In what ways are men discriminated against?

Maguined

tripe man wrote: »

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.

Attraction is not discriminatory, it's not really a choice, you are either attracted to someone or you are not. Also you do not have a right to be found attracted by someone so it's a non issue.

tripe man

Maguined wrote: »

Attraction is not discriminatory, it's not really a choice, you are either attracted to someone or you are not. Also you do not have a right to be found attracted by someone so it's a non issue.

What tripe. Why does someone's rights have to be involved in order for them to be being discriminated against? Russian women do not discriminate against me for my looks, Irish women do, plain and simple. It's not human nature, just this misandric country.

coffee_cake

sod off to russia and stop bitching then

Maguined

tripe man wrote: »

What tripe. Why does someone's rights have to be involved in order for them to be being discriminated against? Russian women do not discriminate against me for my looks, Irish women do, plain and simple. It's not human nature, just this misandric country.

So because Irish women don't find you attractive they are misandric? So are you a misandrist because you don't find Irish men attractive? Is your sexual preference of heterosexuality discriminatory?

Care to answer my questions? Would you date a women you found unattractive? You have formed a deep and rewarding emotional connection with these 18 year olds online?

TONY DAY

Ever notice on Tv (especially British soap operas) when a Women decides to break up with her husband/boy friend its because he was a prick to her!!
And if i man breaks up with his Wife/Girlfriend its because he is a prick!!
A lot of women i know actually believe this. They can never see that maybe it's the womans fault for the break up.
As Jack Nicholsons character said in "As Good as it Gets"!! When he writes female characters he "thinks of a man and takes away reason and accountability"!! How true!!

The Corinthian

SugarHigh wrote: »

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

Presuming they don't change their mind, which women can and sometimes do. Fertility is just another area where men are discriminated against in law, IMHO.

tripe man wrote: »

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.

That may be discrimination based on looks, but hardly gender. And if Irish men are fawning at the feet of ugly women, it's typically because they're drunk.

As Brendan Behan once said; "I've never gone to bed with an ugly woman, but by God I've woken up with a few".

This thread is going off course methinks.

TONY DAY

Serious question here. Does anybody believe that the current trend of "Men Bashing" is anyway linked to the fact there proportionately more Men are likely to commit suicide than Women?

Pawwed Rig

Maguined wrote: »

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

Was thinking more if say the woman tells the man he can have it early on where all is agreed etc and then decides later that she has changed her mind. Who would win the court case? I would guess the child would be awarded to the mother regardless of agreements/contracts.

I believe it has happened before in relation to surrogacy (no source for that though)

Pawwed Rig

Maguined wrote: »

Attraction is not discriminatory, it's not really a choice, you are either attracted to someone or you are not. Also you do not have a right to be found attracted by someone so it's a non issue.

Have to say I was gonna bring up this point aswell. Women tend to get treated better by both men and women than men do.
For example when a woman starts a job she will be taken in by the group of girls and welcomed. The men in the office will make an effort to introduce themselves and pass the time of day, especially if it is a preety woman). Men have more trouble initially fitting in in a new environment. Women aren't as welcoming in that they assume he will be looked after by 'the guys' whereas the mean can be standoffish.

I realise these are gross generalisations but I have found that to be the case in some environments I have worked in.

bluewolf wrote: »

sod off to russia and stop bitching then

Not very constructive.

TONY DAY wrote: »

Serious question here. Does anybody believe that the current trend of "Men Bashing" is anyway linked to the fact there proportionately more Men are likely to commit suicide than Women?

Absolutely.

miec

So men must use contraception and take responsibility for their actions, while women have need not use contraception as they still have 'choices'? As I said, I don't buy that.

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is that if a man does not want to be a father then it is up to him to take the steps to ensure he does not become one.

I say this for a number of reasons. It is a fact but very unfair that if a woman gets pregnant then she gets to decide if she aborts the child or keeps it. That is a fact because men do not carry babies in their bodies, women do. As such this puts the deciding factor on having a child to the woman.

If a man does not want a child, he has to take steps to ensure he does not get the woman pregnant, it is the only piece of control he has and the only method of contraception available to a man is a condom. He can also use the withdrawal method or not come at all. The condom is probably the best out of them all. Not 100% guaranteed but about the best. There is one other thing he can and that is meet / have sex with a woman who does not want children and who is clear on this factor because she will ensure she does not get pregnant by using contraceptive or getting sterilised.

It may not be fair but it is how things are.

