In what ways are men discriminated against?

Sul

Just by chance I have someone here with me who knows a bit. HE says that men cost insurance companies more money every year through claims. Men are more likely to crash and have a third party claim off their insurance. This is what insurance companies base their policies on....

Otis Driftwood

Sul wrote: »

Just by chance I have someone here with me who knows a bit. HE says that men cost insurance companies more money every year through claims. Men are more likely to crash and have a third party claim off their insurance. This is what insurance companies base their policies on....

I work in insurance and this is a fact.Although women have more accidents statistically,the severity of the accidents involving male drivers coupled with higher claim settlement figures means that men are a higher risk.

That EU directive is coming in from December to remove gender as a rating factor when calculating insurance however I dont think that males premiums will drop by much,more likely female drivers premiums will rise to meet them somewhere in the middle.

Sul

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

Just by chance I have someone here with me who knows a bit. HE says that men cost insurance companies more money every year through claims. Men are more likely to crash and have a third party claim off their insurance. This is what insurance companies base their policies on....

I work in insurance and this is a fact.Although women have more accidents statistically,the severity of the accidents involving male drivers coupled with higher claim settlement figures means that men are a higher risk.

That EU directive is coming in from December to remove gender as a rating factor when calculating insurance however I dont think that males premiums will drop by much,more likely female drivers premiums will rise to meet them somewhere in the middle.

Thanks. I may have got a bit mixed up but I knew there was a reason behind higher insurance for men other than 'because they are men'.

miec

I've heard car insurance is more expensive for men than women? Definitley discrimination if it's true.

The car insurance argument is soon to be redundant when the gender directive comes in force.

I would agree that there is discrimination against men which I find worrying because it drives a wedge between the two sexes (I am a woman) and it sometimes feels like men today are being punished for past sins. I want to see things as equal for both sexes.

For instance when I was in college doing an arts degree everything was from a gender perspective (ie: how men subjugated women) now don't get me wrong things were bad but I remember a lot of the guys felt alienated because it was all gender, gender, gender. I recall one guy saying he feels like he should cut his balls off. I think the academics should have offered a more balanced argument (some did try).

The area of family is especially fraught with discrimination, family law and domestic violence / sexual abuse & assault.

However I think it is up to men to collectively challenge discrimination in the same way the women's movement did in the past. For instance challenge those stupid ads, films that depict men as morons. If a woman grabs a man in sexual manner she should be reported for assault or at least reprimanded. Again if a man is beaten by a woman he should report it and insist on being taken seriously. I think as a society we should all challenge discrimination or organisations / laws that treat each gender differently. We should be treated the same. I believe if that happens men and women will get on better.

Pawwed Rig

Sul wrote: »

Thanks. I may have got a bit mixed up but I knew there was a reason behind higher insurance for men other than 'because they are men'.

But it is 'because they are men'. The point is that it is judging someone on the basis of their sex rather than on their actions alone. Regardless of whether statistically men in general are more likely to claim more does not mean that I am more likely to claim. I am less likely to give birth but I don't see a lower health insurance premium for that reason. Women live longer so should they pay more PRSI while they are working to pay for their extra years of pension? Of course not but if you were to go statistically based on the sample of half the population then they should.

There thread is about where men are discriminated against and this is a good example of it. The smokers argument is redundant in that smoking is a personal choice.

Sul

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

Thanks. I may have got a bit mixed up but I knew there was a reason behind higher insurance for men other than 'because they are men'.

But it is 'because they are men'. The point is that it is judging someone on the basis of their sex rather than on their actions alone. Regardless of whether statistically men in general are more likely to claim more does not mean that I am more likely to claim. I am less likely to give birth but I don't see a lower health insurance premium for that reason. Women live longer so should they pay more PRSI while they are working to pay for their extra years of pension? Of course not but if you were to go statistically based on the sample of half the population then they should.

There thread is about where men are discriminated against and this is a good example of it. The smokers argument is redundant in that smoking is a personal choice.

How else are they to set their policy? By hoping for the best and risk losing money? They risk assess. And men cost insurance companies more therefore the policy is higher.

Driving is also a personal choice. You dont have to drive.

There are better examples of discrimination. Family law would be one. Fathers should have the exact same rights as mothers.

