In what ways are men discriminated against?

Sauve

amacachi wrote: »

I'll thank you not to call me a troll again. If we're going with the logic of "private parts" then why are different "private parts" treated so differently?

Fair enough.
Cleavage is not 'private'. Full boob is. Some things may not make sense, but they are the way they are.
Some body parts are considered to be acceptable to show, others aren't. It's just the way our culture has evolved and developed.

dearg lady

Orion wrote: »

Bullcrap. If there was a men only gym there'd be a court case to shut it down. No call for either.

As for that women's hour - I'd demand to know when they have their men's hours or else deduct the cost of those weekly hours from the membership fee for men.

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'

KKkitty

Men are made lift heavy stuff more often than not.
If a man is with his own kids in a park he can't freely take a picture in case another persons child gets into the photo.
Mens insurance is higher than womens.
If a man gets dumped he's meant to take it on the chin and move on.
Mens emotions should always be hidden for fear of a sign of weakness.

Panthro

Folks, lets keep the dicussion on topic and civil.

amacachi

Sauve wrote: »

Fair enough.
Cleavage is not 'private'. Full boob is. Some things may not make sense, but they are the way they are.
Some body parts are considered to be acceptable to show, others aren't. It's just the way our culture has evolved and developed.

What about side-boob? I'm not being facetious here, the whole thing surrounding what is and isn't acceptable with breasts is just odd to me.

Sauve

amacachi wrote: »

What about side-boob? I'm not being facetious here, the whole thing surrounding what is and isn't acceptable with breasts is just odd to me.

That ones probably down to personal choice. Depends how risqué the woman is willing to go, and the social setting.
There is no 'right or wrong' when it comes to boobs as far as I can make out.

smallBiscuit

amacachi wrote: »

I still don't understand why it's not ok for me to have 30% of my ballsack on show and be offended if someone looks at it.

Like this?





An interesting question I think is who discriminates against men. If you think about it, you'll find it's men who discriminate against men. In the case of the law courts the laws which were mainly written by men and the judgements, again mainly by men favour the women ahead of men.
This, I think shows we (society) haven't advanced as much as you'd think. Despite what is said, deep down we still think of men as being big and strong and hard, and women as being smaller and weaker.

This is something I'm sure most guys have experienced or have even thought, but women thinking that every guy is a potential stalker/sexual predator. Most guys would know the scenario; you're walking quite innocently to somewhere like, say, the shop and a woman walks in front of you and just so happens to be walking in the same direction as you. There have been many instances where women would constantly glance over their shoulder and many-a-time I would have to change direction, just because.

Now, I'm not saying women shouldn't be wary - Lord no, there are a lot of sick people out there. But during the day? In a public place?

Sul

smallBiscuit wrote: »

amacachi wrote: »

I still don't understand why it's not ok for me to have 30% of my ballsack on show and be offended if someone looks at it.

Like this?





An interesting question I think is who discriminates against men. If you think about it, you'll find it's men who discriminate against men. In the case of the law courts the laws which were mainly written by men and the judgements, again mainly by men favour the women ahead of men.
This, I think shows we (society) haven't advanced as much as you'd think. Despite what is said, deep down we still think of men as being big and strong and hard, and women as being smaller and weaker.

Thank you! Generally it is men who discriminate against men. All those laws were made by men too. The reason why car insurance is generally cheaper for women is because (and you lads might not like this) men have more accidents and drive more recklessly than women. Its not discrimination, its the insurer looking out for their money!!
Women only gyms or hours are there because there is more demand for women who dont want to mix with the opposite sex. There are more women who are more insecure about wearing a swimming costume in from of men so thats why its there. It could also be a religious thing in your area too. Ask the gym. Also those particular women may pay an extra charge for using the gym for those 2 evenings a week. Im sure if you and a gang of fellas from the gym asked for a men only hour you'd probably get one as the gym will most likely want to keep customers happy.

As for the whole minding children issue well I dont think its really discrimination its just being safe. More and more we hear of these horrible stories that parents just cant help but worry. A lot of these crimes are about power and aggression and we are just programmed to see males as being the powerful, dominant aggressive ones. Its history. I dont look at every man as a potential sexual preditor but I would be a little more cautious and wary of them if walking on my own. Its society too im afraid. I would find it a bit hard to engage in a conversation with a strange man in a pub and give him my number. Id have to get to know him, know his friends, before I could contemplate going on a date. Its just the way things are now, you can never be too safe...

sharper

KKkitty wrote: »

If a man gets dumped he's meant to take it on the chin and move on.

