Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Mens Rights Thread

12467171

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 21,267 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Pawwed Rig


    fathers rights aside,dont men have all the rights,which is why mens rights movements were never set up in the first place..

    Any time someone tries to bring up male issues they tend to be ridiculed, ignored or even censored. There is another thread in TGC regarding someone who was offended by the Donedeal add. While there were some intelligent responses the thrust of the thread was 'sure it is only a laugh, get over it and don't take yourself so seriously'.

    There was another thread a while back about how men are discriminated against (I may fall foul of the mods for this one but here goes). It was closed down because of 1 or 2 posts*. It was a very informative thread that alot of people on TGC had contributed to and had some very good passionate debate directly relating to the issues men have in society. I think the closure of this thread is indicative of the opinion in society in general who do not want to recognise an issue in this regard.

    *It has since been reopened in the humanities forum which is a crying shame imho as TGC is the place for it as it is probably the most relevant thread I have seen on TGC since joining boards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭ Piliger


    I agree fully. And what is it with Humanities ? Who on earth would go over there ????


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭ Woodward


    Piliger wrote: »
    I agree fully. And what is it with Humanities ? Who on earth would go over there ????

    I think its because Feminist Theory Womens Studies Gender Studies is part of the humanities faculty


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭ Piliger


    Woodward wrote: »
    I think its because Feminist Theory Womens Studies Gender Studies is part of the humanities faculty

    Sheeesh ... I knew I shouldn't have asked :rolleyes:

    ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,734 ✭✭✭ iptba


    Thought this was interesting. And could catch on.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/07/09/law-professor-proposes-preglimony
    Law Professor Proposes “Preglimony
    by W.F. PRICE on JULY 9, 2012

    In a bid to further expand wealth transfer from males to females, Shari Motri, a professor at the University of Richmond, suggests that men should now be forced to pay for pregnancy expenses.

    [..]

    Interestingly, she wants men to pay this even if women get an abortion, which seems to suggest that men could be forced to pay to abort their own children, even if they don’t want to.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭ Woodward


    iptba wrote: »
    Thought this was interesting. And could catch on.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/07/09/law-professor-proposes-preglimony



    As far as I know there are some states in the US which have something similar to this where they have to pay child support during the pregnancy


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭ Feathers


    Woodward wrote: »
    yawha wrote: »
    I firmly believe that the social enforcement of the "manly" stereotype is the root cause of a lot of the injustices that men face, yet I rarely see it focused on all that much when I read men's rights discussions.

    Yea many MRA's tend to focus on bitching about feminism rather than gender roles. Masculinism tends to focus more on gender roles than the mainstream MRM

    Is that not a case though if starting with what is most realistic to change: a focus on equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.
    You can lobby and get paternity leave legislation changed, which may affect society's longer-term attitudes to men as care-givers. Much mire likely than having an awareness campaign or similar that would only get scorn via the tabloids.
    fathers rights aside,dont men have all the rights,which is why mens rights movements were never set up in the first place..

    Parental rights included, don't women have all the rights?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    iptba wrote: »
    Thought this was interesting. And could catch on.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/07/09/law-professor-proposes-preglimony
    In Ireland a father may be directed to pay up to €2,000 towards maternity expenses, in addition to child maintenance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 219 ✭✭ Woodward


    In Ireland a father may be directed to pay up to €2,000 towards maternity expenses, in addition to child maintenance.


    Does paternity have to be determined by a test or is it on the word of the mother?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    Woodward wrote: »
    Does paternity have to be determined by a test or is it on the word of the mother?
    Naturally it can be contested on the basis of paternity.

    If paternity is contested, the person contesting (typically the alleged father) it will have to pay for a court approved DNA test. If either the mother or alleged father refuse to comply, then the court will almost certainly find against them as their refusal will be taken as proof that they are seeking to hide the truth.

    Bare in mind this also follows in cases where the alleged father wants to prove that he is the biological father.

