In what ways are men discriminated against?

The Corinthian

jaja321 wrote: »

I don't support a position where women should have a monopoly on choices. If there is an unplanned pregnancy then I think any decision should be joint. I've never alluded to any other position. All I was saying is that men can wear condoms in order to try and protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy. Just as women can use contraception. That's all I was saying.

Fair enough, but if so it is your position, not society's. It is like suggesting that women need not have the vote, because they can influence the vote of their husband or partner - I could equally suggest that I would decide together with my partner who 'we' will vote for, but that is still up to my own choose to allow my partner that right. And that is not good enough.

What I said was that parental leave, might be an avenue for making inways to change. That is all.

I disagree. It will be sold as a victory for father's rights, thus decreasing pressure for further reform, when in reality it does nothing for father's rights. Men would still have no rights to their children and act accordingly; time and time again we've only seen men actually taking more active roles in the raising of their children when they are afforded actual rights to do so, such as in Sweden - otherwise all you get is paternity leave that only a fraction of men will bother taking up.

To me the proposed changes to paternity leave and guardianship are almost steps backwards. The former for reasons I've already stated and the latter because as part of the reform, those few rights that existed through guardianship will actually be abolished. Things are not getting better for men in Ireland, they're actually getting worse.

I'm not trying to bestow any rights on my partner either with respect to caregiving. If we have children, he would be an equal parent.

You're not trying to but at present you have to; you hold all the cards, whether you want them or not. And for every mother who thinks like you there is another who will think the opposite and choose not to bestow those rights.

I accept that you are not actually disagreeing with me, but you need to look at the root cause for this inequality if you wish to address it and I think you've not yet done this. This is not your fault, it's just that often people cannot see the wood for the trees.

Atomicjuicer

The Corinthian wrote: »

The birth cert is not proof of paternity and there is no time limit on making such a claim.

What about the names on the birth cert?

jaja321

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, but if so it is your position, not society's. It is like suggesting that women need not have the vote, because they can influence the vote of their husband or partner - I could equally suggest that I would decide together with my partner who 'we' will vote for, but that is still up to my own choose to allow my partner that right. And that is not good enough.

I disagree. It will be sold as a victory for father's rights, thus decreasing pressure for further reform, when in reality it does nothing for father's rights. Men would still have no rights to their children and act accordingly; time and time again we've only seen men actually taking more active roles in the raising of their children when they are afforded actual rights to do so, such as in Sweden - otherwise all you get is paternity leave that only a fraction of men will bother taking up.

To me the proposed changes to paternity leave and guardianship are almost steps backwards. The former for reasons I've already stated and the latter because as part of the reform, those few rights that existed through guardianship will actually be abolished. Things are not getting better for men in Ireland, they're actually getting worse.

You're not trying to but at present you have to; you hold all the cards, whether you want them or not. And for every mother who thinks like you there is another who will think the opposite and choose not to bestow those rights.

I accept that you are not actually disagreeing with me, but you need to look at the root cause for this inequality if you wish to address it and I think you've not yet done this. This is not your fault, it's just that often people cannot see the wood for the trees.

You only quoted the part I said about parental leave - I said legislation needs to support fathers rights in fairness.

There are root causes for all kinds of discrimination/inequality. I'm not suggesting these shouldn't be addressed or that I have the answers at all, all I'm saying is that legilsation is one way to start changing things and attitudes over time. Anyway, I'm out, as I feel like I'm just going around in circles. :-)

The Corinthian

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

What about the names on the birth cert?

They're just names. Having a name on an Irish birth cert confers neither rights nor responsibilities in itself.

jaja321 wrote: »

There are root causes for all kinds of discrimination/inequality. I'm not suggesting these shouldn't be addressed or that I have the answers at all, all I'm saying is that legilsation is one way to start changing things and attitudes over time. Anyway, I'm out, as I feel like I'm just going around in circles. :-)

I accept this is what you're saying, I just disagree that it will do anything over time and if anything will slow down the pace of reform that could make a difference.

Jesus Wept

Dudess wrote: »

I agree with pretty much all of these, but comparing topless women to topless men? Lol

I don't see why not, it's just how we are conditioned to think.

Sul wrote: »

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...

Sul wrote: »

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....

Your posts are retarded. I'll be sure to invoke history and statistics to rationalise gender based discrimination you suffer in future.

Sul wrote: »

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.

You protect your children how you see fit, it may not be as effective as it could be but it will be how you see fit.

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, 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.

Are you sure that is the case in Ireland? I know it is the case in the UK (but It think they will be making changes.

I actually sent a few emails to Cineworld a couple of years ago challenging them as I noticed that there prices are different for men and women based on 'OAP status, Senior Citizen Women 60+ and Men 65+'.

They weren't understanding.

jaja321 wrote: »

He has the choice to wear a condom in fairness.

jaja321 wrote: »

I don't really see them as the same thing. He can still have sex, but just take responsibility for his actions, by using a condom. Isn't there also a new injectable contraception for men now too? I think it’s currently undergoing trials, but has been shown to be extremely effective and reversible.