Galwayguy35

miec wrote: »

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is that if a man does not want to be a father then it is up to him to take the steps to ensure he does not become one.

I say this for a number of reasons. It is a fact but very unfair that if a woman gets pregnant then she gets to decide if she aborts the child or keeps it. That is a fact because men do not carry babies in their bodies, women do. As such this puts the deciding factor on having a child to the woman.

If a man does not want a child, he has to take steps to ensure he does not get the woman pregnant, it is the only piece of control he has and the only method of contraception available to a man is a condom. He can also use the withdrawal method or not come at all. The condom is probably the best out of them all. Not 100% guaranteed but about the best. There is one other thing he can and that is meet / have sex with a woman who does not want children and who is clear on this factor because she will ensure she does not get pregnant by using contraceptive or getting sterilised.

It may not be fair but it is how things are.

Even if a man uses condoms there are cases where the woman can become pregnant. And a man is held liable for a baby that he may not want if the woman keeps the baby, and he will also have to contribute financially if she decides this. But the bottom line is men have to accept this because thats just how it is, thats what you are saying.
I wonder if i went on the Ladies Lounge and told them to accept things cos thats just how it is what would happen?

shopaholic01

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Even if a man uses condoms there are cases where the woman can become pregnant. And a man is held liable for a baby that he may not want if the woman keeps the baby, and he will also have to contribute financially if she decides this. But the bottom line is men have to accept this because thats just how it is, thats what you are saying.
I wonder if i went on the Ladies Lounge and told them to accept things cos thats just how it is what would happen?

No need to go to the ladies lounge! Unfortunately it is true. I know women who have gotten pregnant because their partners believed they were taking the pill. Men in this situation have two choices
1. Pay maintenance and see the child.
2. Pay maintence and don't see the child. Spend the rest of your life being called a pr**k.

If a pregnancy is accidental the woman can decide whether or not to continue with the pregnancy. You never hear of women being dragged kicking and screaming into an abortion clinic.

Only way to avoid this is to use a condom.

Zulu

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Only way to avoid this is to use a condom.

If someone is devious to lie about taking the pill...

sharper

tripe man wrote: »

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.

It's a bit difficult to parse out your meaning since attractiveness is a subjective concept. A woman that has men fawning at her feet for any reason can't be considered unattractive since obviously something is attracting them.

I will say that male physical preferences tend to be more widely distributed than female ones. If you take any particular attribute there are good odds that there are at least some men attracted to it e.g. men on average prefer a woman that's shorter than them but there are men that are attracted to taller women or are neutral about it. Women overwhelmingly prefer taller men even where they themselves are quite tall. A shorter male will have a very hard time whereas a taller female will experience problems satisfying her own preferences not necessarily those of other men.

(I'm average/slightly above average height, I'm not complaining about my own treatment just using it as an example).

However women are also more likely to consider a range of attributes which contribute to status. The classic examples are guys with wealth and power but more realistically guys that have obtained popularity or stature for whatever reason e.g. being in a band. Women that fall outside the societal norms for attractiveness of the era are more likely to have their competence judged by that and find it more difficult to achieve success, if they do achieve it then it doesn't contribute to attractiveness quite as much as for men.

(women that are "too attractive" are also likely to be overwhelmingly judged by this and not be taken seriously, seen only as attractive).

Shorter version: The grass always looks greener on the other side.

It's not really a rights issue but it does go back to how society views men and women, something from which many rights issues stem.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

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.

Just to say: one could also have community rating and still have men paying lower premiums on average: by having one common rate for men and one common rate for women. But, like you say, unlike with motor insurance, it didn't happen and men didn't benefit.

The Corinthian

miec wrote: »

It may not be fair but it is how things are.

That is how things currently are; there is no reason to simply accept it.

After all, that it is "how things are" did not deter those who fought to end Apartheid, or for civil rights in the US, or for female emancipation, despite this same logic being cited. If something is not 'fair' or is unjust you go and change it, not passively accept it as immutable.

jaffacakesyum

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is how things currently are; there is no reason to simply accept it.

After all, that it is "how things are" did not deter those who fought to end Apartheid, or for civil rights in the US, or for female emancipation, despite this same logic being cited. If something is not 'fair' or is unjust you go and change it, not passively accept it as immutable.

Agreed. Apologies as I haven't read the whole thread but I'm just dipping in to add my two cents.

I think there's several areas in which men are discriminated against, the main ones being fathers rights and the ridiculous law where a male teenager can get convicted for statuatory rape and the girl isn't, when it's all consensual.