Pawwed Rig

Sul wrote: »

How else are they to set their policy? By hoping for the best and risk losing money? They risk assess. And men cost insurance companies more therefore the policy is higher.

Driving is also a personal choice. You dont have to drive.

There are better examples of discrimination. Family law would be one. Fathers should have the exact same rights as mothers.

Hang on. The thread is about where men are discriminated against and this is one. I have highlighted where this is contrary to other forms of insurance where women are a higher risk factor (health, pensions) where the government have laws protecting women (hence discrimination) but you have ignored these points.
The policies should be set to treat people as people rather than as a man or a woman.

The Black Oil

A friend of mine is a secondary teacher and from what he's said, he leaves his classroom door open most of the time (for reasons alluded to in this thread). He mentioned some other situations where he's seen children fall down and unless he was related or knew them he wouldn't help them up. I'd be of the same mind, tbh.

Elsewhere, I was coming down the stairs in college a few weeks back and some girl came up around the corner. There was some cleavage involved and yes, I did look, part timing, position, etc. I wasn't :eek: or anything. No soon as I'd done it I felt like apologising, but didn't. I thought the gesture of doing so might have seemed a bit odd. Anyway, not really on topic.

johnnyjb

boredatwork82 wrote: »

Regardless of our ability to have babies, we should have the right to have babies. The Peoples front of Judea are the only people fighting this noble cause.

Not to be confused with "The Judean Peoples Front"

Different organisation completely !!


(was beat to it - dam it :mad:)

Sul

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

How else are they to set their policy? By hoping for the best and risk losing money? They risk assess. And men cost insurance companies more therefore the policy is higher.

Driving is also a personal choice. You dont have to drive.

There are better examples of discrimination. Family law would be one. Fathers should have the exact same rights as mothers.

Hang on. The thread is about where men are discriminated against and this is one. I have highlighted where this is contrary to other forms of insurance where women are a higher risk factor (health, pensions) where the government have laws protecting women (hence discrimination) but you have ignored these points.
The policies should be set to treat people as people rather than as a man or a woman.

Health insurance is based on how risky you are. Its still based on risk. Thats the point. The more likely you are to cost the company the more you pay. Men are a risk to a car insurance company. Thats how it works.

Your health insurance is also based on your age. The older you are the more you pay. Is that because you are at risk? Or because they are ageist?

sharper

Sul wrote: »

Your health insurance is also based on your age. The older you are the more you pay. Is that because you are at risk? Or because they are ageist?

No it isn't. Health insurance in Ireland costs the same no matter how old you are.

Pawwed Rig

Sul wrote: »

Health insurance is based on how risky you are. Its still based on risk. Thats the point. The more likely you are to cost the company the more you pay. Men are a risk to a car insurance company. Thats how it works.

Your health insurance is also based on your age. The older you are the more you pay. Is that because you are at risk? Or because they are ageist?

Health insutrance is not based on how risky you are and neither is PRSI. With health insurance we have community rating. An older person pays the same as a younger person. An older person is more likely to cost the company extra but that doesn't matter as everyone is treated the same. (This was one of the reasons BUPA left the Irish market) Which is my point. It is based on risk when it discriminates against the man but community rating when it might discriminate against someone else. Hence the purpose of the thread.

Anyway we can agree to differ as we are taking over the thread here and my responses are just going to be the same point over and over again

Sul

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

Health insurance is based on how risky you are. Its still based on risk. Thats the point. The more likely you are to cost the company the more you pay. Men are a risk to a car insurance company. Thats how it works.

Your health insurance is also based on your age. The older you are the more you pay. Is that because you are at risk? Or because they are ageist?

Health insutrance is not based on how risky you are and neither is PRSI. With health insurance we have community rating. An older person pays the same as a younger person. An older person is more likely to cost the company extra but that doesn't matter as everyone is treated the same. (This was one of the reasons BUPA left the Irish market) Which is my point. It is based on risk when it discriminates against the man but community rating when it might discriminate against someone else. Hence the purpose of the thread.

Anyway we can agree to differ as we are taking over the thread here and my responses are just going to be the same point over and over again

Well I stand corrected and apologise. Must learn more about insurance or ill be done when they see me coming through their large shop windows!! :-S

Sul

Id like to point out as well that im not some mad feminist who wants to rid the world of men....