BREAKING NEWS

Condoms are not always effective.

Stay tuned for further informative updates.

jaja321

Andy Carroll wrote: »

BREAKING NEWS

Condoms are not always effective.

Stay tuned for further informative updates.

Thanks for that amazing insight. And for reading the rest of what I posted.

Jesus Wept

Ivana Bacik's posts are retarded too, in fact I think they are psychotic.

jaja321 wrote: »

Thanks for that amazing insight. And for reading the rest of what I posted.

I did, you said more than once.

jaja321

Andy Carroll wrote: »

Ivana Bacik's posts are retarded too, in fact I think they are psychotic.



I did, you said more than once.

I said men can wear condoms in order to try and protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy. Just as women can use contraception.

SugarHigh

jaja321 wrote: »

I don't support a position where women should have a monopoly on choices. If there is an unplanned pregnancy then I think any decision should be joint. I've never alluded to any other position.

How does that work?

If a woman wants to go to England for an abortion what can the man do about it? Can he stop her or sue her afterwards? The decision can't really be joint can it?

In England what if the man wants an abortion and the women doesn't?

Their decision will never be joint unless they happened to agree with each other in the first place.

coffee_cake

Zulu wrote: »

This problem is compounded even further when you consider that women live longer lives, enjoying longer retirements, and greater pensions.

Annuity costs for women are more expensive because of longevity

jaja321

SugarHigh wrote: »

How does that work?

If a woman wants to go to England for an abortion what can the man do about it? Can he stop her or sue her afterwards? The decision can't really be joint can it?

In England what if the man wants an abortion and the women doesn't?

Their decision will never be joint unless they happened to agree with each other in the first place.

Yeah that’s fair enough. I guess I was saying that I don’t buy into this whole idea that women should have sole control of the decision that is made, which some people believe.

Aswerty

bluewolf wrote: »

Annuity costs for women are more expensive because of longevity

Annuity rates are being changed just like the car insurance as far as I'm aware.

coffee_cake

I see that now, though I've heard no talk of it. That's daft...

Aswerty

bluewolf wrote: »

I see that now, though I've heard no talk of it. That's daft...

It got some air time when the car insurance changes came out but wasn't nearly as big a story in the medias eyes. I'm going to be honest and say I'm not sure how annuity rates work but I don't see how insurance based gender discrimination is fair. Average life spans mean very little to individuals so why would their quotes be subjective to the average figure. If a man dies at 100 and a woman at 60 what does the average life span mean to them?

coffee_cake

Aswerty wrote: »

It got some air time when the car insurance changes came out but wasn't nearly as big a story in the medias eyes. I'm going to be honest and say I'm not sure how annuity rates work but I don't see how insurance based gender discrimination is fair. Average life spans mean very little to individuals so why would their quotes be subjective to the average figure. If a man dies at 100 and a woman at 60 what does the average life span mean to them?

That's the risk of buying one out, all right.
It's split up because of the cost to the company in paying out a pension longer than expected, balanced with the fact you obviously can't charge a lot more than you expect someone to live. You look at how long they're expected to live on average, how much you expect to pay out over the period, any expenses etc, and there you go.

the_syco

jaja321 wrote: »

Isn't there also a new injectable contraception for men now too? I think it’s currently undergoing trials, but has been shown to be extremely effective and reversible.

You're referring to a form of vasectomy.

Aswerty

bluewolf wrote: »

That's the risk of buying one out, all right.
It's split up because of the cost to the company in paying out a pension longer than expected, balanced with the fact you obviously can't charge a lot more than you expect someone to live. You look at how long they're expected to live on average, how much you expect to pay out over the period, any expenses etc, and there you go.

Sounds fairly straight forward but the issue is that using gender as a criteria in generating the average is no longer allowed because it is considered discriminatory. Similarly using race or skin colour as a criteria would be considered discrimination.

Maguined

jaja321 wrote: »

Yeah that’s fair enough. I guess I was saying that I don’t buy into this whole idea that women should have sole control of the decision that is made, which some people believe.

Don't we all believe that? I think most people would agree with women having sole control of the decision however it's the consequences and responsibilities that result in her decision that people would differ on.

I don't know anyone that would suggest if a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to abort but the man does not that the women should be forced into continuing with the pregnancy. The only suggestion I have ever heard is the removal of future responsibility from a man who does not want to be a father if the woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy and keep the child. The man cannot over ride the woman's decision regarding the pregnancy, only his future responsibility of her decision.

Aswerty

I think the following link is the male contraception in question:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090505/male_injection_090505/

As discussed in the bastion of truth and righteousness:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055556880

Aswerty

Maguined wrote: »

Don't we all believe that? I think most people would agree with women having sole control of the decision however it's the consequences and responsibilities that result in her decision that people would differ on.

I don't know anyone that would suggest if a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to abort but the man does not that the women should be forced into continuing with the pregnancy. The only suggestion I have ever heard is the removal of future responsibility from a man who does not want to be a father if the woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy and keep the child. The man cannot over ride the woman's decision regarding the pregnancy, only his future responsibility of her decision.

