Sean Moncrieff - Newstalk

alaimacerc

Interesting contributor. I'd have my doubts about how she's defining "poor" outcomes for male litigants, though. She says herself that Ireland's still massively gender-role-stereotyped. So is she really going to say that if some bloke doesn't do a tap of the "core parenting", get a divorce (from his own booze-related poor behaviour most commonly, it would seem!), demands joint custody, doesn't get it, that's really a "poor outcome"?

kunst nugget

alaimacerc wrote: »

Interesting contributor. I'd have my doubts about how she's defining "poor" outcomes for male litigants, though. She says herself that Ireland's still massively gender-role-stereotyped. So is she really going to say that if some bloke doesn't do a tap of the "core parenting", get a divorce (from his own booze-related poor behaviour most commonly, it would seem!), demands joint custody, doesn't get it, that's really a "poor outcome"?

Fúcking hell. Nice way to generalise about the plight of all fathers going through the family courts. Stay classy.

And women obviously never drink or develop alcohol addictions ever. :rolleyes:

alaimacerc

kunst nugget wrote: »

Fúcking hell. Nice way to generalise about the plight of all fathers going through the family courts. Stay classy.

No, because it wasn't either of those things. It's not a generalisation, because she's talking about classifying cases, counting them, and producing statistics. So if some cases are as I just described some cases being, it'll skew her results. And not "nice", because I was making a point about the reliability of her results, not worrying regarding your feels about that.

And women obviously never drink or develop alcohol addictions ever. :rolleyes:

And obviously, "outcomes in the courts for women" wasn't the topic. But whatabout a good whatabout, right?

kunst nugget

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, because it wasn't either of those things. It's not a generalisation, because she's talking about classifying cases, counting them, and producing statistics. So if some cases are as I just described some cases being, it'll skew her results. And not "nice", because I was making a point about the reliability of her results, not worrying regarding your feels about that.

She said men representing themselves suffered the worst outcomes in terms of being granted access to their kids - her reading on it was their inability the to navigate the complexity of family law and judges tending to still adjudicate based on traditional gender roles. You've come up with your narrative to blame fathers for being useless. Pretty stinking thinking.

alaimacerc wrote: »

And obviously, "outcomes in the courts for women" wasn't the topic. But whatabout a good whatabout, right?

There was no whataboutery involved. She said the biggest reason for marriage breakdown was alcoholism and not affairs as many believed - she never stated a gender.

alaimacerc

kunst nugget wrote: »

She said men representing themselves suffered the worst outcomes in terms of being granted access to their kids - her reading on it was their inability the to navigate the complexity of family law and judges tending to still adjudicate based on traditional gender roles. You've come up with your narrative to blame fathers for being useless. Pretty stinking thinking.

I think you'll find I'm the one questioning her methodology, and you're the one "coming up with a narrative". I described some cases that apparently she'd classify as "poor" for the men in question, and asked whether they sensibly were. That's the basis of how she's decided which groups get the "worst" outcomes. Your citing that stat back me is, very precisely, begging the question.

There was no whataboutery involved. She said the biggest reason for marriage breakdown was alcoholism and not affairs as many believed - she never stated a gender.

Aaaand again, we're discussing "poor outcomes for men". Hence, the pertinent part of the dataset are the cases I just described. The relevance of the ones you're bringing up is...?

Yeah, thought not.

kunst nugget

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think you'll find I'm the one questioning her methodology, and you're the one "coming up with a narrative". I described some cases that apparently she'd classify as "poor" for the men in question, and asked whether they sensibly were. That's the basis of how she's decided which groups get the "worst" outcomes. Your citing that stat back me is, very precisely, begging the question.

Aaaand again, we're discussing "poor outcomes for men". Hence, the pertinent part of the dataset are the cases I just described. The relevance of the ones you're bringing up is...?

Yeah, thought not.