Anyway, I think there is a lot of work that can be done for mens rights but I think the main thing restricting any advances is men themselves. I've ONLY ever seen mens rights being discussed on here - no men I know in real life are bothered. And I have several friends who would be active in other areas, be interested in politics and social advancement etc.

I see a lot of men on boards.ie complaining about inequality but why aren't they doing anything about it? Women had to fight for sooo long for their rights. They didn't just sit back and watch a man try and fight for their rights, yet the impression I get on here a lot of the time is 'oi, you women...you have more rights then men in x, y and z area. Fix it'

I think what would be great is if there were a joint movement for men and womens rights/equality. Does anyone know of any such movement? I know there is gender equality societies and the like, but admittedly, they mainly focus on feminist issues. I think the problem is though that a lot of men don't agree with some of the remaining feminist issues (such as unequal pay). But then again, maybe there are women who don't agree with more rights for fathers? It's a shame as I really think if both genders worked together, a lot could be done for society

iptba

One point that I don't think has been raised* is that men aren't given an automatic right to know if they are the biological parent of a child.

Big efforts are made in hospitals to make sure that babies aren't mixed up. If there has been a mix-up, blood tests will be run to check whether the child is a woman's or not. It is seen as terrible that a child could be given to the wrong mother.

However, the same can't be said about ensuring a man is a child's father. Labs and professionals here will not run a paternity test without the mother's permission, or a court order/similar.

Blood could even been used from the sample taken at birth to test for other conditions.

Many men would like to be sure it is their child. However, raising the issue risks ruining the relationship with woman. Also, because of the way the laws are, even if the relationship with the mother is not ongoing, a man can be reluctant to ask as this could jeopardise how much access she lets him have/similar. He can't simply ask for the test without her knowledge.

More testing for paternity at birth or in the early stages would also increase the chances that the child knows the correct biological parent. Knowledge of your parentage is useful for medical decisions, including risk factors for diseases. It can even be useful for decisions about having children e.g. with genetic counselling, also, people try to avoid having children with somebody who is closely related biologically to themselves, but if you don't know your correct parent, this might have.

It could also help the child as men might take more interest in a child if they were more certain it was their biological child, particularly if they are no longer with the mother.

* I wasn't sure what point was being made by one post

gizmo555

iptba wrote: »

Blood could even been used from the sample taken at birth to test for other conditions.

That would not be possible under data protection law, as the purpose for which the samples are collected is to test for certain congenital illnesses and nothing else.

There is some controversy at present because after discussion with the Data Protection Commissioner, the Minister for Health has ordered the destruction of over 1 million blood samples collected since 1984. The medical authorities had been keeping them indefinitely for "research", but what has clearly been established is that the samples concerned can only be used for bona fide health screening purposes of the individual babies concerned, and nothing else.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Big efforts are made in hospitals to make sure that babies aren't mixed up. If there has been a mix-up, blood tests will be run to check whether the child is a woman's or not. It is seen as terrible that a child could be given to the wrong mother.

However, the same can't be said about ensuring a man is a child's father. Labs and professionals here will not run a paternity test without the mother's permission, or a court order/similar.

I had never thought about this, but you do make a fair point, given that however small the incidence of paternity fraud, it does exist and is almost certainly many times larger than the incidence of maternity mix-ups.

As you say, making such tests even voluntary or on request would cause conflict in the parental relationship and may even be rejected by the alleged father out of pride of not wanting to be seen as a cuckold. The most diplomatic means of dealing with this issue would be an automatic test shortly after birth, when the infant is being tested for other conditions.

jaffacakesyum

The Corinthian wrote: »

I had never thought about this, but you do make a fair point, given that however small the incidence of paternity fraud, it does exist and is almost certainly many times larger than the incidence of maternity mix-ups.

As you say, making such tests even voluntary or on request would cause conflict in the parental relationship and may even be rejected by the alleged father out of pride of not wanting to be seen as a cuckold. The most diplomatic means of dealing with this issue would be an automatic test shortly after birth, when the infant is being tested for other conditions.

How expensive would this be though? I know it's a simple test but these things cost money. Would it be economical to test every single child that's born in Ireland for the sake of a man's pride because he doesn't want to ruin the relationship by asking for the test?

Just a thought.

Sauve

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

How expensive would this be though? I know it's a simple test but these things cost money. Would it be economical to test every single child that's born in Ireland for the sake of a man's pride because he doesn't want to ruin the relationship by asking for the test?

Just a thought.