Pawwed Rig

Sul wrote: »

Well I stand corrected and apologise. Must learn more about insurance or ill be done when they see me coming through their large shop windows!! :-S

I enjoy a good argument on a bank holiday;)

Dreading work tomorrow................

The Corinthian

Sul wrote: »

What the hell does a pregnant women in the work place have in common with car insurance?? That is ridiculous to even make a comparison.

Not at all. Maternity leave costs businesses a lot of money; hiring temporary staff for someone who may well not return, loss of productivity and knowledge - you're better off not hiring someone in that statistical 'danger zone' in the first place. Of course, to do so is illegal, but if you seem to have no problem with companies discriminating against men to save some money, then what's good for the gander should be good for the goose and so such laws banning such practices should be dropped.

Also a gym/swimming pool area is quite different to a golf club. I doubt many men walk around playing golf in their swimwear. I have no problem with unisex gyms/pools but there are people out there who would prefer not to be so exposed in front of the opposite sex. The reasons for wanting an all female gym would be quite different to the reasons behind an all male golf club....

An argument used against women joining golf clubs, back in the day, was that it would change the atmosphere and some of the (male) members would feel "uncomfortable". So sorry, unless you want to dictate to men what we can and cannot be uncomfortable about, then you're out of luck.

I never said all men are rapists or used it as an argument.

I never said you did, but making that presumption that a man is guilty of being one until proven innocent, effectively falls into that category.

As I said above I would be wary of my children around both...excuse me for wanting to stay safe!!

Protection of the innocent is always excusable - until you are willing to do it at the expense of another innocent. So no, I do not excuse you.

I also do not agree with the whole underage sex law. I do agree that if both people are underage they should both be held accountable for their actions. Who made that law?

Are you suggesting that because it mitigates against men, that women have no business interfering with it? Is this a case of "I'm all right Jill"?

Sul

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

What the hell does a pregnant women in the work place have in common with car insurance?? That is ridiculous to even make a comparison.

Not at all. Maternity leave costs businesses a lot of money; hiring temporary staff for someone who may well not return, loss of productivity and knowledge - you're better off not hiring someone in that statistical 'danger zone' in the first place. Of course, to do so is illegal, but if you seem to have no problem with companies discriminating against men to save some money, then what's good for the gander should be good for the goose and so such laws banning such practices should be dropped.

Also a gym/swimming pool area is quite different to a golf club. I doubt many men walk around playing golf in their swimwear. I have no problem with unisex gyms/pools but there are people out there who would prefer not to be so exposed in front of the opposite sex. The reasons for wanting an all female gym would be quite different to the reasons behind an all male golf club....

An argument used against women joining golf clubs, back in the day, was that it would change the atmosphere and some of the (male) members would feel "uncomfortable". So sorry, unless you want to dictate to men what we can and cannot be uncomfortable about, then you're out of luck.

I never said all men are rapists or used it as an argument.

I never said you did, but making that presumption that a man is guilty of being one until proven innocent, effectively falls into that category.

As I said above I would be wary of my children around both...excuse me for wanting to stay safe!!

Protection of the innocent is always excusable - until you are willing to do it at the expense of another innocent. So no, I do not excuse you.

I also do not agree with the whole underage sex law. I do agree that if both people are underage they should both be held accountable for their actions. Who made that law?

Are you suggesting that because it mitigates against men, that women have no business interfering with it? Is this a case of "I'm all right Jill"?

Wow to that last statement.... I disagree with you im wrong. I agree with you im still wrong.


And also ill protect my children how I feel right. Im not saying I would start ringing a bell and pointing fingers. But I would be quietly wary of strangers (men and women) Im well within my rights to do so.

Think ill just leave at this. Not really happy about being accused of thinking all men are rapists or being told I am wrong in how I would protect my children.

Goodnight

The Corinthian

Sul wrote: »

Wow to that last statement.... I disagree with you im wrong. I agree with you im still wrong.

You agreed then asked who made that law, which following up from your previous related statement would end in you concluding that it was a law written by men (thus their responsibility). That is what I disagreed with.

And also ill protect my children how I feel right. Im not saying I would start ringing a bell and pointing fingers. But I would be quietly wary of strangers (men and women) Im well within my rights to do so.

As long as you don't trample the rights of others to do so. That's often the problem with people who feel they can do whatever they like for a cause they think is just, which is why societies generally have, or should have, laws that will limit your 'right' to do so.