    The party that loses the paternity contest will often be directed to pay costs for the test if it was paid by the other party, although in practice if it is the mother and she is on LPA, this won't happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,734 ✭✭✭ iptba


    Naturally it can be contested on the basis of paternity.

    If paternity is contested, the person contesting (typically the alleged father) it will have to pay for a court approved DNA test. If either the mother or alleged father refuse to comply, then the court will almost certainly find against them as their refusal will be taken as proof that they are seeking to hide the truth.

    Bare in mind this also follows in cases where the alleged father wants to prove that he is the biological father.

    The party that loses the paternity contest will often be directed to pay costs for the test if it was paid by the other party, although in practice if it is the mother and she is on LPA, this won't happen.
    Shouldn't tests like this really be part of the health system? Anyone, even if you're a millionaire, if they go to their GP can get all sorts of blood tests for free if they are considered necessary.

    And of course, many men can find themselves in financial difficulties themselves (e.g. their only income is a State benefit) so seems unfair men are treated differently to women.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    iptba wrote: »
    And of course, many men can find themselves in financial difficulties themselves (e.g. their only income is a State benefit) so seems unfair men are treated differently to women.
    Men are not treated differently in terms of the cost of a DNA test, as a woman would also have to do so if she contested a case.

    Where men are treated differently is that, AFAIK, only men have to contest a case; that is a court will take the mothers word on it unless otherwise contested (naturally by the alleged father). As a result the cost de facto falls only onto a man, especially as the mother will rarely be forced to pay it if it turns out that she was wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,734 ✭✭✭ iptba


    Where men are treated differently is that, AFAIK, only men have to contest a case; that is a court will take the mothers word on it unless otherwise contested (naturally by the alleged father). As a result the cost de facto falls only onto a man, especially as the mother will rarely be forced to pay it if it turns out that she was wrong.

    Which seems unfair. The underlying presumption may be that this helps children; however, the man for example could already be supporting more children than the woman is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    iptba wrote: »
    Which seems unfair. The underlying presumption may be that this helps children; however, the man for example could already be supporting more children than the woman is.
    Not really unfair if costs were awarded against the losing party equally, except they're not.

    Using a child to avoid consequences has been around a long time (e.g. Pleading the Belly). Legally it still effectively used today as a means to avoid jail if breaking a court order or even deportation (as occurred with the fraudulent Pamela Izevbekhai case).

    The Irish courts are complete suckers for this defense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭ Feathers


    iptba wrote: »
    Which seems unfair. The underlying presumption may be that this helps children; however, the man for example could already be supporting more children than the woman is.

    Surely it only be presumed to help the children through this set-up if otherwise the mother wouldn't be willing to pay for the test. And ff she wouldn't otherwise be willing to pay, then it seems likely that she's not 100% sure if this man is the father, in which case it definitely shouldn't be the case of 'assume he is unless he challenges it'!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,734 ✭✭✭ iptba


    Feathers wrote: »
    Surely it only be presumed to help the children through this set-up if otherwise the mother wouldn't be willing to pay for the test. And fif she wouldn't otherwise be willing to pay, then it seems likely that she's not 100% sure if this man is the father, in which case it definitely shouldn't be the case of 'assume he is unless he challenges it'!
    Not 100% sure what you're saying in the first sentence - think there's a couple of typos/missing words. My point about helping children was the more general point that taking money from a mother is often seen as comparable to taking money from her children and so there can be a tendency to avoid doing it. And then pointing out that taking money from a man could also be judged the same way and perhaps be "worse" if he's supporting more children.

    But the second sentence is an interesting point*: if she's sure she knows who the father is, then paying for it is not a gamble for her**; the only circumstance in which it's not a 100% sure bet for her to get the money is if she's not sure if the man is the father. And in that case, there really should be a paternity test. So asking her to pay*** could be used to test to see if she's 100% sure or not.