How about flipping the tables on your original post using the only thing she actually mentioned as one of the reasons for poor outcomes for men…

So is she really going to say that if some woman doesn't do a tap of the "core parenting", gets a divorce (from her own booze-related poor behaviour most commonly, it would seem!), demands sole custody and gets it because of a judge's bias of gender roles, that's really a "poor outcome"?

alaimacerc

kunst nugget wrote: »

How about flipping the tables on your original post using the only thing she actually mentioned as one of the reasons for poor outcomes for men…

But that's not data. That's, as you'd call it, "narrative".

Let's try this a step at a time. Do you agree that parenting is highly gendered in Ireland (even compared to European norms, much less some hypothetical "neutral" standard), prior to (or indeed, quite aside from) divorce?

(And if you don't, take it up with your own witness, since the contributor specifically made that point herself.)

kunst nugget

alaimacerc wrote: »

But that's not data. That's, as you'd call it, "narrative".

Let's try this a step at a time. Do you agree that parenting is highly gendered in Ireland (even compared to European norms, much less some hypothetical "neutral" standard), prior to (or indeed, quite aside from) divorce?

(And if you don't, take it up with your own witness, since the contributor specifically made that point herself.)

I won't dispute that - it's an issue many people wrestle with in Ireland. Does this mean that men, who are obviously going through the family courts to fight for access for their kids, should be denied shared custody of their children following a separation or divorce? Do they deserve a poor outcome in the family courts because they are representing themselves, presumably because they can not afford legal representation?

So, out of curiosity, if some woman doesn't do a tap of the "core parenting", gets a divorce (from her own booze-related poor behaviour most commonly, it would seem!), demands sole custody and gets it because of a judge's bias of gender roles, is that a good outcome?

alaimacerc

kunst nugget wrote: »

I won't dispute that - it's an issue many people wrestle with in Ireland.

And that many are smugly content with, until it bites them on the ass, whereupon they belatedly suffer after-the-fact outrage about it, equally. If not moreso, indeed...

Does this mean that men, who are obviously going through the family courts to fight for access for their kids, should be denied shared custody of their children following a separation or divorce?

It means that if a party is doing less of the parenting -- and for that matter if they're causing more of the familial problems -- then natural justice, consideration of the interests of the child, and fair proceedings are going to tend to give outcomes that don't give that party everything they want. Well, not unless we go back to the Georgian "pater familias gets the kids, to hand over to the new wife/nanny, and continue to not do any actual parenting himself" model, at any rate.

Expecting gender-blind outcomes when you have highly gendered inputs doesn't make a lot of sense.

Do they deserve a poor outcome in the family courts because they are representing themselves, presumably because they can not afford legal representation?

As I recall, that was reported by the guest as a secondary effect, not the primary one, in her "poor outcomes" purported data. Aside from "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers", I'm not sure what the take-home there would be, especially as regarding the "gender" issue she was very much majoring on, and that we were discussing.

So, out of curiosity, if some woman doesn't do a tap of the "core parenting", gets a divorce (from her own booze-related poor behaviour most commonly, it would seem!), demands sole custody and gets it because of a judge's bias of gender roles, is that a good outcome?

According to the contributor's apparent criteria, it's a "good outcome" for said litigant, as it meets her objective in the proceedings. Doesn't sound like a "good outcome" for the kid, natural justice, etc, though... So that's simply the flipside of the problem I'm pointing out in her criteria.

My guess is that there probably is a degree of "gender bias" is Irish judges. But much less to do with "it's feminism gone mad!", and more to do with them being from a demographic (age, income, class, etc) that's even more gender-stereotyped than society as a whole, and then seeking to impose that on their cases.

Grolschevik

Very funny show so far today!

PopePalpatine

Moncrieff fanfiction...what a time to be alive. :pac:

scotchy

Bring back Esther, not loving the new film girl.

.

scotchy

scotchy wrote: »

Bring back Esther, not loving the new film girl.

.

Esther was brutal, hadn't seen many films, couldn't remember actors names or the names of films. Was like sending my mother to review a movie !
Delighted she's gone

Horse84

bubblypop wrote: »

Esther was brutal, hadn't seen many films, couldn't remember actors names or the names of films. Was like sending my mother to review a movie !
Delighted she's gone

Spot on she was absolutely woeful. Does she do that for a living? Any mention of her today or why she get the boot?