Yes I've seen the idea bandied around and I think there is a lot of merit to it. A legal abortion that allows a father to abdicate all rights :pac: and responsibilities to his offspring to be. The time window for enacting a legal abortion would coincide with the time period a natural abortion could take place.

jaja321

the_syco wrote: »

You're referring to a form of vasectomy.

http://techcitement.com/culture/the-best-birth-control-in-the-world-is-for-men/

I actually think it would be a great way for men to be able to control their fertility.

jaja321

Maguined wrote: »

Don't we all believe that? I think most people would agree with women having sole control of the decision however it's the consequences and responsibilities that result in her decision that people would differ on.

I don't know anyone that would suggest if a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to abort but the man does not that the women should be forced into continuing with the pregnancy. The only suggestion I have ever heard is the removal of future responsibility from a man who does not want to be a father if the woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy and keep the child. The man cannot over ride the woman's decision regarding the pregnancy, only his future responsibility of her decision.

Just meant that it should be consultative. Often times decisions are made without any consultation. Both parties have a right to input is what I'm saying.

Pawwed Rig

Maguined wrote: »

Don't we all believe that? I think most people would agree with women having sole control of the decision however it's the consequences and responsibilities that result in her decision that people would differ on.

I don't know anyone that would suggest if a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to abort but the man does not that the women should be forced into continuing with the pregnancy. The only suggestion I have ever heard is the removal of future responsibility from a man who does not want to be a father if the woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy and keep the child. The man cannot over ride the woman's decision regarding the pregnancy, only his future responsibility of her decision.

Well there have been women prevented from travelling for an abortion in the past. So historically they didn't have sole control. If the government ever introduce the A case legislation it will be the sole choice of the woman. Without going into a whole abortion thread it would be tough on a man who wanted a baby and having no control when the woman decides to terminate. Might be a solution if either party up to a certain point in the pregnancy could give up their rights in favour of the other. Would be a mess to enforce though

Zulu

jaja321 wrote: »

Just meant that it should be consultative. Often times decisions are made without any consultation. Both parties have a right to input is what I'm saying.

How does that work? (not having a go here, but...) "Consultative" is pretty useless to the man who's child is about to be killed/destroyed. Or for that matter for the man who's about to be signed up to a couple of decades financal support. It's lip service.

jaja321

Zulu wrote: »

How does that work? (not having a go here, but...) "Consultative" is pretty useless to the man who's child is about to be killed/destroyed. Or for that matter for the man who's about to be signed up to a couple of decades financal support. It's lip service.

I’m just saying that in some cases decisions are made without any consultation or even knowing, let alone considering, how the other person feels about a situation. The ultimate decision of what to do about a pregnancy is pretty much always going to be the woman’s, because it is the woman who has to carry the baby, and give birth. As another poster said though, joint decisions can be made about responsibilities and consequences coming out of that decision. Please don’t use words like kill in relation to abortion though, it’s pretty inflammatory.

Maguined

jaja321 wrote: »

Just meant that it should be consultative. Often times decisions are made without any consultation. Both parties have a right to input is what I'm saying.

I just wanted to point out the difference between "control" and "input". Giving input is not a right however, if you became pregnant and you decided to consult with your partner and listen to their input you are being generous and giving them a privilege as they have no right, he has no right to even be told he is potentially going to be a father. No matter how much you consult with your partner and how much input you listen to from them as the women you will still have total and abject control over the pregnancy (which I completely agree with) it's the consequences of this decision and the lack of control men have in these consequential responsibilities that I disagree with.

Zulu

jaja321 wrote: »

I’m just saying that in some cases

...ah no I appricate that, however I'm just pointing out that it's precious little in fairness. As I'm sure you also appricate.

jaja321 wrote: »

Please don’t use words like kill in relation to abortion though, it’s pretty inflammatory.

Terminate/destroy/kill. Whatever. It's all the same.

Maguined

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Well there have been women prevented from travelling for an abortion in the past. So historically they didn't have sole control. If the government ever introduce the A case legislation it will be the sole choice of the woman. Without going into a whole abortion thread it would be tough on a man who wanted a baby and having no control when the woman decides to terminate. Might be a solution if either party up to a certain point in the pregnancy could give up their rights in favour of the other. Would be a mess to enforce though

If either party could give up their rights this would be voluntary and so there would be nothing to enforce?

jaja321

Zulu wrote: »

...ah no I appricate that, however I'm just pointing out that it's precious little in fairness. As I'm sure you also appricate.

Terminate/destroy/kill. Whatever. It's all the same.

Just saying that people reading that, who may have direct experience of it, may find that terminology really unhelpful. I don’t want to get into an ethical debate about abortion though.

tripe man

If you're a female and you're unattractive, you get an unlimited supply of guys fawning at your feet. If you're a male and you're unattractive, prepare to be treated like nothing less than a cockroach by women.