    * I corrected a typo I have presumed is there.

    **although this presumes she would be guaranteed to get the money - but if she's right and the test shows he's the father, he will have to pay anyway and if he doesn't pay up, that could be added to the bill of what a court could enforce and so no real gamble (except she might be out of pocket in the short-term, which some people might say she should not have to go through).

    *** paying some of the cost might be more realistic?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭ Feathers


    iptba wrote:
    Not 100% sure what you're saying in the first sentence - think there's a couple of typos/missing words. My point about helping children was the more general point that taking money from a mother is often seen as comparable to taking money from her children and so there can be a tendency to avoid doing it. And then pointing out that takinom a man could also be judged the same way and perhaps be "worse" if he's supporting more children.

    Sorry, normally good with the old grammar but was typing on a phone! :) Yeah, I mistook you to mean that if she didn't go through with pushing for payments because she thought the cost of a paternity test would be prohibitive it could be seen as taking money from her children.

    You could possibly have it where if he's proved not to be the father the mother/state pays instead. Do you know are there any other qualifying circumstances a women needs - like proof of a relationship etc. - before the man is seen as 'father until proven otherwise'? Or can they claim any man is the father & its up to him to disprove it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    iptba wrote: »
    My point about helping children was the more general point that taking money from a mother is often seen as comparable to taking money from her children and so there can be a tendency to avoid doing it. And then pointing out that taking money from a man could also be judged the same way and perhaps be "worse" if he's supporting more children.
    Yes, however in the all too common scenario where the mother is on social welfare and the father is employed, courts have a tendency to fall back on Patriarchal stereotypes; the man is a provider, thus it is his responsibility to provide.

    It's a common enough prejudice in that many still believe that child maintenance from a father is supposed to cover the costs of the child, when in reality it's only supposed to cover half of the costs as the mother is also financially obliged to cover the costs of the child. Even the courts often tend twoards this prejudice.

    So I see where you're coming from, but many judges will conclude that the father can go out and get a second job to cover the shortfall.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,734 ✭✭✭ iptba


    Feathers wrote: »
    You could possibly have it where if he's proved not to be the father the mother/state pays instead. Do you know are there any other qualifying circumstances a women needs - like proof of a relationship etc. - before the man is seen as 'father until proven otherwise'? Or can they claim any man is the father & its up to him to disprove it?
    I'm not expert. I get the impression they can claim as you put it "any man is the father & its up to him to disprove it?", but perhaps somebody else can say.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,734 ✭✭✭ iptba


    It's a common enough prejudice in that many still believe that child maintenance from a father is supposed to cover the costs of the child, when in reality it's only supposed to cover half of the costs as the mother is also financially obliged to cover the costs of the child. Even the courts often tend twoards this prejudice.
    I've the figure in my head (not sure the country) that 18% of the salary is the figure often quoted for child maintenance. Multiply that by two and it's 36%, clearly a ridiculous figure. I have heard some people (=fathers) complain about the percentage figure used in comparison to actual costs data suggest, and I think that was even without the doubling up calculation you suggest. (Aside: I'm afraid I can't remember if the figures they presented were for 18% or a different percentage - not sure which country(s) they were from).
    So I see where you're coming from, but many judges will conclude that the father can go out and get a second job to cover the shortfall.
    Which is interesting in that there are supposed to be limits in how many hours somebody should work in a week. But a reasonable percentage of men end up working more hours than this due to such pressures.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    iptba wrote: »
    I've the figure in my head (not sure the country) that 18% of the salary is the figure often quoted for child maintenance. Multiply that by two and it's 36%, clearly a ridiculous figure. I have heard some people (=fathers) complain about the percentage figure used in comparison to actual costs data suggest, and I think that was even without the doubling up calculation you suggest.
    I think it's Germany you're talking about. There's a sliding scale however, so two children would mean something like 26%, three about 35% and so on. It's quite regulated in that it also takes into account maximums and minimums, the age of the child, as well as other financial factors. Another big difference in somewhere like Germany is that there is far more pressure (and support) on the mother to get a job and support herself, which does not exist in Ireland.
    Which is interesting in that there are supposed to be limits in how many hours somebody should work in a week. But a reasonable percentage of men end up working more hours than this due to such pressures.
    I suggest you read the Myth of Male Power. In it Farrell deconstructs men's roles in society and concludes that we are essentially seen as 'disposable' - our role is to provide, protect and support others, even if it kills us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,734 ✭✭✭ iptba