Think ill just leave at this. Not really happy about being accused of thinking all men are rapists or being told I am wrong in how I would protect my children.

Walking away offended is always a good way to avoid unpleasant truths, is it not?

gordon_gekko

when it comes to office politics , an overbearing and dictatorial male control freak is a bully where as an overbearing , stalinist female control freak is a strong willed ambitious woman who knows what she wants and makes no appologies to men who have a chip on thier shoulder about taking orders from women

gordon_gekko

Sul wrote: »

Health insurance is based on how risky you are. Its still based on risk. Thats the point. The more likely you are to cost the company the more you pay. Men are a risk to a car insurance company. Thats how it works.

Your health insurance is also based on your age. The older you are the more you pay. Is that because you are at risk? Or because they are ageist?

older people dont pay more for health insurance in this country , the state interevenes in VHI,s service so as to prevent this from naturally happening , its called risk equalisation and all the other health providers despise it

Sul

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

Wow to that last statement.... I disagree with you im wrong. I agree with you im still wrong.

You agreed then asked who made that law, which following up from your previous related statement would end in you concluding that it was a law written by men (thus their responsibility). That is what I disagreed with.

And also ill protect my children how I feel right. Im not saying I would start ringing a bell and pointing fingers. But I would be quietly wary of strangers (men and women) Im well within my rights to do so.

As long as you don't trample the rights of others to do so. That's often the problem with people who feel they can do whatever they like for a cause they think is just, which is why societies generally have, or should have, laws that will limit your 'right' to do so.

Think ill just leave at this. Not really happy about being accused of thinking all men are rapists or being told I am wrong in how I would protect my children.

Walking away offended is always a good way to avoid unpleasant truths, is it not?

Yeh you're totally right. I think all men are rapists and pedophiles and should be castrated at birth.....

The Corinthian

Sul wrote: »

Yeh you're totally right. I think all men are rapists and pedophiles and should be castrated at birth.....

Not what I said. You've given a justification of sexist prejudiced behaviour and used child safety as your excuse to do so. That does not mean that you think all men are rapists, it just means you used a variation on the old 'all men are rapists' argument - that you believe that all men are potential rapists enough for you to discriminate against them, "for the good of your children".

Do you use profiling for any other groups that you need to protect your children against? Blacks? Jews? Or is it just men you single out?

Sul

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

Yeh you're totally right. I think all men are rapists and pedophiles and should be castrated at birth.....

Not what I said. You've given a justification of sexist prejudiced behaviour and used child safety as your excuse to do so. That does not mean that you think all men are rapists, it just means you used a variation on the old 'all men are rapists' argument - that you believe that all men are potential rapists enough for you to discriminate against them, "for the good of your children".

Do you use profiling for any other groups that you need to protect your children against? Blacks? Jews? Or is it just men you single out?

How dare you!!!! How ****ing dare you!! If you feel its ok to leave your children with strangers then that is your decision. But do not dare tell me how I keep my child safe is wrong. Or insinuate that I would be racist because of it.

More than ever we are told to be vigilant in protecting our children. It is common news every day that children are going missing and if I choose not to leave my child with a stranger or am that bit more protective of them that is my choice.

The Corinthian

Sul wrote: »

How dare you!!!! How ****ing dare you!! If you feel its ok to leave your children with strangers then that is your decision. But do not dare tell me how I keep my child safe is wrong. Or insinuate that I would be racist because of it.

Who said it's OK to eave your children with strangers? I am questioning your apparent position that it's men (strangers or not) that are such a threat for you. You have stated that you agree with applying gender based discrimination in this area, have you not?

Neither did I insinuate you would be racist; only bigoted; you don't have to be racist or anti-Semitic, to be a bigot, after all.

gordon_gekko

Sul wrote: »

How dare you!!!! How ****ing dare you!! If you feel its ok to leave your children with strangers then that is your decision. But do not dare tell me how I keep my child safe is wrong. Or insinuate that I would be racist because of it.

More than ever we are told to be vigilant in protecting our children. It is common news every day that children are going missing and if I choose not to leave my child with a stranger or am that bit more protective of them that is my choice.

check out the faux indignation overdrive

Sul

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

How dare you!!!! How ****ing dare you!! If you feel its ok to leave your children with strangers then that is your decision. But do not dare tell me how I keep my child safe is wrong. Or insinuate that I would be racist because of it.