Typer Monkey

Horse84 wrote: »

Spot on she was absolutely woeful. Does she do that for a living? Any mention of her today or why she get the boot?

Dont get too excited..she may just be on holidays or unavailable today. There has been on occasion different reviewers on this slot before.

Funny show today I thought. Also Sean discussed having had a vasectomy which was interesting given the discussion about him having a newborn above

styron

Ah crap.

Say Your Number

I've heard some strange items on the show but I think George Hook reading erotic fiction involving Henry and Sean is probably the most surreal thing I've ever heard on the show.

Enjoyed the chat with the ex-pornstar and how she will broach the subject of her past with her son when he's older.

I think Esther is alright, don't get the hate for her on here.

Muff Richardson

scotchy wrote: »

Bring back Esther, not loving the new film girl.

.

yer one was shocking. if she's in again they should do some kind of drinking game, every time she mentions mysogyny in any shape or form and they have a sip of whatever fancy piss they are drinking. they'll be locked by the first ad break.

Don't get me wrong Esther is painful, this yoke is horrific to listen to, both the content of the bile she comes out with and whatever speech impediment she has going on.

sonic85

Muff Richardson wrote: »

yer one was shocking. if she's in again they should do some kind of drinking game, every time she mentions mysogyny in any shape or form and they have a sip of whatever fancy piss they are drinking. they'll be locked by the first ad break.

Don't get me wrong Esther is painful, this yoke is horrific to listen to, both the content of the bile she comes out with and whatever speech impediment she has going on.

This times a thousand. I really don't know where the misogyny was in Deadpool to be honest - don't know what she was going on about there. Even Sean seemed a bit baffled. Surely the show can do better than her

Birneybau

scotchy wrote: »

Bring back Esther, not loving the new film girl.

.

Bit of a p.c. thug.

Esther the film critic for the Sunday World. Enough said.

sheep?

Say Your Number wrote: »

I've heard some strange items on the show but I think George Hook reading erotic fiction involving Henry and Sean is probably the most surreal thing I've ever heard on the show.

Enjoyed the chat with the ex-pornstar and how she will broach the subject of her past with her son when he's older.

I think Esther is alright, don't get the hate for her on here.

Hook did what now ? :eek:

Must listen back to the podcast!

siblers

Does Serena Ballisimo ever be on movies and booze anymore? Don't mind Esther, she's largely useless as a critic but she's a bit of craic, Serena was the same way really. There was another young one on before a couple years back, now she was utterly dreadful, she didn't know jack**** about films.

Typer Monkey

I think Serena has a regular show on Spin for the last while. I used to like her too. There's a good film reviewer called Rory Cashin who pops up on various shows, he'd be worth a shot in the slot. I'd agree Esther is fairly insubstantial

Dub13

He need to stop saying crickey, its a word that does my head in for some reason and he is starting to say it a few times a show.

That Annette Freeman segment is totally pointless.

It's called "What to do tonight", not "What Annette did last night". And when she does get around to the ... y'know, whole point of the segment ... it's a quickfire succession of venues and times that probably go totally unheeded.

If segments like this are pared from the show in the Autumn schedule, the shortened show will be all the better.

They may get rid of that useless "Did you know?"/ "Fact of the Day" bit, and all. As someone else pointed out, it's very reminiscent of The Sun circa 1996.

sheep?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

They may get rid of that useless "Did you know?"/ "Fact of the Day" bit, and all. As someone else pointed out, it's very reminiscent of The Sun circa 1996.

I dunno, I found it very useful today to understand the correlation between a Narwhal's horn and its...well, horn.

buckfasterer

Dub13 wrote: »

He need to stop saying crickey, its a word that does my head in for some reason and he is starting to say it a few times a show.

Can't he keep saying astounding though?

Ol' Donie

Is wolf whistling at women hate crime?

A story absolutely made for Henry McKean.

So much so, I could swear I've heard him cover this hot topic before.

God, men are such animals. Etc.

constitutionus

sean going off on one again at the texters.

mild enough TBH

the whole "C" word thing had me in stitches though, such a middleclass attitude.