole election system is wrong and maybe it is a fundamental flaw with democracy.

There are various reasons why women are under-represented in politics and business, but high on, if not top of, the list is their continued role as carers in society.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, the solution to this is to realign this perception, so that both men and women may equally take up each others traditional roles, but this would of course require that women lose their present monopoly in this area, which is why you don't ever hear Feminist groups suggest anything other than nominal reform and instead concentrate on how women may be facilitated to choose both roles.

This is why in areas where discrimination against women is claimed (political and executive representation, pay-gap, etc), you rarely hear much debate on the reasons for this, let alone any actual attempt to address them. Positive discrimination has become the favoured means to deal with the issue, without actually dealing with it.

TC agreed re Independents. Meant to include that as part of my post. I think the larger parties will lose seats whereas independents will greatly benefit from the quota system ikn that a marginal Independent candidate (M or F) will get in ahead of the (perceived) weaker party candidate.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate; I've been to election counts and having checked more than a few ballots in my time, I can confirm that the single most common voting pattern of preferences is alphabetical - 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on, all the way down. Scary.

A bigger fear would be quotas at a boardroom level which would put Ireland economically at a competitive disadvantage to our competitor countries.

I would imagine it would be a reason for multinationals not to set up major offices in Ireland. As long as our tax is low enough, it won't deter them on balance, but give them enough little reasons and over time and this may change.

Another likely effect is that companies will begin to appoint women board members who never attend meetings, in the same way that firms in countries that impose similar quotas for citizens (e.g. Saudi Arabia) 'employ' people who only turn up to pick up their pay cheque, just to satisfy the aforementioned quotas on paper. Nice 'work' if you can get it.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would imagine it would be a reason for multinationals not to set up major offices in Ireland. As long as our tax is low enough, it won't deter them on balance, but give them enough little reasons and over time and this may change.

Another likely effect is that companies will begin to appoint women board members who never attend meetings, in the same way that firms in countries that impose similar quotas for citizens (e.g. Saudi Arabia) 'employ' people who only turn up to pick up their pay cheque, just to satisfy the aforementioned quotas on paper. Nice 'work' if you can get it.

While I'm not an expert on it, I've heard it said that with the quotas/targets for State boards in Ireland, it has lead to some women being on two or more boards (i.e. more than one might expect) (because there's a smaller pool of women than men to choose from).

James Jones

Although men are discriminated against in the Family Law courts, the proposed reform referred to HERE might help, as long as men get their voices heard, which some have HERE and HERE.

Pawwed Rig

It sounds very similar to approaches taken on compensation and residential disputes ie the PRTB. Another inefficient system for keeping the inefficient state institutions running.
They are startling admissions for a minister to make

iptba wrote: »

While I'm not an expert on it, I've heard it said that with the quotas/targets for State boards in Ireland, it has lead to some women being on two or more boards (i.e. more than one might expect) (because there's a smaller pool of women than men to choose from).

If adopted in the Fin Services sector it would mean corporate service providers would be virtually dominated by women and with the current focus on the makeup of boardrooms due to the corporate governance code and the lack of female expertise women would have to be fast tracked to senior management positions.

spud_gunner

Priori wrote: »

I know of an extremely nasty and dangerous female individual who makes life a living hell for a man she barely knows. She stalks him, has threatened him and his young family, and has actually attacked him in public in a frenzied rage, biting him and drawing blood. She is allowed to repeat these things over and over again, because she is mentally ill.

I know for a fact that if a man did any such thing, mentally ill or not, he wouldn't be given the same chances to repeatedly re-offend. More than likely, he would end up in Mountjoy, medical diagnosis notwithstanding.

[edit: this is more a case of female positive discrimination, rather than male discrimination)

thats got nothing to do with discrimination against men , its an example of our redicolously liberal mental health laws were severely deranged mentally unwell people are allowed roam free unless they literally kill someone

The Corinthian

James Jones wrote: »

Although men are discriminated against in the Family Law courts, the proposed reform referred to HERE might help, as long as men get their voices heard, which some have HERE and HERE.

Given the minister's well-documented views on men's rights in family law, I suspect such voices will fall on deaf ears.

spud_gunner wrote: »

thats got nothing to do with discrimination against men , its an example of our redicolously liberal mental health laws were severely deranged mentally unwell people are allowed roam free unless they literally kill someone

Maybe. Ask yourself, if the genders were reversed in the above account, would the authorities be as laissez faire?