Who said it's OK to eave your children with strangers? I am questioning your apparent position that it's men (strangers or not) that are such a threat for you. You have stated that you agree with applying gender based discrimination in this area, have you not?

Neither did I insinuate you would be racist; only bigoted; you don't have to be racist or anti-Semitic, to be a bigot, after all.

I never said men were a threat. I said I could understand some parents position with regards to their children. If I was in a park and a stranger(be it a man or a women) started talking to my child I wouldn't start roaring and shouting at him/her or drag my child away. Id just be a little more on my guard. Just like I wouldn't walk down a dark alley way at night. There might not be anything down there but I wouldn't bloody risk it. There is nothing wrong with being on your guard. And that goes for men and women.

Sul

gordon_gekko wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

How dare you!!!! How ****ing dare you!! If you feel its ok to leave your children with strangers then that is your decision. But do not dare tell me how I keep my child safe is wrong. Or insinuate that I would be racist because of it.

More than ever we are told to be vigilant in protecting our children. It is common news every day that children are going missing and if I choose not to leave my child with a stranger or am that bit more protective of them that is my choice.

check out the faux indignation overdrive

Sorry but I dont take kindly to being told how I care for my child is wrong or being questioned about racism......

gordon_gekko

Sul wrote: »

Sorry but I dont take kindly to being told how I care for my child is wrong or being questioned about racism......

time to stop digging

Orion

dearg lady wrote: »

If anyone chose to open a men only gym I would also see no problem with so don't dare quote me and say 'bullcrap'

I call bull when I see bull. The fact is that a lot of women object to men only clubs but don't see the irony when defending women only clubs/hours/sections. When objecting to a statement it is customary to quote it for context - you don't need to take it so personally - it's certainly not meant personally.

Orion

Sul wrote: »

Your health insurance is also based on your age. The older you are the more you pay. Is that because you are at risk? Or because they are ageist?

It's not age based - that's what community rating is for. Everyone pays the same. This is the reason BUPA pulled out of Ireland as it had to compensate VHIn for having an older demographic.

Sul

Orion wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

Your health insurance is also based on your age. The older you are the more you pay. Is that because you are at risk? Or because they are ageist?

It's not age based - that's what community rating is for. Everyone pays the same. This is the reason BUPA pulled out of Ireland as it had to compensate VHIn for having an older demographic.

Thats 3 times ive been told that and ive apologised for my mistake... Anybody else want to tell me?

Orion

Sul wrote: »

Thats 3 times ive been told that and ive apologised for my mistake... Anybody else want to tell me?

Sorry - I posted before I'd read on.

The Corinthian

Sul wrote: »

I never said men were a threat. I said I could understand some parents position with regards to their children.

You're backtracking now. You actually said:

Sul wrote: »

As for the whole minding children issue well I dont think its really discrimination its just being safe.

You're clearly agreeing with those parents there, not simply understanding their position - I can understand their position too, but I can also state that it is both bigoted and mistaken.

Orion wrote: »

It's not age based - that's what community rating is for. Everyone pays the same. This is the reason BUPA pulled out of Ireland as it had to compensate VHIn for having an older demographic.

Interestingly women in some countries pay higher premiums than men for health insurance. This is because statistically women avail of doctors and medical treatment far more often than men and thus cost health insurance companies much more. I know they do not get charged more in Ireland, no doubt due to the cries of sexual discrimination that would inevitably come with such a move.

Sul

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

I never said men were a threat. I said I could understand some parents position with regards to their children.

You're backtracking now. You actually said:

Sul wrote: »

As for the whole minding children issue well I dont think its really discrimination its just being safe.

You're clearly agreeing with those parents there, not simply understanding their position - I can understand their position too, but I can also state that it is both bigoted and mistaken.

Orion wrote: »

It's not age based - that's what community rating is for. Everyone pays the same. This is the reason BUPA pulled out of Ireland as it had to compensate VHIn for having an older demographic.

Interestingly women in some countries pay higher premiums than men for health insurance. This is because statistically women avail of doctors and medical treatment far more often than men and thus cost health insurance companies much more. I know they do not get charged more in Ireland, no doubt due to the cries of sexual discrimination that would inevitably come with such a move.