In fairness though, if a man feels the need to ask for a paternity test in the first place, that would indicate to me that the relationship is already ruined.

Galvasean

iptba wrote: »

However, the same can't be said about ensuring a man is a child's father. Labs and professionals here will not run a paternity test without the mother's permission, or a court order/similar.

Tell me about it. An old friend of mine had his life destroyed after an ex partner of his whom he had a child with told him the child wasn't his and refused to allow him to get a test done. The courts were unsympathetic to his cause and essentially took the mother's word for it. To this day he has no idea if teh child is his or not.

The Corinthian

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

How expensive would this be though? I know it's a simple test but these things cost money. Would it be economical to test every single child that's born in Ireland for the sake of a man's pride because he doesn't want to ruin the relationship by asking for the test?

If standard, I would imagine the unit cost would decline substantially. The reality is that while figures are difficult to come by, anything between 2% - 10% of supposed paternities turn out to be false. We already do standard tests for things that have far lower incident rates and frankly I think this is something that is important enough to merit the same.

Sauve wrote: »

In fairness though, if a man feels the need to ask for a paternity test in the first place, that would indicate to me that the relationship is already ruined.

We're not suggesting that the man would need to request it, quite the opposite; that it becomes a standard test, just as many other tests are. In reality it is often the very men who do not ask are the ones who end up being the father to another man's child.

They may not ask because they have no idea, or may object out of pride to even the suggestion that they have been cuckolded, or as has been suggested out of fear of the reaction from the mother. Making this a standard test would eliminate these issues while dealing with those cases that return negative paternity results.

The Corinthian

Galvasean wrote: »

Tell me about it. An old friend of mine had his life destroyed after an ex partner of his whom he had a child with told him the child wasn't his and refused to allow him to get a test done. The courts were unsympathetic to his cause and essentially took the mother's word for it. To this day he has no idea if teh child is his or not.

That seems bizarre. If paternity is disputed and the mother refuses permission for a DNA test, courts will typically conclude that she is looking to hide the truth and rule in favour of the man. It seems insane that a court would rule in favour of the mother in such a scenario and certainly I would imagine that a higher court would almost certainly overturn such a judgement.

iptba

gizmo555 wrote: »

That would not be possible under data protection law, as the purpose for which the samples are collected is to test for certain congenital illnesses and nothing else.

That may be the case on past samples. I don't know why it couldn't change on further samples, if necessary with a law being passed enabling it.

iptba

By the way, I know a case (mother is daughter of a family friend although this was more in the past*) where she said a certain man, who she was no longer seeing by the time of the birth, was the father. He paid his way for years and although wasn't interested in the boy initially, after a few years started to take an interest in him. However, after a few more years, he became suspicious that the boy wasn't his at all. A paternity test was arranged and it turned out he wasn't the father. I think the man has cut off contact with boy now.

* no particular fight or anything

Galvasean

The Corinthian wrote: »

That seems bizarre. If paternity is disputed and the mother refuses permission for a DNA test, courts will typically conclude that she is looking to hide the truth and rule in favour of the man. It seems insane that a court would rule in favour of the mother in such a scenario and certainly I would imagine that a higher court would almost certainly overturn such a judgement.

That's what I was thinking and said to him. Apparently if your name is not on the birth cert you aren't entitled to a paternity test or some weird loophole like that. He refused to take it further for whatever reason. I reckon deep down he feared the truth of the matter. He has actually left the country since the whole thing. Nobody has heard from him in years.

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Would it be economical to test every single child that's born in Ireland for the sake of a man's pride because he doesn't want to ruin the relationship by asking for the test?

You are using the word "pride" and "ruin the relationship" side-by-side so I'm unclear what you're saying?

Are you saying the only reason to run the test is for his pride? I reject this - I gave reasons why it is a useful test for the child to have done too (for their medical history, for knowledge of who are their blood relatives and hence may not be suitable in a partner, etc.).

If the relationship is ruined because the man asks, it will be because the woman is annoyed by the request.

ETA: I see now that The Corinthian has said some men may not ask because of pride because of fear that they have been cuckolded; however that's not the only reason men don't ask, and I see "ruin the relationship" as a separate to "pride" considerations.

iptba

I remember hearing of a study that maternal grandparents take more interest in a child than paternal grandparents. The reason suggested was because the maternal grandparents were more sure the child was related to them.

I actually can't remember whether this was a study of humans or animals (oops!). (Maybe there have been studies on both which is why I am thinking of both groups??)