The difference here is that men tend not to build a network of emotional support whereas women do. Men often get all their emotional support from their partner so when the relationship ends they have nothing to fall back on. Stereotyping demands they react by going out, getting drunk having a wild time etc.

Much as women took ownership of how they should be perceived by society and how they should behave men will have to do the same and reject notions of what it is to be a man.

G-Money

The parental leave is one where there's huge disadvantages if you are a man. I used to live in a Scandinavian country and the man got something like 10 weeks paid paternity leave. I'm not 100% sure but I think they also had some sort of system where the leave could be split between the mother and father. The mother would get 6 months paid leave and could take another 6 months I believe after that, although I can't remember if the subsequent 6 months was fully paid, part-paid or unpaid.

My guess is that here it's a case of "that's just the way it is" and it's unlikely to change in the near future. I know in England I think there have been a few demonstrations and guys trying to enhance the rights of fathers but I don't know if they have had much luck in changing the law.

What is the law regarding paying child maintenance here? Is there one? Are there legal obligations on the father to pay money? If so, I was thinking it would be interesting if the amount/percentage he had to pay reflected the rights he had in law as the childs father.

I'm not aware of any sort of group here trying to get the law changed to enhance father's rights, but that doesn't mean there is one.

I'm not familiar with divorce law but I don't see why the less well off partner (male or female) is entitled to half or a large part of the other's money and so on. It should be a case where if the marriage ends, each takes out what they brought into the relationship to begin with, I guess with some flexibility to cover certain expenses and the like.

As for female only gyms, I've no problem with them at all and I'd imagine most other guys don't care either and wouldn't want to join one anyway. Although I imagine if a male only gym was opened there'd be more than one complaint about it. But maybe I'm just being cynical.

Sul

If there was a man only gym opened in a town where there are no other gym facilities then yes id have to question it. But there are dozens of gyms where I live so I wouldn't have a problem if one was to open here. Id just go to another gym. Sometimes these types of gyms are opened to tailor to a specific type of training as well.

aujopimur

Deleted User wrote: »

Something has been on my mind recently. A lot of nights out I would get felt up by random women. Nothing much and it doesn't bother me as such. But you can be damned sure that if I did something similar to women, walking up to and feeling them up, there would be uproar.

I have to feel myself up these days, where would I find these random women, I hav'nt been felt up in about 40 years.

Galwayguy35

There was a debate on the radio a few weeks ago that if a 15 year old boy and a 16 year old girl have sex under the law the boy could be prosecuted under the law but nothing would be done to the girl even though they might be boyfriend and girlfriend. A spokesperson for a womans group said that she was in favour of this. This does not seem fair to me.

Pawwed Rig

Sul wrote: »

All those laws were made by men too. The reason why car insurance is generally cheaper for women is because (and you lads might not like this) men have more accidents and drive more recklessly than women. Its not discrimination, its the insurer looking out for their money!

It is discrimination as it discriminates against a man for the actions of other men. To pish the point further if it was found that gay men are more likely to have ac cidents than straight men, then would it be alright to charge higher premiums for gay people? Or if black people were found statistically to be more likely to have an accident could be further have an extra premium for them? A person (yes a person) should be judged on their own behaviour and not on what they are statisically more likely to do. For example alot more men play sports in Ireland than women do. Do we see a corresponding reduction in health insurance costs for men? Of course not.

Sul wrote: »

As for the whole minding children issue well I dont think its really discrimination its just being safe. More and more we hear of these horrible stories that parents just cant help but worry.

This is a disgusting comment. What you are saying is that we should treat half of the population as potential sex offenders "just in case"??



On another point female prisoners in Mountjoy are not allowed be referred to as prisoners whereas the male ones are. Also the women are treated in a softer manner than the male prisoners.

Sul

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

All those laws were made by men too. The reason why car insurance is generally cheaper for women is because (and you lads might not like this) men have more accidents and drive more recklessly than women. Its not discrimination, its the insurer looking out for their money!

It is discrimination as it discriminates against a man for the actions of other men. To pish the point further if it was found that gay men are more likely to have ac cidents than straight men, then would it be alright to charge higher premiums for gay people? Or if black people were found statistically to be more likely to have an accident could be further have an extra premium for them? A person (yes a person) should be judged on their own behaviour and not on what they are statisically more likely to do. For example alot more men play sports in Ireland than women do. Do we see a corresponding reduction in health insurance costs for men? Of course not.