    I think it's Germany you're talking about. There's a sliding scale however, so two children would mean something like 26%, three about 35% and so on. It's quite regulated in that it also takes into account maximums and minimums, the age of the child, as well as other financial factors. Another big difference in somewhere like Germany is that there is far more pressure (and support) on the mother to get a job and support herself, which does not exist in Ireland.
    So what are the percentages for Ireland (or another country) or is it not done by percentages?
    I suggest you read the Myth of Male Power. In it Farrell deconstructs men's roles in society and concludes that we are essentially seen as 'disposable' - our role is to provide, protect and support others, even if it kills us.
    Thanks. I actually bought a copy and never got around to reading it at the time (just read some newspaper coverage). It has now disappeared somewhere in my stuff and I'm not inclined to buy another one given the one I have. But maybe eventually I'll break and buy one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    iptba wrote: »
    So what are the percentages for Ireland (or another country) or is it not done by percentages?
    It's done on the basis of the judge going through any financial documents presented by both parties and arriving at an equitable solution, with the interests of the child being treated as a priority, in theory.

    In practice anything goes, with about the only 'rule' being a maximum figure of €150 p.w. at District court level. As a result, crazy (both low and high) levels are awarded at what appears to be the whims of the judiciary on a regular basis.
    Thanks. I actually bought a copy and never got around to reading it at the time (just read some newspaper coverage). It has now disappeared somewhere in my stuff and I'm not inclined to buy another one given the one I have. But maybe eventually I'll break and buy one.
    It's a depressing eye-opener.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,734 ✭✭✭ iptba


    Not directly related to the last few posts, but talk of Warren Farrell reminded me to mention one thing I just finished reading, which can be read for free. Warren Farrell has also written about how men and women doing different jobs can explain the difference in pay.

    I've never studied economics but was able to understand it ok. I like things that aren't just superficial - this was good as it went a bit deeper than the average media coverage of the issue

    ----
    http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/should-we-mind-the-gap-gender-pay-differentials-and-public-policy
    Should We Mind the Gap? Gender Pay Differentials and Public Policy

    J. R. Shackleton 21 Oct 2008

    A new book which suggests that discrimination is not causing the gender pay gap
    Price: £10.00

    download full publication free http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook442pdf.pdf

    download executive summary
    http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook442pdfSummary.pdf

    Differences in the earnings of women and men are increasingly being used to justify regulation of the private affairs of employers and employees. Yet there is little evidence that the 'gender pay gap' is the result of unfair discrimination.

    In fact it can be explained by variations in the kinds of job undertaken by men and women, as well as educational and lifestyle choices. Women may favour quality of life and job satisfaction over higher earnings.

    The author argues that complete equality of pay is impossible to achieve in a free society of any complexity. Men and women would need to be identical in their qualifications, choice of occupations, career plans and lifestyle choices.

    Thus policies that try to impose equality through tighter employment regulation are unlikely to have much impact, and such measures may damage the economic position of both men and women.
    2008, ISBN 978 0 255 36604 5, 115pp, PB
    SUMMARY: http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook442pdfSummary.pdf

    • There is a sizeable gap between the average hourly earnings of
    UK men and women working full time: this is the gender pay
    gap. The gap has, however, declined over time and is expected
    to decline further given demographic trends and changes in
    women’s qualifications. It could even go into reverse.