Seriously???!! Now you are just nit picking. NOWHERE in that sentence are the words 'men are a threat', you are just reading what you want to read. Men, women, strangers, there are a lot of reasons in the world to protect your child. As I said I dont walk around ringing a bell and sticking labels on people but I keep my guard. There is nothing wrong with that.

The Corinthian

Sul wrote: »

Seriously???!! Now you are just nit picking. NOWHERE in that sentence are the words 'men are a threat', you are just reading what you want to read.

So treating men in such a discriminatory fashion so as to "just being safe" is not because they represent a threat? If they represent no threat, why bring up safety?

Men, women, strangers, there are a lot of reasons in the world to protect your child. As I said I dont walk around ringing a bell and sticking labels on people but I keep my guard. There is nothing wrong with that.

There is when it is based on nothing more than ill-advised prejudice and we are not talking about someone being 'on their guard' with regards to "men, women, strangers" only men in particular.

One can suggest that they will 'be on their guard' in the company of travellers or blacks with the same logic; statistically they are more likely to be criminals, ergo if you find yourself in their company then you can justify being 'on your guard'. Doesn't make you any less bigoted to do so if you do so for that reason.

It is this type of bigotry that means that I, as a man, am not allowed to sit next to children on many airlines unless related to them (women have no such restrictions) or why men simply do not get employed as primary school teachers any more and ultimately one reason why family law, with regards to children, is so biased against us.

So there's a lot wrong with it.

Zulu

I'm surprised no one has mentioned pensions yet, so here's another one to the list:
Pensions.

Women are entitled to the state pension 5 years before men, so men are forced to work longer. It's worth considering that they are seeking to push out this period, so men and women will have to work longer, however they are making no effort to equalise the gap.
This problem is compounded even further when you consider that women live longer lives, enjoying longer retirements, and greater pensions.

SEEMagazine

Haven't read past the first page but I have no problems admitting that an ex of mine was both physically, and emotionally, abusive towards me.

It took a long time after the split before my own family were able to see that I was the victim. And if I had defended myself, even with proportionality, I would likely have ended up behind bars.

Life is far less stressful now thankfully. I have Tomislav beer to keep me company when I have to work late.

eviltwin

I think men do have their own battles to fight re equality but they don't seem to have the same passion to fight them as women do. Most men I know would give a list of things they feel are unfair but won't fight them. Women weren't just given the rights we have, we had to fight long and hard for them. If men could get together and really push for their rights things would move quicker.

The Corinthian

eviltwin wrote: »

I think men do have their own battles to fight re equality but they don't seem to have the same passion to fight them as women do. Most men I know would give a list of things they feel are unfair but won't fight them. Women weren't just given the rights we have, we had to fight long and hard for them. If men could get together and really push for their rights things would move quicker.

I'd agree with this unfortunately. Outside of bellyaching on the Internet, like this, men really do not appear to be motivated at all. The few movements out there seem to be father's rights related and generally populated by only those who are affected directly, with only minor levels of support from without.

Of course, it does not help that equality bodies seem not to believe that there is even an issue with men's rights or that they are often dominated by feminist groups that are at best indifferent or even hostile to those issues, but even that does not excuse the complete lack of actual action by men.

I do think that 'bellyaching' does serve an important purpose in that it educates people to the fact that these issues exist; one of the big problems is that many still deny they do. However, there is a point (long past, IMO) when something more needs to be done.

After all, with the proposed reforms on guardianship (which will effectively remove all guardianship powers from both married and unmarried fathers) and gender quotas in politics further discriminating against men, the situation is not going to get better, only worse.

Zulu

How would you suggest men "fight for them"? Protest?

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

After all, with the proposed reforms on guardianship (which will effectively remove all guardianship powers from both married and unmarried fathers) and gender quotas in politics further discriminating against men, the situation is not going to get better, only worse.

It'll get a lot worse before people are motivated to make it better. Sadly society doesn't work together to iron out injustices, but rather elite groups selfishly looks after their own interests.

I don't agree that men need to get out there and fight for their cause. It really shouldn't be limited to "men" as a sex, but rather the treatment of people within our society. We shouldn't limit the cause of legitimate injustice to the victims. What is needed is a mature egalitarian approach, not a group of men protesting for men's rights... ...for, in the event of success, that will only leave us another elitist group depriving resources from more worthy causes.

eviltwin

Zulu wrote: »

How would you suggest men "fight for them"? Protest?