Sul wrote: »

As for the whole minding children issue well I dont think its really discrimination its just being safe. More and more we hear of these horrible stories that parents just cant help but worry.

This is a disgusting comment. What you are saying is that we should treat half of the population as potential sex offenders "just in case"??



On another point female prisoners in Mountjoy are not allowed be referred to as prisoners whereas the male ones are. Also the women are treated in a softer manner than the male prisoners.

I am certainly not saying that we should treat the opposite sex as potential sex offenders!!! I am simply stating that because of the stories that are out their parents are naturally going to be on their guard.

Women can be sex offenders too. I would be wary of my child around all strangers and people I didnt know too well!!

As for the car insurance, ok I would agree that you could call it discrimination. But its insurance. No company is going to give life insurance to a person who jumps out of a plane every day for a living....and if you are a first time driver how are they to know what you are like behind the wheel? They base their policies on statistics. The more you drive with out accident the lower your insurance goes. But they have to start with something and safeguard their money....

The Corinthian

Sul wrote: »

Thank you! Generally it is men who discriminate against men. All those laws were made by men too.

Yes and no. Most of these laws were made in tandem with other laws that also discriminated against women too. The last half century in particular though all of the latter have been repealed or struck off, but the former have remained. And given that women have been democratically enfranchised during this period, they can hardly claim innocence at this selective reform, any more than men can.

The reason why car insurance is generally cheaper for women is because (and you lads might not like this) men have more accidents and drive more recklessly than women. Its not discrimination, its the insurer looking out for their money!!

So you would agree with laws that protect women from discrimination in the workplace if they are of childbearing age or pregnant should be dropped? After all, that's just the employer is looking out for their money too.

Women only gyms or hours are there because there is more demand for women who dont want to mix with the opposite sex.

Unfortunately, it's not so simple. There was demand for men who didn't want to mix with the opposite sex too in golf clubs, but apparently that was not acceptable. So the demand argument alone does not cut it.

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

Ahh... the old all men are rapists argument. If we are to damn all men on the basis of stereotypes, then by all means women should remain in the home, given as a large number of them do so. That a woman may not want to or be suited to it is irrelevant; them's the statistics.

Of course, if we were to follow your 'better safe than sorry' approach, women who do abuse children (and it's not so small a number as you might think) would go ignored. Or if caught suffer a lesser sentience by law than a man would.

Assuming it's a crime anyway - after all, if a 13 year old boy has sex with his 14 year old girlfriend, he may be legally charged - she cannot.

Pawwed Rig

Sul wrote: »

As for the car insurance, ok I would agree that you could call it discrimination. But its insurance. No company is going to give life insurance to a person who jumps out of a plane every day for a living....and if you are a first time driver how are they to know what you are like behind the wheel? They base their policies on statistics. The more you drive with out accident the lower your insurance goes. But they have to start with something and safeguard their money....

So the initial assumption about a first time driver is that the man is worse than the girl which is discriminatory. They base their policies on statistics that they can get away with discriminating against ie the man rather than a stat based on any other demographic ie race. (ignoring age which is another discussion).
Also I think you will find even with say 10 years with no accidents a womens policy will still be cheaper. Explain that?

Sul

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.

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....

I never said all men are rapists or used it as an argument. But people (parents both mother and father) have the right to protect their children and themselves. I am well aware of the amount of women who are sexual predators or who are part of such pedophile rings..i dont need to be told. As I said above I would be wary of my children around both...excuse me for wanting to stay safe!!

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?

Sul

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

As for the car insurance, ok I would agree that you could call it discrimination. But its insurance. No company is going to give life insurance to a person who jumps out of a plane every day for a living....and if you are a first time driver how are they to know what you are like behind the wheel? They base their policies on statistics. The more you drive with out accident the lower your insurance goes. But they have to start with something and safeguard their money....

So the initial assumption about a first time driver is that the man is worse than the girl which is discriminatory. They base their policies on statistics that they can get away with discriminating against ie the man rather than a stat based on any other demographic ie race. (ignoring age which is another discussion).
Also I think you will find even with say 10 years with no accidents a womens policy will still be cheaper. Explain that?

Its not an assumption, they base it on the statistic. If you are a smoker looking for life insurance obviously it would be higher than someone who does not smoke. Young male drivers are more likely to crash. Thats the statistic out there.

I dont work in insurance so I cant answer your question....

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?