    • The view that the UK has a particularly large gender pay gap
    by international standards is misleading. The gap is anyway
    only one indicator of women’s economic status. Its size is not
    necessarily related to other indicators of sex discrimination
    and it can increase or decrease for reasons that have nothing
    to do with employers’ behaviour.

    • The pay gap may partly reflect compensating differentials:
    men’s jobs may typically have disadvantages that are reflected
    in higher pay. Women report greater job satisfaction than
    men.

    • There is little evidence of direct discrimination by employers
    against women. Discrimination is often inferred from the
    unexplained residual in econometric analyses of the causes of
    the gender pay gap.

    • When attitudes and preferences, as well as objective
    characteristics such as work experience and qualifications, are
    brought into the picture, however, most of the pay gap can be
    explained without reference to discrimination.

    • There is a larger gender pay gap for women working part
    time. These women tend to work in a narrow range of
    occupations; when this is taken into account the ‘part-time
    penalty’ shrinks to small proportions.

    • Policies to reduce the gender pay gap seem unlikely to have
    much impact. The most significant policy, enforcing pay
    audits and equal pay reviews across the economy, could cause
    damage to the economic position of many men and women,
    and increase costs to business.

    • There are other pay gaps which can be defined, by ethnicity,
    religious belief and disability, for example. Changes in the
    size of these gaps, and in more general measures of social
    inequality, may be in conflict with changes in the gender pay
    gap.

    • Following from this, there is now so much variation in
    lifestyles and economic behaviour within the male and female
    populations that simple comparisons of average male and
    female pay are increasingly irrelevant.

    • The conditions that would have to be met for a pay gap
    between men and women not to exist are impossible to
    achieve, although the gap can in principle be positive or
    negative.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,734 ✭✭✭ iptba


    I thought it was interesting to read the following:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-died-bullets-sweeties-article-1.1119395

    Basically, 3 men died taking bullets for their girlfriends at the recent Batman shooting.

    I don't believe any women died taking bullets for their boyfriends.

    Why do men do this? Are we socialised to be chivalrous?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭ yawha


    Yeah, we're still very much socialised into a protector/hero role. What's expected and thought of as the norm in relationships is very much ingrained via the role models children see and build their identities from as they grow up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,734 ✭✭✭ iptba


    yawha wrote: »
    Yeah, we're still very much socialised into a protector/hero role. What's expected and thought of as the norm in relationships is very much ingrained via the role models children see and build their identities from as they grow up.
    Interesting. This would have the effect of advantaging women (as they would be protected) and disadvantaging men (because they can get injured or die). I wonder by what means it works - are men taught women are more valuable than they are in some way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    iptba wrote: »
    Why do men do this? Are we socialised to be chivalrous?
    Yes (as I'm sure you're aware). As I've suggested before, you should read The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell, as it specifically covers this question.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 21,267 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Pawwed Rig


    The US is a much more traditional society than many European countries. In many parts for example the expectation is for men to pay for everything for the girl when dating and to treat her like the 'little princess'. Colarado would be one of the more traditional areas of the US. If you think there is discrimination against men here the US is far worse in many ways.
    Having said that this is more of a feel rehabilitaion story and I doubt there is very much evidence to support that they actually shielded the girls. More likely it is people trying to come to terms with a tragic situation.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,599 ✭✭✭ matthew8


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    The US is a much more traditional society than many European countries. In many parts for example the expectation is for men to pay for everything for the girl when dating and to treat her like the 'little princess'. Colarado would be one of the more traditional areas of the US. If you think there is discrimination against men here the US is far worse in many ways.
    Having said that this is more of a feel rehabilitaion story and I doubt there is very much evidence to support that they actually shielded the girls. More likely it is people trying to come to terms with a tragic situation.

    The US may be more traditional, but I think men have it easier there than here because of a total lack of feminism.


Advertisement