A lobby group? A lot of the big organisations that work on behalf of women started small, some were a few like minded people in a sitting room with a pen and paper but it was a start.

As for everyone fighting for men's rights...well I agree with that but good luck. For years women have fought against the inequality, still are, and very few men have backed us up. Its a bit much to expect women to help you along

But yeah you are right...if we start working towards the rights of everyone as a whole maybe we'll get somewhere...sadly its a fact of life certain things only seem to happen to certain people and as a result they are more likely to want to change it.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

How would you suggest men "fight for them"? Protest?

Recruit sympathetic journalists, lawyers, PR and other professionals. Raise finances to help fight test cases in employment and family law. Collect a list of all the laws that are still on the books that blatantly discriminate against men (such as those that specifically give harsher sentences) and start legal and awareness campaigns to overturn them. Name and shame companies and government bodies that practice discrimination. Set up a central body to promote men's rights and who actually knows how to write press releases and get stories published, rather than the collection of kitchen committees that presently represents the men's rights movement. Question every TD on their position on different Men's rights issues and then publish their responses (or lack thereof) with a copy of their voting history on related issues. Seek representation on equality bodies and in academia. Carry out and publish studies with regards to men's issues. Lobby TD's and senators to reform our archaic family law.

That's off the top of my head. Plenty can be done.

Zulu

eviltwin wrote: »

A lobby group?

Well, they're out there.

For years women have fought against the inequality, still are, and very few men have backed us up. Its a bit much to expect women to help you along

Injustices in our society should be overlooked on the grounds of gender. I don't expect women to help men, but I would have thought that mothers, sisters, & daughters would be concerned for how their sons, brothers, and fathers are treated.
My point is, I don't expect "women" to look out for "men", but I do want to live in a society that concerns itself with injustices visited upon its members.

But yeah you are right...if we start working towards the rights of everyone as a whole maybe we'll get somewhere....

Hopefully ...and if it means I've to work 5 years longer for you so that one day, our grandchildren will live equally promising lives, I ok with that.

Zulu

The Corinthian wrote: »

... rather than the collection of kitchen committees that presently represents the men's rights movement.

It has to start somewhere TC.

eviltwin

Zulu wrote: »

Well, they're out there.

Injustices in our society should be overlooked on the grounds of gender. I don't expect women to help men, but I would have thought that mothers, sisters, & daughters would be concerned for how their sons, brothers, and fathers are treated.
My point is, I don't expect "women" to look out for "men", but I do want to live in a society that concerns itself with injustices visited upon its members.

Hopefully ...and if it means I've to work 5 years longer for you so that one day, our grandchildren will live equally promising lives, I ok with that.

Tbh the only one I know is the Fathers Rights one and Amen but only cause I work in that area. They need a bigger profile.

I agree men's rights have a knock on effect on women but try its not as easy as that. I work for a women's charity and no man ever wants to talk to me! Its like because I represent women it doesn't have anything to do with him so thats the attitude you're up against. If anything I think women in particular would possibly see a men's right group as a threat. I know similar groups in the US are quite traditional in their values and its important not to get lumped in with that.

I think a lot of people would feel that men want more rights by denying women theirs.

The Corinthian

Zulu wrote: »

It has to start somewhere TC.

I don't have an issue with starting small, only with the incompetent, amateurish and personalized nature of many such kitchen committees. They have to grow up or become irrelevant.

eviltwin wrote: »

I think a lot of people would feel that men want more rights by denying women theirs.

Unfortunately that is inevitable. For example, women presently have close on a monopoly of rights over their children. To redress this would mean that women would lose some of these unfair rights, and even if unfair, there will be resistance to this from many quarters.

gizmo555

Zulu wrote: »

I'm surprised no one has mentioned pensions yet, so here's another one to the list:
Pensions.

Women are entitled to the state pension 5 years before men . . .

Probably no one mentioned it because it's not true.

Zulu

...oh I agree, it's part of the problem; it isn't helping the current men's groups. It compounds the problem of trying to achieve the likes of what TC posted.

Zulu

gizmo555 wrote: »

Probably no one mentioned it because it's not true.

You are correct.
Apologies, I should have stated in the UK, which is normalising the difference.